"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for
Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."
Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may
very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to
responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue
nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of
humanity.
However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear
weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country
must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.
In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not
military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and
300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country
killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of
napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.
Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been
confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation
explained:
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public
address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played
no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William
"Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first
atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the
scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's
invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's
population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever
since. The most recent ongoing protest
has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.
This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade
later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories,
5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and
eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually
ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:
By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every
significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the
spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the
North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to
the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating
whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean
state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's
Matt Taibbi
has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam
from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win
'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen
heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of
view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people,
according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed
during the entire
conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also
secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million
unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.
This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia ,
Panama
, and
Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal
sanctions. At the time, the U.N.
estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite
the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the
deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other
words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation,
which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.
This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region
into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
released a study
concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over
one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading
force.
Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even
though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then
went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the
Philippines .
Libya famously
had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare,
education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone
rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities
amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.
In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and
destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon
thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country
dropped
over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.
Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation.
The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country
has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all
across the border
with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of
containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks
of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).
This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent
militarism but who openly calls other
countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country
has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once
asked three times in a meeting
, "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to
remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear
weaponry.
If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It
cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and
security of the rest of us. This country
openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of
these weapons to other countries.
Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while
watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing
but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.
There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea
is being accused of doing.
Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
"... I MET ONE JEWISH OFFICER IN COMBAT ARMS, PERIOD!!!!! ..."
"... Compare that to their ever-presence in politics and, in particular, among the Neocons who are ceaselessly starting wars and sending non-Jews to die for them. It's disgusting. ..."
"... Here's a quote from Kissinger which neatly sums it up: "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." ..."
"... "The dislike is profoundly visceral, not rational" ..."
"... Let's see Fred.. Heard of the Neocons, near exclusively Jews, running US foreign policy to establish Israel's hegemony in the Middle East a la Oden Yinon? Who openly acknowledges running Hollywood, Freddie? How about the moral quality of what Hollywood produces. ..."
"... "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." ..."
"... Also, there's the paraphrased quote from the Godfather Movie; "men in suits and ties make better bank robbers than men with guns." ..."
I thought Mr. Reed provided a good summary of the situation. The diversity of responses
suggests that he struck a nice balance in presenting his observations.
I am a mixed-ethnicity Roman Catholic but starting with college and ever since, most of my
closest associates and many of those with whom I work and play, except for immediate family,
have been middle class Jews. I have found these individuals to be generous and kind and not
at all clannish. All regard themselves as and in fact are patriotic Americans. Many have
achieved extraordinary success and contributed to the commonweal. Many have gone out of their
way to help and comfort me in times of personal crisis.
I find my personal experiences with individual Jews hard to reconcile with the – to
me – obvious observation that, considered as a group, American Jews have had a
disastrous impact on the United States in many areas including invidious control of (1) the
news media, publishing, and entertainment industries, (2) culture generally, (3) finance, (4)
legal institutions. (5) the government generally, and (6) foreign policy in particular.
In high school I monitored a college course on democratic political theory (excluding
Rousseau's totalitarian version) and democracy's totalitarian opponents, i.e., communism and
fascism. The readings on fascism included lengthy sections from Rosenberg's "Myth of the
Twentieth Century".
At the time, I thought that even the less hyperbolic of Rosenberg's rants verged on
insanity. Now, after observing our Jewish-dominated late republic hurtling towards utter
ruination, I'm not so sure.
"What have Jews actually done to you? Hacked your bank account? Gypped you out of your house?
Shot your dog?" and the answer will likely be, "Nothing."
Simple. I served in the Marines for about 7 years as an infantry officer. I met, worked
with and greatly valued many 10s of thousands of Marines.
Infantry is combat arms as are artillery, special ops, missile forces, Marine Air,
etc.
I MET ONE JEWISH OFFICER IN COMBAT ARMS, PERIOD!!!!!
Now, they were everywhere in professional positions in our sister service, the Navy.
Doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. But almost none in combat arms in America but well
represented in the armed forces of Israel.
Compare that to their ever-presence in politics and, in particular, among the Neocons
who are ceaselessly starting wars and sending non-Jews to die for them. It's
disgusting.
Onward Christian soldier is the new Jewish American national anthem. They're disloyal
cowards and they're a fifth column for Israel here in the U.S. If they vaporized tomorrow
we'd be better off.
Here's a quote from Kissinger which neatly sums it up: "Military men are just dumb,
stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."
No wonder to me why they were burned in the crematoriums in German during WWII.
I've long wondered how that 2% number was arrived at. Who is counted as Jewish? If it's
only those who actively practice the religion, then I'd guess 2% is about right. But how many
more are there whose ancestors were Jewish but who aren't religious (like me) or practice
Christianity (like my brother)?
Granted, the number of non-religious Jews is shrinking, as Corvinus pointed out upthread.
My brothers and I would all be considered Jewish by ancestry, but none of our children are,
because their mothers aren't.
I suspect that support for Israel and Zionism is much stronger among religious Jews than
my sort. I've never been to Israel, and you'd have to pay me a lot of money to get me to go
there. My parents' opinion was that the state of Israel should never have been created.
This article should be entitled "1000 Reasons why Fred Reed is a Complete Moron".
"The dislike is profoundly visceral, not rational"
Let's see Fred.. Heard of the Neocons, near exclusively Jews, running US foreign
policy to establish Israel's hegemony in the Middle East a la Oden Yinon? Who openly
acknowledges running Hollywood, Freddie? How about the moral quality of what Hollywood
produces.
Fred apparently slept through Bible class, but the New Testament refers to it as devouring
widow's houses.
Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a
pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Also, there's the paraphrased quote from the Godfather Movie; "men in suits and ties
make better bank robbers than men with guns."
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
By abetting the ad industry, universities are leading us into temptation, when they
should be enlightening us
... ... ...
I ask because, while considering the frenzy
of consumerism that rises beyond its usual planet-trashing levels at this time of year, I
recently stumbled across a paper that astonished
me . It was written by academics at public universities in the Netherlands and the US.
Their purpose seemed to me starkly at odds with the public interest. They sought to identify
"the different ways in which consumers resist advertising, and the tactics that can be used to
counter or avoid such resistance".
Among the "neutralising" techniques it highlighted were "disguising the persuasive intent of
the message"; distracting our attention by using confusing phrases that make it harder to focus
on the advertiser's intentions; and "using cognitive depletion as a tactic for reducing
consumers' ability to contest messages". This means hitting us with enough advertisements to
exhaust our mental resources, breaking down our capacity to think.
Intrigued, I started looking for other academic papers on the same theme, and found an
entire literature. There were articles on every imaginable aspect of resistance, and helpful
tips on overcoming it. For example, I came across a paper that counsels advertisers on how to
rebuild public trust when the celebrity they work with gets into trouble. Rather than dumping
this lucrative asset, the researchers advised that the best means to enhance "the authentic
persuasive appeal of a celebrity endorser" whose standing has slipped is to get them to display
"a Duchenne smile", otherwise known as "a genuine smile". It precisely anatomised such smiles,
showed how to spot them, and discussed the "construction" of sincerity and "genuineness": a
magnificent exercise in inauthentic authenticity.
Another paper considered how
to persuade sceptical people to accept a company's corporate social responsibility claims,
especially when these claims conflict with the company's overall objectives. (An obvious
example is ExxonMobil's attempts to convince people that it is environmentally responsible,
because it is researching algal fuels that could one day reduce CO2 – even as it
continues to
pump millions of barrels of fossil oil a day ). I hoped the paper would recommend that the
best means of persuading people is for a company to change its practices. Instead, the authors'
research showed how images and statements could be cleverly combined to "minimise stakeholder
scepticism".
A further
paper discussed advertisements that work by stimulating
Fomo – fear of missing out . It noted that such ads work through "controlled
motivation", which is "anathema to wellbeing". Fomo ads, the paper explained, tend to cause
significant discomfort to those who notice them. It then went on to show how an improved
understanding of people's responses "provides the opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of
Fomo as a purchase trigger". One tactic it proposed is to keep stimulating the fear of missing
out, during and after the decision to buy. This, it suggested, will make people more
susceptible to further ads on the same lines.
Yes, I know: I work in an industry that receives most of its income from advertising, so I
am complicit in this too. But so are we all. Advertising – with its destructive
impacts on the living planet, our peace of mind and our free will – sits at the heart of
our growth-based economy. This gives us all the more reason to challenge it. Among the places
in which the challenge should begin are universities, and the academic societies that are
supposed to set and uphold ethical standards. If they cannot swim against the currents of
constructed desire and constructed thought, who can?
Looks like Guardian start turning away from neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... What price is paid when a promise is broken? Because for much of my life, and probably yours, the political class has made this pledge: that the best way to run an economy is to hack back the public realm as far as possible and let the private sector run free. That way, services operate better, businesses get the resources they need, and our national finances are healthier. ..."
"... I don't wish to write about the everyday failings of neoliberalism – that piece would be filed before you could say "east coast mainline". Instead, I want to address the most stubborn belief of all: that running a small state is the soundest financial arrangement for governments and voters alike. Because 40 years on from the Thatcher revolution, more and more evidence is coming in to the contrary. ..."
"... The other big reason for the UK's financial precarity is its privatisation programme, described by the IMF as no less than a "fiscal illusion". British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, "increase revenues and lower deficits but also reduce the government's asset holdings". ..."
"... IMF research shows is that the Westminster classes have been asset-stripping Britain for decades – and storing up financial trouble for future generations ..."
The fund reports that Britain's finances are weaker than all other nations except Portugal,
and says privatisation is to blame
Columnists usually proffer answers, but today I want to ask a question, a big one. What price
is paid when a promise is broken? Because for much of my life, and probably yours, the
political class has made this pledge: that the best way to run an economy is to hack back the
public realm as far as possible and let the private sector run free. That way, services operate
better, businesses get the resources they need, and our national finances are healthier.
It's why your tax credits keep
dropping , and your mum has to wait half a year to see a hospital consultant –
because David Cameron slashed public spending, to stop it "crowding out" private money. It's
why water bills are so high and train services can never be counted on – because both
industries have been privatised.
From the debacle of universal credit to the forced conversion of state schools into
corporate-run academies, the ideology of the small state – defined by no less a body than
the International Monetary Fund as neoliberalism – is all pervasive. It decides how much
money you have left at the end of the week and what kind of future your children will enjoy,
and it explains why your elderly relatives can't get a decent carer.
I don't wish to write about the everyday failings of neoliberalism – that piece would
be filed before you could say "east coast mainline". Instead, I want to address the most
stubborn belief of all: that running a small state is the soundest financial arrangement for
governments and voters alike. Because 40 years on from the Thatcher revolution, more and more
evidence is coming in to the contrary.
Let's start with the IMF itself. Last week it published
a report that barely got a mention from the BBC or in Westminster, yet helps reframe the
entire debate over austerity. The fund totted up both the public debt and the publicly owned
assets of 31 countries, from the US to Australia, Finland to France, and found that
the UK had among the weakest public finances of the lot. With less than £3 trillion
of assets against £5tn in pensions and other liabilities, the UK is more than £2tn
in the red . Of all the other countries examined by researchers, including the Gambia and
Kenya, only Portugal's finances look worse over the long run. So much for fixing the
roof.
'British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard from airports to
the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City.' Photograph:
Amer Ghazzal/Rex/Shutterstock
Almost as startling are the IMF's reasons for why Britain is in such a state: one way or
another they all come back to neoliberalism. Thatcher loosed finance from its shackles and used
our North Sea oil money to pay for swingeing tax cuts. The result is an overfinancialised
economy and a government that is £1tn worse off since the banking crash. Norway has
similar
North Sea wealth and a far smaller population, but also a sovereign wealth fund. Its net
worth has soared over the past decade.
The other big reason for the UK's financial precarity is its privatisation programme,
described by the IMF as no less than a "fiscal illusion". British governments have flogged
nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway
prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, "increase revenues
and lower deficits but also reduce the government's asset holdings".
Throughout the austerity decade, ministers and economists have pushed for spending cuts by
pointing to the size of the government's annual overdraft, or budget deficit. Yet there are two
sides to a balance sheet, as all accountants know and this IMF work recognises. The same goes
for our public realm: if Labour's John McDonnell gets into No 11 and renationalises the
railways, that would cost tens of billions – but it would also leave the country with
assets worth tens of billions that provided a regular income.
Instead, what this IMF research shows is that the Westminster classes have been
asset-stripping Britain for decades – and storing up financial trouble for future
generations.
Privatisation and austerity have not only weakened the country's financial position –
they have also handed unearned wealth to a select few. Just look at
a new report from the University of Greenwich finding that water companies could have
funded all their day-to-day running and their long-term investments out of the bills paid by
customers. Instead of which, managers have lumbered the firms with £51bn of debt to pay
for shareholders' dividends. Those borrowed billions, and the millions in interest, will be
paid by you and me in our water bills. We might as well stuff the cash directly into the
pockets of shareholders.
Instead of competitively run utilities, record investment by the private sector and sounder
public finances, we have natural monopolies handed over to the wealthy, banks that can dump
their liabilities on the public when things get tough, and an outsourcing industry that feasts
upon the carcass of the public sector. As if all this weren't enough, neoliberal voices
complain that we need to cut taxes and red tape, and further starve our public services.
This is a genuine scandal, but it requires us to recognise what neoliberalism promised and
what it has failed to deliver. Some of the loudest critics of the ideology have completely
misidentified it. Academics will daub the term "neoliberal" on any passing phenomenon. Fitbits
are apparently neoliberal, as is Ben & Jerry's ice-cream and Kanye West. Pundits will say
that neoliberalism is about markets and choice – tell that to any commuter wedged on a
Southern rail train. And centrist politicians claim that the great failing of neoliberalism is
its carelessness about identity and place, which is akin to complaining that the boy on a moped
who snatched your smartphone is going too fast.
Let us get it straight. Neoliberalism has ripped you off and robbed you blind. The evidence
of that is mounting up – in your bills, in your services and in the finances of your
country.
• Aditya Chakrabortty is a Guardian columnist and senior economics commentator
" ....The oligarchs have been destroyed in the early 00s: Gusinsky (the media oligarch),
Berezovsky (the political broker oligarch), Khodorkovsky (the oil oligarch). These people
were real oligarchs, i.e. they were using their wealth to control political processes
through black media propaganda, having their own MPs/Ministers/Governors, etc..." @85
I'm inclined to agree. And this is why there is so much anger against Putin, in
particular, in the 'west': the Russian oligarchs wield enormous power through the media
which is at the service of anyone with money. Bill Browder being a prime example.
The oligarchs were the tools that the City of London and Wall St employed to plunder
Russia's socialised wealth and resources.
The hate campaign against Putin, who is in many ways a very conservative economist pursuing
the sort of neo-liberal policies that capitalist financiers approve of, is inexplicable
unless we understand that the end game is a return to the looting that took place under the
Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.
I don't understand the people here who write that VVPutin is in thrall to the Zionists,
the Oligarchs, or that he's lining his own pocket etc etc. IMHO his strategy has always been
clear and direct, since the beginning. He values first of all stability - time for Russia to
rebuild herself. Secondly, he performs a clever balancing act between the competing centres
of power in Russia.
His mistake, however, when he became president, was to believe quite sincerely that the
West - and particularly Washington (the important one) - shared a desire for peaceful
partnership with Russia. Doubts emerged in 2011 - he realised that he was being played - and
the doubts became certainties in 2014, since when some fairly radical reorganisations has
been taking place. Russia is - again, IMHO - now ready to take its real place in the
international order.
I take great pleasure in reading and listening to his - and Sergei Lavrov's - words, at
the same time regretting the low standard of our own representatives.
Many thanks to b and all of you who continue always to inform me and sometimes enchant
me.
"
Nation
states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty
",
according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes
to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.
No this wasn't something Adolf Hitler said many decades ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel
told
attendants
at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. Merkel has announced she won't seek re-election
in 2021 and it is clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion before she stands
down.
"
In
an orderly fashion of course,
" Merkel joked, attempting to lighten the mood. But Merkel has always had a tin ear
for comedy and she soon launched into a dark speech condemning those in her own party who think Germany should have
listened to the will of its citizens and refused to sign the controversial UN migration pact:
"
There
were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are
representing The People
".
"
[But]
the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German]
people
," she stressed.
Merkel has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic,
saying "
That
is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations
".
Her words echo recent comments by the deeply unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day
speech that "
patriotism
is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason
."
The French president's words were deeply unpopular with the French population and his approval rating nosedived even
further after the comments.
Macron, whose lack of leadership is proving unable to deal with growing protests in France, told the Bundestag that
France and Germany should be at the center of the emerging New World Order.
"
The
Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace"
.
"
Europe
must be stronger and win more sovereignty
," he went on to demand, just like Merkel, that
EU
member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels
over "
foreign
affairs, migration, and development
" as well as giving "
an
increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources".
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
He is a distinguished professor at Berkley Law, UC. Here's his bio:
Professor Yoo is the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law
Center, the California Constitution Center, and the Law School's Program in Public Law and
Policy. His most recent books are Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons
Change the Rules for War (Encounter 2017) (with Jeremy Rabkin) and Point of Attack:
Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Professor Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting
fellow at the Hoover Institution
From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of
Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving
foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.
Notice how they gloss over his diabolical activities as deputy AG for the Bush II
Adminstration "where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the
separation of powers."
And, oh, yeah, he cobbled together legal statements that gave the Bush Admin carte blanche
to engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques," more commonly known as "torture." He was
about to be in big dodo for his crimes. but just like the 5 dancing Israelis were rescued by
Chertoff, a guy named David Margolis managed to get Yoo off the hook:
The Office of Professional Responsibilty (OPR) report concluded that Yoo had "committed
'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with
waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects,"
although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible
disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department
lawyer.
The "Resistance" -- the loose affiliation of liberals, progressives and neo-conservatives
dedicated to opposing Donald Trump -- is NOT a grass-roots movement. They don't speak for the
everyman or the poor or the oppressed. They are a distraction, nothing more. A parlor game. The
face
to Trump's heel .
The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State -- Pro-war, pro-globalisation,
pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of "progressive values". They prove
this with their own actions -- opposing Trump's moves toward peace with North Korea and finding
common ground with Russia.
In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been
notably quiet -- even in favour of -- three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of
the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.
They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse
to listen. So totally brain-washed by the "Orange Man Bad" hysteria, that they will
side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same
hashtags.
The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the
lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a
soldier "forged in combat", regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller's marine regiment
-- "The Magnificent Bastards".
Vietnam is reduced to a movie set -- nothing but a backdrop for Mueller's courage under
fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while "The Magnificent Bastards" strode around
the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a
couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded.
Taking a bullet in the leg from a terrified peasant who just wants you to sod off out of his
country will always win you medals, but it shouldn't.
Voluntarily signing on to enforce Imperial foreign policy in a war of conquest will always
have the media paint you as a hero, but it shouldn't.
What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having
ourselves. He's a "micromanager" and he's "too tough".
Yes, and I'm sure he works himself too hard and doesn't suffer fools gladly
and always speaks his mind aswell.
Read the column if you want, but I'd suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more
nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left
office .
Far more telling than what it does say is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller's
role as head of the FBI during the launch of the "war on terror", but doesn't go into any of
the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly
authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.
Let's be clear: Mueller's FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.
Given that, it's rather unsurprising that the article doesn't mention the word "Iraq" once.
A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller's testimony in front of congress played a key
role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction":
It doesn't matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn't matter how
tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn't matter if he looks like
Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar -- a man culpable
in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep
State.
A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance".
Obviously, Trump's administration is dangerous -- it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran
and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can't fight the right-hand
of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They're the same
monster.
Anti-Trumpers, all over the world, need to take a good look at WHO they're fighting
alongside, and ask themselves WHAT they are fighting for.
Kit
Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He
used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
Mueller's FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM=Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing
There were also numerous media accounts of explosives being used on 9/11–even ABC's
John Miller
stated initial FBI feedback was that there were additional explosives used at WTC on
9/11.
Did FBI test for explosives?
What were the results?
If no tests were done–why the F not?
Why didn't media or Congress ever follow up and ask FBI about the explosions which were
reported?
i was reading that puff-piece yesterday, thinking "i wonder how long off-g's response to
this journalistic offal will be in coming" you haven't disappointed! Kit..sorry, i sound like
a gushing fanboi. most people outside of america don't realise how deep statey Mueller really
is. he's the Harvey Keitel character from pulp fiction. the mob cleanup guy
the Graun is particularly odious at the moment. today's leader is a blatant opinion piece
where the "writer" is practically rubbing their hand on their thighs with glee, telling us
how trump is facing a subpoena cannon from the dems. good too see they're using their newly
re-minted political capital on the important business of running the country resistance my
arse
And with the anthrax investigation (which of course the Guardian doesn't mention), he's
also a proven incompetent.
Have to say though–I'm looking forward to the day when this investigation is
wrapped, the report comes out, and it's not at all what the Maddows wanted to hear. At that
point Mueller will suddenly be a Russian agent himself; incompetent; compromised, and any/all
other smears to explain why his investigation didn't find their irrational hysteria to be
true.
Then maybe a few months later Trump will fire him and he'll be a hero again and get a
Gofund to help this poor unemployed honorable soul.
Wonder how the Grauniad will explain away the Skripal case when it's revealed that
Mueller's Steele dossier was written by Skripal.
No wonder the British Deep State are panicking to prevent the publication of the documents
ordered by the Orange One.
The so-called anti-Trump Resistance(TM) plays the role of Good Cop to the Trump Regime's
Bad Cop. Nothing more.
This is the nature of the political shell game that passes for American democracy, which
in reality is an imperial plutocracy.
In all these Anglo imperialist nations in general like America, Britain, or Australia,
there is only one true party: the party of Anglo American imperialism.
The anti-Trump "Resistance" is merely one faction of the Anglo-American Empire, which is
in conflict with another faction of the Anglo-American Empire.
The supposed differences between them are similar to the differences between Coke and
Pepsi, or McDonald's and Burger King.
("A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance").
-- - ah, there you go again bringing in reason, a rational argument, the historical
record, common sense, and in short objective – "reality" – into the equation. Of
course if you are using these sort of criteria Mueller isn't going to look so good. You have
to understand that the "Resistance" is, well, more of a "feeling" than anything rational or
intellectually defensible.and valorizing Muller certainly isn't based on his "real-world"
behavior. Simply put, Muller stands in opposition to Trump and that "feels" right to the
"resistance." You know, just like it "feels right" to this same segment of the U.S.
population not to let themselves think about the fact that Obama was illegally and immorally
bombing 8 Muslim countries as he left office.
Of course in the end Mueller as "hero" of the "resistance" is simply the deep state's
slight of hand PR campaign to oppose Trump as the impossibly and unacceptably "bad face" for
U.S. empire that he is.
I mean how are Merkel or Macron or May supposed to rally their even half-awake citizenry into
dutifully following our tweet crazed endlessly offensive "Orange One" into the next all
important battle against the newest deep state defined "Hitler" in Iran, or Syria, or . . .
while maintaining any credibility with their own populations?
It's astonishing how many self professed 'Progressives' swallow the Resistance line. There
certainly is a war within the Administration, Dark State v the President. The latest episode
seems to have centred around cutting off the legs of Trump's big partner in the ME and his
son in law's close friend, Crown Prince bin Salman. What promoted Turkey to release the
information they had on the murder in Istanbul? We can be satisfied it wasn't borne out of
humanitarianism! Were they acting in lock step with the American Agencies like the CIA that
now tells Turkey it has intercepts 'proving' the Crown Prince ordered the killing? The
'bloodless' Regime Change that is underway aims to remove an arrogant and reckless not to say
bloodthirsty man from Absolute Power, a position he might have held for 50 years or more. No
wonder Erdoghan would like to see him sidelined. 50 years of Absolute Power in one of the
richest countries on earth is an awful lot of time! For the Americans it is a case of seizing
control of Foreign Policy in the ME from Trump who keeps talking about 'getting out' of
Syria: the Military and the Agencies regard that as not in American interests; they intend to
stay and control the vast oil wells in the NE. But it requires agreement with Turkey so who
knows what the Agencies promise Turkey in return? It sounds like a deal dividing northern
Syria between the Turks and the Americans; no room for the Kurds (again). It's the most
serious blow to Trump's authority akin to the time the American military disobeyed Obama over
the cease fire with Russia in Syria when instead they 'accidently' bombed Syrian soldiers,
killing 80 of them. President's it seems are not allowed their own Foreign Policy and in
reality that has been the case since the CIA was founded. Only Kennedy seriously tried to
break away
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims
and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally
occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™
Apart from the questions raised by some from the alternative media:
The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from
Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well,
Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist
attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:
1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to
understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being:
apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists,
homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)
2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely
to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily
solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.
3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as
Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more
wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also
making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs
funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood
Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.
Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could
have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a
group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern
extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German
women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They
get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names
and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some
American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of
women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little
push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the
West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.
And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at
all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US
Ambassador.
Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic
mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United
States.
Oh my – the Jew "meathead" is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant
narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."
He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just
not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an
effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing
Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a
liar.
@MAGAnotMISA
What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims
annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.
Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand
that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government.
One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.
Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success.
Judaism lost the battle with christianity, bolsjewism failed in Russia, getting equal rights
in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in
surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbours, and all over the world, and jewish puppet
Hillary was not elected.
The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast
military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters
must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing
profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
@anon
In the idea that the USA is the new zion Trump indeed commits treason.
Before Israel was established many USA rabbis were against zionism, because in their view the
USA already was zion.
As to
, the use of such words for me means utter confusion, rational analysis no longer
possible.
Arthur Koestler was of the opinion that yiddish precluded sensible discussion.
The mentioned words show that he was wrong about the cause.
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his
father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.
In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,
"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this
little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."
That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no
expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies
of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically
deadly and destructive.
1. US withdrawal from Syria, and apparently all non-nato committed US troops from
Afghanistan.
2. Willingness to shutdown Government in order to force funding for the wall
3. Rumors of subpoena's being handed out at G.H.W Bush's funeral
4. Senate investigations into Clinton Foundation with auditors claiming jaw dropping
corruption
5. Grand Jury empaneled to investigate into 9/11
I don't know if Q is a psyop, but a lot of the things he has been saying appear to be
coming closer to reality. We can be certain that none of this would have happened had Clinton
been elected.
Meanwhile the deep state is not taking this lying down.
1. Netanyahu is threatening to increase operations in Syria. Perhaps he warned Trump to
get out because he is going to go nuclear or bio.
2. The global warming panic propaganda is being turned up to "broil" as weather warfare has
been unleashed across the planet.
3. Ukraine attempting to drag Nato into a war for the Kerch straight.
4. Stockmarkets tanking as the Fed keeps tightening while Mnuchin performs the "plunge
protection team rag"
5. Iran war threats and Persian gulf sabre rattling
6. Heeb financial war against Russia, Iran and China.
7. Heeb technology war against China (Huawei arrest)
Even if the US leaves Syria as Trump claims, they certainly will not just hand everything
over to Assad. The Damascus/Baghdad hiway re-opening through Al Tanf and the hand over of all
Euphrates river crossings to Syria would be indication of a true change of policy.
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to
see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.
I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to
my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee
Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the
Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.
Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a
state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner
who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good
riddance.
I'd just add that few things would please me more than to have DJT draft the human
chickenhawks due to their indispensable expertise and place their backsides in-country to
dole out their words of wisdom there.
The honorable & courageous American Man endowed with precision scientific/political
wisdom wrote, with special appeal to me: "Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do,
though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel , that
could actually result in more attacks upon Syria."
Call me crazy, but I'm still a bit leery, cautiously hopping this is not just another
charade. Is this just another way to allow the dissection of Syria to take another path?
Always remember if Trump is in opposition to his globalist master's he will be removed,
one way or the other.
Thank you for that! I now realize that the appellation chickenhawk used in reference to
the "let's you and him" fight gang is a slur on a fine little raptor. You have educated
me.
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ),
Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis
) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are
sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called
Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither
binoculars nor field guide.
But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of
warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.
President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a
face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that
there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big
surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday
stockings.
@wayfarer
Not sure if the opening word's in the first video are spoken by Sheikh Imran N Hosein. It
sounds like him. I just wanted to say I have listened to a lot of his messages and find him
very enlightening. For those who believe in end time prophecy, I think you will find well
versed and extremely intelligent, as compared to many of the so called "Christian" huckster's
out there selling religion for dollars.
Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilising a local
rival of both? Who knows?
What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the
rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can
buy.
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for
war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the
profits from the wars!
Zionists have instigated every war that the U.S. has been in since WWI and right on down
through the Mideast slaughter house that Israel and her Zionists patrons have sent Americans
to fight and die in and by crippled for life in and the millions of civilians, men, women and
children that have been murdered in the wars fought for Zionist Israel!
The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did
911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the
Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when every
thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!
Finally Trump has done the right thing by getting out of Syria and now should get the hell
out of the Mideast and Afghanistan and close the slaughter houses!
God bless Putin and Russia and Assad and Syria for saving the people of Syria and
defeating ISIS aka Al CIADA ie a creation of the U.S. and Israel and Britain!
Zionists and Israel will be the death of America unless we wake up and smell the
coffee!
@renfro
One hopes that Russia will have stationed its advanced air defense systems throughout Syria.
And they should not be afraid to shoot down the Israeli aggressors.
@jilles
dykstra Jilles,
Haven't you completely contradicted your prior response to @renfro about Trump? You called
him a "complete idiot, leading a country to destruction," now you are claiming he is a
"reasonable man, who understands that warfare is just a destruction of wealth." He can't be
both, can he?
@DESERT
FOX Of extreme importance, Desert Fox of"The most incredible thing was that the Zionists
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast
wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs
and got away with it ,"
Christmas Day greetings, Desert Fox!
Re; above sentence, a cordial question.
Is there anything you know & which you have not said (to date) that might signal that
the American-Israeli Empire's mighty military is prepped to allow the Assad and Rouhani
anti-Zionist governments to stand?
Uh perhaps, either delay or junk establishment of Greater Israel?
Am convinced Trump would only slow down international Jewry's plan. Or else no unguarded
JFK convertible limo trips for him on reelection-campaign road.
@chris
Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17
years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country
totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to
be liberators). Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants
to pull out. All three countries were much smaller and weaker than Iran, and the US is much
weaker, morally and militarily, than it was after the 9/11 hoax. And, after Russia has
expended much blood and treasure in ensuring victory for Assad and the Syrian people, will it
now sit on its hands as the US Air Force dismantles Teheran? Plus there is a resurgent China,
dependent on Iranian oil, to consider.
I'm not saying that Trump will not start a war against Iran (for Israel's benefit). But,
he'd better be prepared for the consequences, which will all be devastating to the American
Empire. Be careful what you wish for.
But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to
follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality.
Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against
the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good
news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day. Wouldnt it be nice if that Satanic
'fellow' was harrased at home like, unfortunatley, Tucker Carlson was. (Instead of
Carlson)
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog
could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until
the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is
disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the
workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all
locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ
such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"
Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he
won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade
away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.
@Parsnipitous
Reading my comment again, I can see where I might have misinterpreted Jilles intent. If so, I
apologize. However, if he had identified, by name, who he was referring to, perhaps I
wouldn't have been confused.
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The
United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital
interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians.
They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. Trump
was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters
believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired
mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay
for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq,
online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more
profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap
anymore.
opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units there
Must look to the North:
On Turkey's Northwest front, tensions are high between the Greek Military & some foreign
controllers of Greece, and the Turkish Military, and their leaders.
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal
from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also
add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish
state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley
would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
For once, let all nuclear arsenal be directed at the Middle East and when the smoke clears
after a thousand years, there will be no God, Jews or Arabs to deal with any of remaining
humans will be welcomed!
@ChuckOrloski
In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and
elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think
their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be
placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their
proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.
Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and
Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and
see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but
with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.
It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but
have a Merry Christmas!
Yes to Trump and withdrawal from Mid East Wars, down with MSM, The Neocons, the 1% , the deep
state and Israel, the whole World hates these assholes. Go Donny Daddy!
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.
This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war
they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And
since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our
policies.
@Z-man
Israel fears Iran, is my idea.
Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli jews do not see how there ever can be peace with
the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'.
Not all jews are idiots.
Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a zionist reached Palestine, and saw that
this was not the 'land without people for people without land'.
He stated 'this is a crime'.
The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.
In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial
compensation, between Turkey and Greece.
To this day tensions exist between the two countries.
Iran is one of the oldest civilisations.
Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy.
Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could
subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah.
Iran also of course knows quite well jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to
destroy Iraq.
Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?
So that Netanyahu and USA jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be
otherwise ?
Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use
power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.
There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbours, or with
the Palestinians.
About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'how we fooled the
Palestinians'?
Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my
recollection is correct.
There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.
Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest
USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW.
What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ?
Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?
Macron is not skiing between Christmas and New Year.
French is my worst language, but 'huis clos' is curtains closed, the expression is used often
for court proceedings without an audience, closed doors.
If my idea is correct that he stays indoors because his security cannot be guaranteed, maybe
someone whose first language is French can enlighten me.
Whatever the case, the man who wants an EU army now has trouble keeping peace in his own
country.
NATO, Stoltenberg's face during the dinner with Trump, disbelief.
Trigger and restrain, at the moment the Yellow Vests have caused the impossibility for
Brussels to do anything, survival is what concerns them.
@DESERT
FOX Desert Fox with a Montana-attitude, soft side, said: "It is snowing here in Montana
so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but have a Merry Christmas!'
Greetings from snowless Scranton, Desert Fox!
Over decades, have reflected upon Charles Schulz's great (1965) "Charlie Brown Christmas."
Prior to it's release, I have scant memory that Mr. Schulz had to battle those who wanted the
traditional Nativity of Christ and spiritual meaning out of the way. Fyi, Charles's opponents
lost!
As Christ-trashing Hollywood "Christmas" films dominate & mis-educate our popular
culture, please, please, please look (below) at the beautiful narration of "Charlie Brown
Christmas."
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he
promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt
mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is
actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100%
fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
@wayfarer
No snow here in Albuquerque, NM, but the skies are loaded with chemtrails. I guess the sky
spider's never get a day off. Here's hoping you and your's have a merry Christmas.
Trump wants Turkey to stop harassing Saudi Arabia about Kashoogi's murder and be more
complacent with Israel. He also wants Israel to become more anxious abiut its security so it
agrees on the Palestinian peace plan elaborated by Jared Kuchner and MBS.
Turkey has now promised to fight ISIS which it never did. Saudi Arabia as well as Syria wants
Turkey humiliated, defeated and out of Syria. It may well happen when the Turkish army will
be confronted with a renewedc ISIS manipulated by Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It seems that the withdrawal of the US forces from Syria may trigger the end of Erdogan's
hegemonic dreams in the region and the victorious return of Syria among the Arabs.
@follyofwar
Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No,
they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as
possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
"President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary
James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies "
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at
face value.
Orange clown's alleged disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that
a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf;
that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with
since the beginning of the "Trump" administration.
Apparently we're urged to conclude that Trump has finally had enough of the people he
knowingly and willingly surrounded himself with, and their agenda, and now all of a sudden
(because of some kind of a spiritual epiphany, pro-American New Year's resolution, etc.) he
wants to do right by (some of) his supporters by doing what he should've done a long time
ago. (And the hint of a military drawdown in Afghanistan adds a nice touch).
Sorry but I can't buy what they're selling.
If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government"
of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear
armed missiles in Europe – with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than
withdraw from it – I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's
changed.
As it is now it'll take a lot more than the obligatory "avalanche of condemnation" i.e.,
cheap words, to convince me that the perfidious orange clown and his jewish-supremacist
handlers are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with one
hand while steering it into the iceberg with the other hand.
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this,
at face value.
agree
just watch their behaviour – the wall never gets built even though they are now
talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year
– the increase alone is the cost of two walls
Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless
shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia
in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria,
and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the
United States and Europe.
Haass is a Cheney's choice of opportunist and Goebbelsian kind of criminal:
Haass was born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn From 1989 to 1993, he was Special
Assistant to United States President George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior
Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. In 1991, Haass received the Presidential
Citizens Medal for helping to develop and explain U.S. policy during Operation Desert
Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Haass argued that the leaders of the United States
should adopt "an imperial foreign policy" to construct and manage an informal American
empire (Haass 2000)
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines.
And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very
little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.
-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain
sanctions and other pressure on Iran.
-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the
U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.
-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece
pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from
tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.
Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major
policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary
to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is
saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow
thru on the crazy.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat."
So it was, was it? That's really the beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were
a few naysayers back then, since largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives,
who claimed that Stalin's postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to
protect the USSR from the talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was
well aware of all the loose talk on the American side and his country had just endured the
same attempt on the part of Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids – ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@MAGAnotMISA
"ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US
attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab
lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "
– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the
Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate"
terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/
Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan
The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to
the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed
in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in
Syria.
The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in
recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and
Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.
Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian
border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli
police and UN forces.
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow
benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
@renfro
Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that
there are elections due on 9 April.
You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a
missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days
when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.
"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media
yawns," by Eva Bartlett.
"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on
December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's
involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists --
including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other
non-rescuer behaviour.
a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets)
bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical
attack."
In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of
organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo
man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.
Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has
covered the event and its critical contents.
This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to
propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to
present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official
narrative.
@DESERT
FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep
state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where
the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when
every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"
The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get
counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings.
The 3rd building was only explosives.
@jilles
dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"
– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of
mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the
pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military
confrontation with Iran/Russia.
As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack
the US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated
as early as in 1945.
@Bragadocious
What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long
gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they
think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has
got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And
their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
@annamaria
THis is that GELLER who has been riling up ant Muslim hysteria in US She has been co hosting
the islamophobes and has been renting spaces for add against Jihad
@Michael
Kenny Like you are irreversibly bogged down in between your legs looking for Bush's WMD,
Obama's gas, Netanyhu's water source , Rothschild's oil,Bolton's nooses around himself,Weekly
Standard's lost child FDD and confused Sheldon's diaper.
!
@Alfred
Agree that many have died and are dying from cancer caused by the asbestos and other
materials in the dust, in my opinion the WTC towers were destroyed by direct energy weapons
plus micro nukes and WTC buildings 3,4,5,and 6 were destroyed by direct energy weapons and
WTC 7 was destroyed by conventional explosives, and there were 7 WTC buildings destroyed in
total.
Check the site Drjudywood.com and read her book Where Did The Towers Go and watch her
videos on youtube, she is a scientist and very credible and it is from her that I got the
directed energy weapons theory. There were no planes used and the planes that were seen were
holograms and for an explanation of this see John Lears videos on youtube, John Lear is the
son of William Lear the designer of the Lear Jet and John was a commercial pilot and his
videos on 911 explain why no planes were used.
Zionist Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911.
@jilles
dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice
of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without
actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds
bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's
the end of the world," etc.
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).
Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few
layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK,
let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our
middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an
exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.
No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global
ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the
eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to
think over the long term.
Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?
@Sarah
Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get
lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
@Realist
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
.local sources told Al Jazeera and Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency --
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that Ankara and Washington
agreed to complete withdrawal of the YPG forces from Manbij before the US pulls out of
Syria.
He added the US agreed to take back weapons given to the YPG.
Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region
Trucks carrying regime forces and equipment, and armoured vehicles have arrived in the
region, sources say.
@follyofwar
Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship"
should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere.
Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax but I don't think any Iranians are.
Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything
goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.
@Svigor
It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that
they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of
their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC
and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show
their true colors.
@m___
Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually,
positive and optimistic.
If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of
better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same
page and malevolent re us , the common folks.
I am afraid that's not the case.
I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power
who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The
malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor
whim ,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors
bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides
otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.
Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been
happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the .Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for
long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.
The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by
that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.
They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.
"Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative
voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's
security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"
"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with
three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces.
Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the
process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their
hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by
ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a
civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for
the jihadists.
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not
happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state
structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan,
which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an
end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole
financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war
[in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a
unipolar world .
Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a
campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed
to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil
war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military
presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of
power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth.
The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
@Realist
When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an
economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia
were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are
still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full
recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played
nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd
ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for
Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to
al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib
extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards
of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on
the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy
and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division
might reward it.)
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
I find it interesting that Drudge has had almost nothing about the Syria withdrawal, or the
fallout Giraldi describes. I heard far more about it by tuning in to NPR.
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider.
It's not that simple. Any attempt to take control of the of the Bosporus would make it at
least temporarily impassable.
@follyofwar
The real change will come should ever US military personnel realise that true patriotism
would compel them not to serve, to sabotage equipment and even resort to fragging. Perhaps
Incitatus could give instructions on how some could pull off a "Corporal Klinger" in order to
evade service.
@Carlton
Meyer Good clip. High points for LULZ were "if we're fighting Assad doesn't that help
ISIS? And if we're fighting ISIS doesn't that help Assad?" and "now you know why people get
their news from Youtube."
@Bragadocious
It is business as usual. I remember when GWB was having some difficulty selling the war on
Iraq prior to the invasion. War criminal Tony Blair very eloquently addressed both houses in
the US and closed the sale. I watched it live with a tough old former Marine friend who was
actually moved to tears when he realised that the war would be going ahead. What hope is
there for nations that have yet to hold to account such vermin as Blair, GWB, Howard etc?
@follyofwar
The Brits were the original Rothschild ass-muppets. Before there was the Fed, there was the
Bank of England. Before there was the Senate, there was Parliament. And before there was Wall
Street, there was the City of London. Hell, without Britain, Israel wouldn't even exist!
I'm not putting down ordinary British people, who tend to be very nice. I'm talking about
their horrible ruling class, which is just rotten to the core.
@Realist
Taking into account long-range missiles, impassability of those straits is not such a great
military problem. But the disappearance of a large chunk if Istanbul (the US would call it
"collateral damage") would be a serious problem for Turkey.
I don't think it would ever come to that: Erdogan is a cautious bastard. His whole stint
with buying Russian C-400 was undertaken to make sure he is not "democratically" bombed by
those who bring democracy on the heads of aborigines in half-a-ton TNT installments and then
bitterly complain that those aborigines are ungrateful.
@Bragadocious
To be fair, the "Brits", as in the British people, bear the same responsibility as do the
"Americans", as in the American people. Granted, a great many voters in both nations are
quite utterly stupid but it might be more accurate to refer to The City and to Wall St as
being the guilty ones.
Grunts, the ones actually doing the fighting and dying, will typically refer to one who
speaks out in support of war, yet has avoided active military service, as a
chickenshit and not a chickenhawk.
So it's probably safe to say, wikiquote needs to be updated.
@never-anonymous
Your average American general isn't interested in America's welfare. He's interested in the
defensive industry because he plans to retire early from the US army and get rich lobbying
for defensive companies. People like this tend to be good at climbing the rank ladder because
they are completely self-serving, and they are a genuine problem for the the US when they get
to the top and claim the ear of a US president. All they do is promote more war to make their
future employers rich, who then provide a quid pro quo by hiring these disgusting generals
afterwards.
"though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or
Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. "
@Partisangirl
#Israel murdered this Syrian soldier on #christmas. First lieutenant Gabriel Ali Raya won't
be going home to his family. Yet fools keep believing Israeli lie that they are targeting
Iran while it's bombing #Syria.
This is most certainly good news if true, but lets not forget they're still poking at Russia,
poking at China, still all over Africa, still stirring trouble in Latin America.
Who knows if they may be about to send in private mercenaries from Blackwater into Syria. Not
to mention all the money and weapons we give the Israelis-Saudis so they'll still be stirring
shit in Syria and elsewhere, all that American money could buy Israel lots of mercenaries to
do the same thing in Syria.
The entire MIC has gotten out of control, money buys congress, they have lots of money.
Assuming Trump has any real power or actually cares, he should be trying to get the "defense"
industries into doing something other than building weapons of war, maybe put them to work in
technology or health or something that benefits humanity, gets America back to competing with
Asia, instead of just killing folks.
As long as these "people" are making tons of money building weapons to kill, that is what
they will do, wherever it may be. War shouldn't a business.
I guess we just have to wait and see, I'll believe it when I see it.
DECEMBER 21, 2018 It's About Time for the U.S. to Exit Syria and Afghanistan
The final resolution of the U.S.-led war in Syria must be determined by Syrians
themselves. All foreign forces must recognize and respect the sovereignty of the Syrian
people and their legal representatives.
@RobinG
100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free.
After Action Review [AAR]:
-- Assad' s forces definitely expended a significant number of very expensive
interceptors.
-- They may, or may not, have shot down one or more less expensive standoff weapons launched
by Israel.
-- Iranian forces in Syria were hit and damaged (TBD on repairable vs. destroyed).
All objective analysts will score today's engagement as at least a minor win for the
IDF. Stand by for the non-objective, histrionic, Pallywood, Taqiyya artists' inevitable
attempts to misrepresent the events.
_____
The most critical question is, "What AA systems were active?"
The S-300 system, slated for eventual turnover to Syrian forces, has significant training
requirements. There are still months of training to be done. So, odds are the S-300 and S-400
systems in theatre, under exclusive Russian control, stayed off.
Much more limited systems such as S-200, Pantsir, and earlier generations are beatable if
they are accurately located during planning and shown the respect they deserve. These systems
have one shootdown of an F-16 variant that was too low and may have had a serious mechanical
failure in countermeasures.
The true decision points are still months away.
-- Will Russia ever turn an S-300 system over to Syrian control?
-- If so, will Assad pay the cash burn rate of ~$0.5 to $1.0 million per S-300 class
interceptor?
It is hard to believe that Assad will further bankrupt his nation and starve his children
to defend the Iranian, al-Hezbollah rocket forces being targeted by Israel.
May 5, 2017 Syrian War And The Battle For Golan Heights – Genie Oil & Gas Exposed!
The battle for Golan Heights in Syria will soon be under way and in this video Dan Dicks
of Press For Truth exposes the Genie Oil and Gas Company and everyone on their advisory
board.
I'm as happy with the withdrawal from Syria as anyone here, but "stay tuned" is probably
good advice so we don't get our hopes up too much. They may have moved them out of harm's way
in preparation for initiating more mischief somewhere else.
@A123
Troll #A123 confirms, ISRAEL KILLS ON CHRISTMAS
Following ancient pattern of Jews attacking on Holy Days.
Pantsir-S2 SAM system of #Syria Arab Air Defense Force launched eight 57E6-E surface to
air missiles at Delilah cruise missiles launched by F-16Is of 107sq "Knights of the Orange
Tail Squadron" flying from #Hatzerim AB.
Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his
decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or
bend at least a bit.
Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11, so keeping this in mind, the
Syria withdrawal decision could conceivably be taken out of his hands using (another) False
Flag,this time targeting Iran (and sacrificing a few thousand American servicemen in the
Middle East) or alternatively, using covert action in the US, aimed directly at substituting
Trump for Pence.
In an ethics free zone, combined with the enormous hubris of the maniacs running the
Empire, possibilities have to extend this far.
@A123
"100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free."
– does this mean that you are ready to abandon the annoying quetching about "Jewish
eternal victimhood" and "Jewish incomparable suffering?"
And how is the Jewish State cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazi going on?
The first ever Jewish prime-minister of Ukraine Mr. Groysman has been quite effective in
keeping with the ongoing restoration of Nazism and banderism in the Kaganat of Nuland (former
Ukraine). Guess the main local financier of the neo-Nazi, an Israeli/Ukrainian citizen
Kolomojsky, is preparing for a special award from Knesset and AIPAC for his selfless service
to the ideas of zionism/nazism.
@RobinGPlease observe . as predicted, . the Taqiyya Trolls are now attempting to deploy
histrionics to distract from The Truth.
Serious questions:
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays?
No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching
offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
-- What militarily sound reason is there to give a free pass to violent Iranian forces that
do not respect any religious traditions or holidays? None?
The bottom line is pretty simple.
If Iran was not violent, there would be no military action against them on Christmas or
any other day. As long as Iran is violent, their Taqiyya supporters cannot credibly whinge
about countries defending themselves against Iranian violence.
@Digital
Samizdat What "ruling class". As ruling classes go, especially in a powerful country, the
British ruling class wasn't too bad till about 1900. Now the pseudomeritocracy scrambling to
make sense in a much less powerful and important country hardly deserves the description
"ruling class" at all. Indeed universal suffrage and the devastation of WW1 and the Great
Depression may have predictably doomed it years ago.
@NoseytheDuke
What do you make of the excuse for Howard (though Malcolm Fraser wouldn't have conceded it!!)
that he wasn't critical to the war happening and that only one Australian soldier was killed
(by his own hand, presumably accidentally)? 2003 was, after all, a bit early to be looking to
China for Australia's comfortable place in the world.
@renfro
Israel is attacking Lebanon and Syria . it is threatening other countries as well in between
for lending voices to issues like nuclear treaties with Iran. It has earlier stolen
passports, it has forged passports, it has assassinated leaders who were at that time in
third country. Now criticizing these activities will be nothing but expression of anti
semitism.
WTF wrong with these snake charmers of enormous linguistic variability ? That what it is.
They have tongues and they know how to coin new words .
Indeed it is, but the cacophony Trump's announcement raised seems genuine enough.
There's something about this whole affair that instills (at least in me) a vague sense
that Trump, having given up on a 2nd term, is going to get whatever he can via surprise
Presidential Policy Announcements as long as he lasts in office. It's how he ran his campaign
and almost certainly the only way he can get anything he said he wanted to do done.
Keep his detractors off-balance with a sufficiently constant stream of announcements that
their heads haven't quite stopped spinning before the next one comes out.
To that end, keeping the barking mad ideologues around him on the payroll makes sense.
They add to the noise that serves to make the announcement appear reasonable, whereas nuanced
argument would undermine his policies even when they're fundamentally right.
So, I'm staying tuned. We may see lots more coming from the same place.
Macron not on skis this year.
My idea is not fear of snipers, but fear of Macron being surrounded by Yellow Vest
skiers.
Honnecker's vacations were staying on a government estate, of course completely closed to the
public.
Even there, when he went for a walk, a guard a hundred metres before him and another behind
him.
Advertising his impopularity by completely closing a piste temporarily for just Macron and
some guards probably was seen as not a smart move.
@NoseytheDuke
Well, after, if I remember well, a seven year investigation a devastating report was
published about B-liars' war in GB.
In the Netherlands a somewhat similar report was published about Dutch complicity, the
David's report, blaming prime minister Balkenende at the time, and his minister of foreign
affairs then, De Hoop Scheffer, later Secretary of NATO.
None of the three is behind bars, true.
Nevertheless, they were exposed as war criminals.
I wonder if it is realistic to expect more, the crimes were political.
If Blair and the two Dutch could have refused, I wonder.
@byrresheim
If it was horrible is a matter of opinion, I see it as liberation.
Horrible regime, the shah's
It was possible because the USA had been driven out of Vietnam, could not afford another war.
The Smith Richardson Foundation was founded by billionaire heir to the Vicks fortune, H.
Smith Richardson In 1973, the founder's son, Randolph Richardson – a free market
fundamentalist and long-time patron of neoconservative ideologue Irving Kristol
– inherited the organization.
Recipients of funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation include a who's who of
neoconservative and militaristic right-wing institutions.
The Fusion GPS' bunch and Chris Steele are not the only people subverting the democratic
process in the US:
Recent hacked documents have revealed an international network of politicians,
journalists, academics, researchers and military officers, all engaged in highly deceptive
covert propaganda campaigns funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO),
NATO, Facebook and hardline national security institutions.
This "network of networks", as one document refers to them, centers around an ironically
named outfit called the Integrity Initiative. And it is all overseen by the Institute for
Statecraft, which has operated under a veil of secrecy.
Where is the US Intelligence Community when the foreign nationals infiltrate election
complain in the US?
Bracey-Lane is a 20-something British citizen He appeared out of nowhere to work in Iowa
as a field organizer for the Bernie Sanders campaign for president.
"I spent a year working, saving all my money, just thought I was gonna go on a two month
road trip from Seattle to New York and I thought, you know what? I'm gonna stay and work
for the Bernie Sanders campaign," Bracey-Lane told a reporter for AFP on January 27,
2016.
However An Institute for Statecraft document on "roles and relevant experience" of the
outfit's "expert team" notes that Bracey-Lane conducted a "special study of Russian
interference in the US electoral process." The document does not make clear when that study
was conducted, however, it is listed directly next to its author's history of work with the
Bernie campaign.
The Integrity Initiative (oh, irony!) has been also busy with subverting the democratic
process in Spain and the UK:
The Integrity Initiative waged a successful covert campaign to destroy the appointment
of Pedro Baños to Director of Spain's National Security Department by carry[ing] out
the hit job through a hand-picked "cluster" of Spanish politicians and operatives to flood
social media and sympathetic outlets with messages demonizing Baños.
The Integrity Initiative appears to have employed the same tactics to smear left-wing
journalists and political figures across the West, including the leader of the UK's Labour
Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
According to David Miller, professor of political sociology in the school of policy
studies at the University of Bristol and the director of the Organization for Propaganda
Studies, the Integrity Initiative "appears to be a military directed push."
@wayfarer
Not sure, but we are home to Kirtland Air Force Base and Sandia National Labs so I guess
anything is possible. I just know it has been brutal all fall and winter. Starts out with
massive chemtrailing and ends up with sky completely darkened.
My spidy sense is also tingling, but I am in awe that no one seem's to notice, no one
seem's to care. Like you, I feel the curtain is about to be pulled on the final act. God help
us all.
@Realist
I've read that Mr. Trump abrupted decided to pull out of Syria after a phone call with
Erdogan. He wasn't about to confer with Mattis, Pompeo, or Bolton as they would have all
objected. Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align
with Russia. It's all about geo-politics.
Too bad that crybaby Netanyahu doesn't like it. Israel has nowhere else to go and needs US
support to even exist. The Kurds will be sacrificed, but Turkey is much more important. Trump
must pull out the US troops ASAP as they nothing but sitting ducks – like those 400 or
so Marines who were blown up during the Lebanese civil war during the Reagan Admin. My
biggest concern is that they will be attacked with many casualties while in country, forcing
Trump to stay.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a 'childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist' who is 'committing Treason' against the United States."
He didn't just play a meathead on TV, he became one in real life.
@follyofwar
" Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align with
Russia. It's all about geo-politics. "
What makes you think Turkey is still in NATO ?
And what is NATO ?
Both Merkel and Macron say they want an EU army.
An army for what, many here in Europe wonder.
Attacking the country that keeps the Germans warm in winter and German industry going ?
@Realist
Did you read Article V of NATO treaty?
Here it is:
Article V
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an
armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective
self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the
Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other
Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be
reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council
has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and
security.
To translate it into plain English, if one member is attacked and another member decides
to send the victim pampers, that other member would be perfectly within its rights. The US
made 100% sure it has no obligations whatsoever under that treaty. Not to mention that when
the US does have obligations, it simply breaks the treaty (the deal with Iran being the
latest glaring example).
@Wizard
of Oz A great legal mind such as your own would surely know that under US law any person
involved in any way in a crime resulting in the deaths of victims is held to be equally
responsible. Just being a wheelman or a lookout is enough to be found to be as equally guilty
as the triggerman. All forces involved in the war crimes of the invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan, other than the US, were token forces whose role was as much to legitimise the US
invasions as to have much material impact. Howard's (and Blair's) excuse that it was due to
faulty intel is an insult to those who serve honourably and legitimately in ASIO.
String them up, I say, and you Sir would demean yourself should you attempt to defend
them.
@Anonymous
You are seeing the world in black and white, whereas in reality it has various shades of
gray. The Deep State is not monolithic. Every snake in that pit wants to control not only us
"deplorables", but the other snakes, as well. While all those greedy rothschilds, soroses,
and adelsons beat even Devil himself in their lack of morals, some placed their bets on the
corrupt mad witch, while others on the orange clown. Some snakes are smart enough to
understand that to keep their loot they need the protection of a strong US state. Otherwise
other thieves would gladly steal their ill-gotten riches.
The presidents are frauds in a sense that they are puppets, but not in a sense that they
all have the same puppet master. Say, Nixon put the country ahead of the Empire and
extricated us from the Vietnam quagmire. There is a chance that Trump (i.e., the faction of
the Deep State that betted on him) also wants to save America as a country by acknowledging
the losses of the Empire and acting accordingly. We'll see soon enough.
Israel behind civilian planes ( this time in Lebanon)attacked Syria.
criticizing this piece of Israeli behavior is known as anti semitism according to Jew and
the jew slave Congress Senate , Diet , Parliament , ( USA Germany UK )
. If Saddam were Jewish , his pals were Likud and the citizen worshipped in synagogue ,
criticism against 1990 invasion of Kuwait would have been called anti semitism punishable by
jail .
@foolisholdman
There were cases of real Soviet aggression, although, contrary to the assertion of Western
propaganda, much fewer than there were cases of the US aggression. To give you an example,
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was Soviet aggression at its stupidest. The US invasion of
the same Afghanistan in 2001 was equally stupid. One can argue that it was even more stupid,
given that Soviet example preceded it. Only a hopeless moron steps into a trap knowing that
it is a trap.
However disgusting the US foreign policy was and still is, the USSR was no knight in
shining armor, either.
@foolisholdman
Sure Finland Czechoslovakia Hungary Romania Ukraine Poland Germany Belarus Armenia Azerbaijan
Estonia Latvia Bulgaria Georgia Yugoslavia Lithuania Moldova Chechnia etc.
@DESERT
FOX September 11, 2016 Al Qaeda: The Data Base
Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the
House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of
international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas,
arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
@AnonFromTN
Try again. Maybe 1979 was foolish, since "invasion" was manufactured.
As Zbig Brzezinski admitted, the Soviet action was produced by the CIA support to
anti-Russian Jihadi terrorism, not the other way round. Basically CIA funded terrorism to
"give USSR its own Vietnam." His interview is online.
@geokat62
geo warmly offered Fran: 'Welcome to the dark side, Fran."
Hey G.D.L.-robed Brother geokat!
As you likely are aware, the Syrian ballistic missile system gave 14 of 16 Israeli F-16
(dark) missiles aimed at Damascus outskirt a bright & shiny welcome.
But nonetheless, please refer to Haaretz article below, and Russian knowledge of Israel's
endangering two civilian airplane flight trajectories.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur .
No such Treaty as approval was ever given by the Senate. Soros sock-puppet Obama lied when
he claimed to have extra-constitutional powers to bind future administrations. Remember
Obama's promise, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? There were plenty of
warning signs that Obama was a liar, so no one should be surprised that he lied about
JOCPA.
Trump did not violate or break anything , because the non-ratified, non-treaty did
not meet Constitutional minimums.
__________
Putin supporters should understand this as Russia has an identical issue in play. The
1950′s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine did not meet Russian constitutional standards.
Thus, identical to Trump's treatment of JOCPA, Putin is free to ignore the
unconstitutional acts of the prior Krushchev / Vorashilov administration.
@Agent76
Agree, and would add that AL CIADA ie ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6
and NATO and Robin Cook was killed shortly after he made those statements, who benefits?
@Miro23
"Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11 "
Well this line of thought raises some serious question: (1) Why did Trump run for
president in the first place? (2) Why did he run on a platform of open defiance to the "deep
state" only to occupy a position of intimidating powerlessness? (3) Why does he not fight
back by investigating 9/11 or merely threatening to do so? (4) Why does he not use the power
of the "presidential bully pulpit" against the "deep state"? (5) If he was sincere during the
campaign, why did the "lethal crowd" not deploy a "lone nut" against him before the election?
(With so much at stake, why would they risk letting a sincere person anywhere near the levers
of power in the first place?) (6) How could a reasonable person be coerced into a course of
action (in the realm of "foreign policy") that seems to be leading to nuclear war/planetary
extinction? (7) If he was sincere about putting America first, then failing everything else,
why doesn't he simply resign?
@A123
Legally speaking, you are right. Not to mention that Obama was proven to be a liar in many
other things. But withdrawing from the Iran deal damaged the US credibility even among its
European vassals.
@AnonFromTN
I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in this
case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.
And as far as I know , "American" presidents all have the same master, which by the way,is
the same master that Putin and his bunch of corrupt oligarchs serve.. Of course there are
exceptions Nixon did try to fight against his master but I presume you know what happened to
the poor man. Poor but lucky. He died in his bed.
You got something right: "We'll see soon enough.".
But let me tell you the future: there will be no withdraw from Syria UNLESS the king of
Israel agrees.
And if the King agrees, it is because, he has other objectives which his puppets, Trump,
Putin, Macron will certainly try to implement.
But don't worry, the deep state and the "experts" will always give you "arguments" so you
can keep seeing the world in "various shades of gray".
@anonymoys
Agree with two things. First, Nixon was luckier than Kennedy, he was only forced to resign,
whereas Kennedy was murdered. Second, the same forces were responsible for both events.
But these dark forces are not all-powerful. The world is more complicated than you paint
it. There are different factions at work in the US and Russian politics, and these factions
are doing their best to cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely
wish success to both teams.
Say, many Russian oligarchs (BTW, oligarchs everywhere are criminals, in Russia, in the
US, in Europe, etc.) are likely Zionists, but there are other forces supporting Putin's
throne. That's why Russia screwed up the Israeli plan to break up Syria into a bunch of
warring impotent Bantustans, using Islamic bandits, some paid scum, some just incredibly
stupid "true believers". In this Russia teamed up with the Israeli arch-enemy Iran. Judging
by the Imperial tantrums in the US, which reached a hysterical pitch lately, Zionists are
unhappy with Russian and Chinese stances. So, there is hope for humanity yet.
"During war there are no civilians," that's what "Yossi," an Israeli military (IDF)
training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel
Corrie trials, held in Haifa's District Court earlier this week. "When you write a
[protocol] manual, that manual is for war," he added.
@NoseytheDuke
I bow to your superior knowledge of American law(s) but do recall the distasteful way in
which one reads of not completely innocent defendants being swept up for plea bargains by
such devices as conspiracy charges. But yes, I'm afraid Howard was at least an accessory
before the fact and I have no doubt it was Howard that JMF had in mind when he looked at me
at an anti Howard government affair in October 2004 and spoke of war criminals who ought to
be tried though I recall thinking at the time that it went a bit far to include Howard, the
hanger on. As one who came to give Howard amoral admiration just for the sustained
determination needed to become a truly successful politician (Cf. F.S. Oliver "The Endless
Adventure" and "In Defence of Politics" by Bernard Crick) I am more critical of him for what
he did and didn't do with his surprise control of the Senate (not so surprising to him
actually by August 2004 polling) including election giveaways that did much to prevent
Keating's superannuation schemes ever leading to relief of the burden of old age pensions or,
worse, the rise of industry funds to, effectively, be a funding arm for (often private school
educated) Labor careerists who will give us 25 years of reduced productivity and unnecessary
retail penalty rates and (at least for a while) reduced shopping hours and availability of
path and radiology .. just e.g. Then maybe the drag from China no longer making our coal and
iron ore super valuable will force changes that recognise we 99 per cent of us are lucky
drones (pending a Merkel influx of a million incompatible refugees anyway, but that I would
not expect from Shorten).
@AnonFromTN
I will suggest that a blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct.
To be accurate, one must define the perspective via the question:
-- Credibility in the eyes of whom?
I observed a significant increase in U.S. credibility among the citizens and governments
of practicing Christian nations of the EU. For example: Poland, Hungary, Austria, and
Italy.
Nations such as China that laughed at and casually rolled "Barak Hussein Obama the
Submissive" also upped their respect for the U.S. when Trump took over. Though, I do concede
that getting over a bar set at 0% (less than Rodney Dangerfield) is pretty easy.
Yes, U.S. National Socialist Democrats [DNC] lost credibility among Establishment Elites
of the NWO/UN Circle of Arrogance. After all, they failed to deliver Hillary Clinton to the
White House. However, DNC credibility among unelected elites at the debauched UN has nothing
to do with U.S. credibility among the civilized people of the world.
Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane. It is a lie to say that
they did. Given the air space congestion in the area it is functionally impossible to fly a
combat mission without overlapping a flight route.
The only force that endangered civilian airliners were those firing anti-aircraft
missiles that could hit those planes.
This is why it is highly likely that Russia will never turn over S-300 systems to Syrian
control. Russia wants to sell these systems. Interest will drop to zero if Syrian forces use
the S-300 to shoot down a civilian airliner over another nation such as Lebanon or
Turkey.
@AnonFromTN
"There are different factions at work in the US and these factions are doing their best to
cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely wish success to both
teams."
Seriously? With the exception of perhaps "the wall" and a few other relatively minor
distractive issues (which won't matter very much when the U.S. is a pile of nuclear ash), I
don't see any kind of "faction" offering any serious political opposition whatsoever to
anything of significance that orange clown does. All I see is cheap talk/posturing.
Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane.
Strawman.
Nobody said your people fired missiles at a civilian airline. You used civilian
airplanes to hide behind. It is called using human shields – a war crime.
As for Russia handing over control of S-300′s to Syria, I would advise you to
continue to believe that. I look forward to your hubris and arrogance causing you to vanish
in a puff of smoke one day.
blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct
Agree. But you appear to think that a blanket statement on "civilized people of the world"
works as a logical construct. Sorry to disappoint, it does not work, either.
After Trump announced that the US withdraws, every one of the other signatories of JCPOA
(Iran nuclear deal), namely China, France, Germany, EU, Russia, UK, and Iran said that they
will abide by the deal, with Iranian stipulation that if the US attempts any hostile action,
it would consider itself no longer bound by it. To wit, France, Germany, UK, and EU are
subservient pawns of the Empire in most cases.
Iranians explicitly said that the US unilateral withdrawal from this deal shows that it is
useless to negotiate with the US and come to any agreements with it, as the US will likely
break its word any time it finds it convenient. This did a huge damage to the credibility of
the country, no matter how you slice or dice it.
I agree regarding DNC credibility. After they falsified the results of their primaries (as
Wasserman-Schultz resignation right before the convention affirmed), DNC cannot claim any
credibility. Not that they even needed this trick: Sanders proved to be just as much of a
fraud and a piece of shit as the mad witch. However, DNC has nothing to do with it. Obama
administration was supposed to represent the country, not DNC. If the ability of Trump to act
as President depended on the credibility of RNC (which is as low as that of DNC, although
they did not falsify primaries, to the dismay of Deep State), our country is done for.
The President is supposed to be the leader of the country, not just his party. The actions
of both Obama and Trump in the international affairs that are meant for internal consumption
undermine the US more than any act of its avowed enemies.
Fyi, I particularly despise the Zionist GWOT designations, "collateral damage," and the
demonic branding of wartime Prisoners of War as "non-combatants," and exempt from
internationally recognized Geneva Convention treatment while in ZUSA military captivity.
As a veteran who took an August 1970 solemn oath to honor humane treatment of war
prisoners, & post-9/11, am wondering if taking such noble vow was being done throughout
Basic Training posts, stationed across our (argh!) "Homeland."
Really made me sick to see how Sergeant Charles Garner and P.F.C. Lyndi England were held
accountable for their barbaric Abu Ghraib acts, and shortly afterward, the
freak-intellectual, John Yoo, became the distorted administration's Prisoner-Torture High
Priest. (Zigh)
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
Hm. Perhaps U.R. Comment-Research Specialist can help me here?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays?
No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching
offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in
this case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.
we can't be 100% sure yet but it's looking that way
unless that wall starts getting built pronto i don't see any reason to suport him 2020
All right and clear
Pity, that the lot is stained by the dropping-like sterotype about Goebels' "big lie"
Never mind it's of Hitler's labour, not Goebels', but, more important, in Mein Kampf it is
clearly expressed as a warning (beware..) against the chosen-tribe techniques.. The autor
should be learned enough to know better: superficiality or malice?
@A123
You are so desperate that you are looking under the mattress to find your last penny. Why
don't you ask your grandmother to ( Ben Guiron or Gold mare or some WaPo Rubin or KKK-
Krathamer Kristol Kagan ) to find it for you ?
"... On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". ..."
"... The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry. ..."
"... Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience. ..."
"... The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. ..."
"... The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election. ..."
"... Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue. ..."
"... The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. ..."
"... For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi. ..."
On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women,
our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter,
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning
US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".
The reasons for Donald Trump's move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic
concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats
prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had
always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would
somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of
Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the
situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for
the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20
candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.
The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the
military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even
in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of
reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers,
and which will involve him repeating his mantra of "Promises Made, Promises Kept". He will list
how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other
efforts (from the Fed, the FBI, and Mueller himself) to hamper his efforts to "Make America
Great Again".
Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media
strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and
partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents,
while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision.
Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the
mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to
Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an
international audience.
The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very
much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund
Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to
understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in the Middle East, and
Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and
the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the
government, the more they are campaigning for him.
This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is
necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and
incomprehensible that may seem at times.
The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was
Trump's alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to
announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US
troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.
It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged
French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let's see what you can do without the
US!"
It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting
their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking
advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this
regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400
to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's
decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military
presence in Syria will continue.
There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably
unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and
propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.
We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian conflict. Damascus, Moscow,
Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv
and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to
destroy Syria, and following seven years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.
Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF.
The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and
losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative
move.
The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the
military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an
influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact,
since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and
other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air
defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for
the Israelis.
Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease,
choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in
the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.
The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade
Syria to fight ISIS, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for
the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib (which
Erdogan considers a province of Turkey). Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as
it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian
territory.
The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with
Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their
territory that is rich in oil and gas.
Erdogan wants to eliminate the SDF, and until now, the only thing that stood in his way was
the US military presence. He even threatened to attack several times, even in spite of the
presence of US troops. Ankara has long been on a collision course with NATO countries on
account of this. By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may
also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a
"dictator".
Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning
Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are
even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.
When Will They Leave, and Cui Prodest?
It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had
no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving
behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French
and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be
an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.
The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of
of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in
Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans (and spend money
to pay a lot of people in Washington) based on the delusion that they are doing something in
Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu
desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move.
Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of
troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his
friendship to Bibi.
Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the
other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana
format, guided by Iran and Russia. Putin and Rouhani are certainly pushing for this solution.
Trump, on the other hand, would like to see Turkey enter Syria in the place of US forces, to
demonstrate he concluded a win-win deal for everyone, beating the deep-state at their own
game.
Erdogan does not really have the military force necessary to enter Syria, which is the big
secret. He would be against both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, though the two not
necessarily in an alliance.
There is a triple bluff going on, and this is what is complicating the situation so much. On
the one hand, the SDF is bluffing in not wanting help from Damascus in case Erdogan sends in
his forces; on the other hand, Erdogan is bluffing in suggesting he is able to conquer the
territory held by the SDF; and finally, the French and British are bluffing by telling the SDF
they will be able to help them against both Erdogan and/or Assad.
Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best
position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with
distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the
enemies of Syria.
If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of
Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and
securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be
willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be
done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible
outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It
would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining
invaders (ISIS and the FSA/ Turkish Armed Forces) from the country, both in Idlib and in the
northeast in Afrin.
Russia is aware of the risk that Erdogan is running with the choices he will take in the
coming days. Perhaps the reason why Putin chose diplomacy over war with Turkey after the
downing of a Russian Su-24 in 2015 was in order to arrive at this precise moment, with as many
elements as possible present to convince Erdogan to stick with Russia and Iran instead of
embracing Trump's strategy and putting himself on an open collision course with Damascus,
Moscow and Tehran.
Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in
Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold
territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that
Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would
only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force.
Putin has certainly made it clear to Erdogan that if he made such a move to attack the SDF
and enter Syria, Russia in turn would militarily support the SAA with its air force to free
Idlib; and in case of incidents with Turkey, the Russian armed forces would respond with all
the interest earned from the unrequited downing of the Su-24 in 2015.
Erdogan has no choice. He must find an agreement with Damascus, and this is why he found
himself commenting on Trump's words the following day, criticizing US sanctions on Iran in the
presence of Iranian president Rouhani. The SDF know that they are between a rock and a hard
place, and have already sent a delegation to start negotiations with Damascus.
Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in
doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies,
infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of
these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.
'Trickle down effect' - the favourite buzzword of neoliberal supporters. I'd like to see
trickle down effect tried at the local pub on the taps by the local mp. Imagine what would
happen. Definitely doesn't pass the pub test.
"So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious
threat."
Seen as a serious threat by some?
"Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic
weakness in the Soviet system. The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and
innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs. An
inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy
that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the
defense budget and the tax load on American citizens."
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat." So it was, was it? That's really the
beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were a few naysayers back then, since
largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives, who claimed that Stalin's
postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to protect the USSR from the
talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was well aware of all the loose
talk on the American side and his country had just endured the same attempt on the part of
Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids -- ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"... My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™ ..."
"... Today's Jerusalem Post had a link to this Kamala Harris political fund-raising ad. ..."
"... Boot, Nuland, Shapiro, Stephens, Reiner, etc etc – one (((chickenhawk))) after another ..."
"... This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt mad witch to a man, are unhappy. ..."
"... Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win ..."
"... NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors. ..."
President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary James
Mattis. The Mattis resignation
letter focused on the betrayal of allies, though it was inevitably light on details,
suggesting that the Marine Corps General was having some difficulty in discerning that American
interests might be somewhat different than those of feckless and faux allies like Israel and
Saudi Arabia that are adept at manipulating the levers of power in Washington and in the media.
Mattis clearly appreciates that having allies is a force multiplier in wartime but fails to
understand that it is a liability otherwise as the allies create an obligation to go to war on
their behalf rather than in response to any actual national interest.
The media was quick to line up behind Mattis. On Friday, The New York Times
featured
a lead editorial entitled "Jim Mattis was right" while neocon twitter accounts blazed with
indignation. Prominent chickenhawk mouthpieces David Frum and Bill Kristol, among many others,
tweeted
that the end is nigh.
During the day preceding Mattis's dramatic announcement, the press went to war against the
Administration over Syria and also regarding other reports that there would be troop reductions
in Afghanistan. The following headline actually appeared
on a Reuters online article the day after the announcement by the president: "In Syria
retreat, Trump rebuffs top advisers and blindsides U.S. commanders." It would be difficult to
imagine stuffing more bullshit into one relatively short sentence. "Retreat," "rebuffs" and
"blindsides" are not words that are intended to convey any sort of even-handed assessment of
what is occurring in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. They are instead meant to imply that
"Hey, that moron in the White House has screwed up again!"
Consider for a moment the agenda that Reuters is apparently pushing. It is supporting an
illegal
and unconstitutional invasion of Syria by the United States that has a stated primary
objective of removing a terrorist organization which is already mostly gone and a less
frequently acknowledged goal of regime change for the legitimate government in Damascus and the
expulsion of that government's principal allies. Reuters is asserting that staying in Syria
would be a good thing for the United States and also for its "allies" in the region even though
there is no way to "win" and no exit strategy.
Reuters is presumably basing its assessment on the collective judgments of a group of "top
advisers" who are warmongers that the rest of the world as well as many Americans consider to
be psychopaths or possibly even insane. And then there are the preferences of the "blindsided"
generals, like Mattis, who have a personal interest in career terms for maintaining a constant
state of warfare. If you want to really know how what the military thinks about an ongoing war
ask a sergeant or a private, never a general. They will tell you that they are sick of endless
deployments that accomplish nothing.
The New York Timeslead story
headline on Thursday also let you know that its Editors were not please by Trump's move. It
read "U.S. ExitSeen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS." They also
editorialized "Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His
Advisers."
The Washington Post was not far behind. It immediately ran an op-ed by the
redoubtable neocon chickenhawk Max Boot, whom Caitlin Johnstone
has dubbed The Man Who Has Been Wrong About Everything. The piece was entitled
Trump's surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies making a twofer
with an incredible "Fuck the EU"
Victoria Nuland's piece entitled "In a single tweet Trump destroys U.S. policy in the
Middle East," which appeared simultaneously. That anyone would regard Boot and Nuland as
objective authorities on the Middle East given their ultimate and prevailing loyalty to Israel
has to be wondered at, but then again Fred Hiatt is the editorial/opinion page editor and he is
of the same persuasion, both ethnically and philosophically. They are all, of course, devoted
Zionists and the big lie about what is going on in the region is apparently always worth
repeating. As Joseph Goebbels put it in 1941 " when one lies, one should lie big,
and stick to it even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
Comments relating to the articles, op-eds and editorials in the Post and
Times bordered on the hysterical, sometimes suggesting that readers actually believe
that Trump was following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin. And what was stirring at
Reuters, The Times , and the Post was only the tip of the iceberg. The
mainstream television news providers united in condemning the audacity of a president who might
actually try to end a war while the only favorable commentary on Trump's having taken a step
that is long overdue came from the alternative media.
One might profitably recall how Trump has only been praised as "presidential" by the
Establishment twice – when he staged cruise missile attacks on Syria based on faulty
intelligence. The Deep State wants blood, make no mistake about it and it is not interested in
"retreat." And Trump will also get almost no support from Congress, with only longtime critics
of Syrian policy Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
praising the move initially.
The arguments being made to criticize the Trump initiative were essentially cookie cutter
neocon soundbites. The Reuters piece in its first few lines of text asserts that the reversal
of policy "stunned lawmakers and allies with his order for U.S. troops to leave Syria, a
decision that upends American policy in the Middle East. The result, said current and former
officials and people briefed on the decision, will empower Russia and Iran and leave unfinished
the goal of erasing the risk that Islamic State, or ISIS, which has lost all but a sliver
territory, could rebuild." The article goes on to quote an anonymous Pentagon source who opined
that " Trump's decision was widely seen in the Pentagon as benefiting Russia as well as Iran,
both of which have used their support for the Syrian government to bolster their regional
influence. Iran also has improved its ability to ship arms to Lebanese Hezbollah for use
against Israel. Asked who gained from the withdrawal, the defense official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity, replied: 'Geopolitically Russia, regionally Iran.'"
Another so-called expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute was also cited in the
article, saying "It completely takes apart America's broader strategy in Syria, but perhaps
more importantly, the centerpiece of the Trump administration policy, which is containing
Iran."
Israel is also
turning up the heat on Trump, claiming that the move will make it more insecure. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to increase air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria as an
added security measure to make up for the American betrayal. Normally liberal American Jews
have joined the hue and cry against Trump on behalf of Israel. Filmmaker Rob Reiner
tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant
narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.
The real story, lost in the wailing and gnashing to teeth, is that even after conceding that
Donald Trump's hyperbolic claim that the United States had defeated ISIS as the motive for the
withdrawal is nonsense, there is still no good reason for Washington to continue to keep troops
in Syria. The U.S. in reality did far less in the war against the terrorist groups infesting
the region than did the Russians, Iranians or the Syrians themselves and, as a result, it will
have less say in what kind of Syria emerges from the carnage. That is almost certainly a good
thing for the Syrian people.
But let's assume for sake of argument that the U.S. invasion really was about ISIS. Well,
ISIS continues to hold on to a small bit of territory near the Euphrates River and is reported
to have between one and two thousand remaining fighters. There are other estimates suggesting
that between 10,000 and 20,000 followers have dispersed and gone underground awaiting a
possible resurgence by the group. The argument that ISIS will reorganize and re-emerge as a
result of the American withdrawal assumes that it is the 2,000 strong U.S. armed forces that
are keeping it down, which is ridiculous. The best remedy against an ISIS recovery is to
support a restored and re-unified Syria, which will have more than enough resources available
to eliminate the last bits of the terrorist groups remaining in its territory.
So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Iran is a second world country with a small military and economy with no nuclear arsenal and it
neither threatens the United States nor any of its neighbors. But Israel supported by Saudi
Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria
recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to "counter"
Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to
begin with.
And then there is the argument that the U.S. departure empowers Iran and Russia. Staying in
Syria is, on the contrary, a drain on both those countries' limited resources. The more money
and manpower they have to commit to Syria the less they have to become engaged elsewhere and it
is hard to imagine how either country would exploit the "victory" in Syria to leverage their
involvement in other parts of the world. Both would be delighted if a final settlement of the
Syrian problem could be arrived at so they can get out.
And as for the United States, the military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the
U.S. itself or vital interests. There is nothing like that at stake in Syria. So, is American
national security better or worse if the U.S. leaves? As Russian and American soldiers only
confront each other directly in Syria, U.S. national security would in fact be greatly improved
because the danger of igniting an accidental war with Russia would be dramatically reduced.
There have reportedly already been a dozen incidents between U.S. and Russian troops, including
some involving shooting. That has been a dozen too many. Even the possibility of starting an
unintended war with Iran would potentially be disastrous for the United States as well as for
everyone else in the region, so it is far better to put some distance between the two
sides.
And finally, it is necessary to go to the argument for disengagement from Syria that is too
little heard in the western media or from the usual bonehead politicians named Graham and Rubio
who pronounce on foreign policy. How has American intervention in the Middle East and south and
central Asia benefited the people in the countries that have been invaded or bombed? Not at
all. By some estimates four million Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since
2001 and millions more displaced. More than eight thousand U.S. military have died in the
process in wars that had no purpose and no exit strategy. And the wars have been expensive
–
$6 trillion and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end
and it has to stop Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz
Review
Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there
might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more
attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from
all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will
either fold completely or bend at least a bit. It is to be hoped that he will not do so as a
Christmas present to the American people. And he might want to think of a Christmas present for
2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review
The very fact that Hollywood twits who couldn't find Syria on the outline map of the world to
save their lives have been roped in to get all outraged about Trump withdrawing troops from
Syria proves that the military industrial complex is worried that it will lose sales if the
Amerikastani Empire steps back from actively looking for war.
The military industrial complex, after all, runs Hollywood ...
Again I have the idea that my, not just mine, theory about Trump is confirmed, he understands
that the USA will destroy itself economically and politically by continuing to try to control
the world.
Of course, USA Deep State is furious, through its mouth pieces CNN, Washpost and NYT.
Of course Netanyahu is more than furious, Sharon's 'we control America' seems to be over.
If Putin and Trump agree explicitly or implicitly, I do not know, and, if they indeed agree,
it does not matter.
The essential thing for me is that both in Washington and in Moscow we now have reasonable
men, who understand that warfare is just destruction of wealth.
Interesting is what the consequences for EU and NATO will be.
They must be in utter confusion.
What a great present, unexpectedly getting a Phil Giraldi column on Christmas day! Merry
Christmas, Phil and everyone !
I'm little more pessimistic about Trump's withdrawal from Syria; it seems to me all the
more proof that he's getting ready to attack Iran !
If you wanted to do that, you'd first clear it with the Israelis and they'd be quiet
(check) – actually, this would be their plan; then you would get US troops out of Syria
to protect them from Iranian troops in Syria (invited by Assad), (check). then you would move
one or two aircraft carriers into the Persian gulf (check)!
Then you would hit Iran on New Year's Day (open), and then you would take Trump down for
starting an illegal war (open).
All birds down with Stalin-esque (criminal) elegance!
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims
and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally
occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™
The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from
Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well,
Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist
attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:
1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to
understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being:
apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists,
homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)
2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely
to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily
solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.
3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as
Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more
wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also
making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs
funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood
Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.
Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could
have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a
group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern
extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German
women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They
get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names
and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some
American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of
women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little
push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the
West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.
And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at
all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US
Ambassador.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."
He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just
not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an
effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing
Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a
liar.
@MAGAnotMISA
What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims
annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.
Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand
that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government.
One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.
Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success.
Judaism lost the battle with Christianity, Bolshevism failed in Russia, getting equal rights
in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in
surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbors, and all over the world, and Jewish puppet
Hillary was not elected.
The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast
military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters
must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing
profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his
father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.
In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,
"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this
little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."
That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no
expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies
of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically
deadly and destructive.
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to
see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.
I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to
my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee
Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the
Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.
Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a
state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner
who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good
riddance.
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ),
Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis
) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are
sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called
Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither
binoculars nor field guide.
But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of
warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.
President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a
face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that
there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big
surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday
stockings.
Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilizing a local
rival of both? Who knows?
What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the
rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can
buy.
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for
war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the
profits from the wars! ...
@chris
Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17
years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country
totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to
be liberators).
Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants to pull out. All three countries were much
smaller and weaker than Iran...
But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to
follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality.
Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against
the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good
news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day....
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog
could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until
the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is
disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the
workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all
locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ
such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"
Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he
won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade
away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The
United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital
interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians.
They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.
Trump
was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters
believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired
mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay
for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq,
online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more
profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap
anymore.
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal
from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also
add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish
state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley
would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
@ChuckOrloski
In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and
elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think
their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be
placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their
proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.
Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and
Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and
see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but
with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.
It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but
have a Merry Christmas!
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.
This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war
they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And
since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our
policies.
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he
promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt
mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is
actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100%
fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
@follyofwar
Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No,
they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as
possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines.
And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very
little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.
-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain
sanctions and other pressure on Iran.
-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the
U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.
-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece
pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from
tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.
Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major
policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary
to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is
saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow
thru on the crazy.
@MAGAnotMISA
"ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US
attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab
lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "
– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the
Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate"
terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/
Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan
The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to
the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed
in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in
Syria.
The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in
recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and
Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.
Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian
border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli
police and UN forces.
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow
benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
@renfro
Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that
there are elections due on 9 April.
You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a
missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days
when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.
"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media
yawns," by Eva Bartlett.
"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on
December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's
involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists --
including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other
non-rescuer behaviour.
a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets)
bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical
attack."
In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of
organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo
man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.
Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has
covered the event and its critical contents.
This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to
propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to
present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official
narrative.
@DESERT
FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep
state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where
the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when
every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"
The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get
counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings.
The 3rd building was only explosives.
@jilles
dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"
– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of
mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the
pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military
confrontation with Iran/Russia. As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.
@Bragadocious
What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long
gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they
think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has
got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And
their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
@jilles
dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice
of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without
actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds
bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's
the end of the world," etc.
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).
Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few
layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK,
let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our
middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an
exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.
No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global
ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the
eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to
think over the long term.
Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?
@Sarah
Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get
lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
@Realist
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
@follyofwar
Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship"
should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere.
Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax, but I don't think any Iranians are.
Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything
goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.
@Svigor
It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that
they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of
their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC
and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show
their true colors.
@m___
Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually,
positive and optimistic.
If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of
better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same
page and malevolent re us , the common folks.
I am afraid that's not the case.
I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power
who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The
malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor
whim,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors
bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides
otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.
Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been
happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for
long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.
The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by
that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.
They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.
All wars are jews wars: "Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative
voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's
security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"
"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with
three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces.
Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the
process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their
hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by
ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a
civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for
the jihadists.
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not
happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state
structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan,
which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an
end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole
financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war
[in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a
unipolar world .
Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a
campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed
to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil
war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military
presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of
power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth.
The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
@Realist
When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an
economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia
were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are
still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full
recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played
nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd
ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for
Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to
al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib
extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards
of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on
the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy
and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division
might reward it.)
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
I still had some things I didn't talk about in Sunday's Trump Derangement
International , about how the European press have found out that they, like the US MSM, can
get lots of viewers and readers simply by publishing negative stories about Donald Trump. The
US president is an attention magnet, as long as you only write things about him designed to
make him look bad.
The Guardian is only too happy to comply. They ran a whole series of articles on Sunday to
do juts that: try to make Trump look bad. Note that the Guardian editorial team that okayed the
articles is the same as the one that allowed
the fake Assange/Manafort one , so their credibility is already shot to pieces. It's the
magic triangle of today's media profits: spout non-stop allegations against Russia, Trump and
Julian Assange, and link them when and where you can. It doesn't matter if what you say is true
or not.
Anyway, all the following is from the Guardian, all on December 23. First off, Adam Gabbatt
in New York, who has painstakingly researched how Trump's businesses, like Trump Tower and the
Trump store, don't appear to have sufficiently (as per him) switched from Happy Holidays to
Merry Christmas. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud. A smash hit there Adam, bring out the
handcuffs.
During Donald Trump's presidential campaign he talked often about his determination to win
one particular war. A war that had been raging for years, he said. Specifically: the war on
Christmas. But despite Trump's repeated claims that "people are saying Merry Christmas again"
instead of the more inclusive "happy holidays", there are several places where the Christmas
greeting is absent: Trump's own businesses.
The Trump Store, for example. Instead of a Christmas gift guide – which surely would
be more in keeping with the president's stated desire for the phrase to be used – the
store offers a holiday gift guide. "Shop our Holiday Gift Guide and find the perfect present
for the enthusiast on your list," the online store urges. "Carefully curated to celebrate the
most wonderful time of year with truly unique gifts found only at Trump Store. Add a bow on
top with our custom gift wrapping. Happy Holiday's!"
The use of the phrase "Happy Holiday's" [sic] in Trump marketing would seem particularly
egregious. The long-standing "War-on-Christmas" complaint from the political right is that
stores use the phrase "Happy Holidays", rather than specifically mentioning the Christian
celebration. It is offered as both an example of political correctness gone mad, and as an
effort to erase Christianity from the US.
It's just, I think that if Trump had personally interfered to make sure there were Merry
Christmas messages all around, you would have remarked that as president, he's not allowed to
be personally involved in his businesses. But yeah, you know, just to keep the negativity
going, it works, no matter how fluffy and hollow.
Second, still on December 23, is Tom McCarthy for the Guardian in New York, who talks about
Robert Mueller's phenomenal successes. Mueller charged 34 people so far. In a case that
involves "this complexity which has international implications, aspects relying on the
intelligence community, complicated cyber components". It really says that.
And yes, that's how many people view this. What do they care that Mueller's original mandate
was to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and 'Russians', and that he has not proven
any collusion at all so far, not even with 34 people charged? What do they care? It looks like
Trump is guilty of something, anything, after all, and that's all the circus wants.
One measure of special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutorial success in 2018 is the list
of former top Donald Trump aides brought to justice: Michael Cohen pleaded guilty, a jury
convicted Paul Manafort, a judge berated Michael Flynn. Another measure is the tally of new
defendants that Mueller's team charged (34), the number of new guilty pleas he netted (five)
and the amount of money he clawed back through tax fraud cases ($48m).
Yet another measure might judge Mueller's pace compared with previous independent
prosecutors. "I would refer to it as a lightning pace," said Barb McQuade, a University of
Michigan law professor and former US attorney. "In a case of this complexity which has
international implications, aspects relying on the intelligence community, complicated cyber
components – to indict that many people that quickly is really impressive work."
But there's perhaps a more powerful way to measure Mueller's progress in his investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 US election and links between Moscow and the Trump
campaign; that's by noticing how the targets of his investigation have changed their postures
over the course of 2018, from defiance to docility – or in the case of Trump himself,
from defiance to extreme, hyperventilating defiance.
In reality, you would be at least as correct if you would claim that Robert Mueller's
investigation has been an abject failure. Not one iota of collusion has been proven after 20
months and $20 million in funds have been used. And any serious investigation of Washington's
culture of fixers and lobbyists would land at least 34 people who have committed acts that
border on or over illegality. And in a matter of weeks, for a few hundred bucks.
Third, still on December 23, is Julian Borger in Washington, who's been elected to convey
the image of chaos. Trump Unleashed, says our modern day Shakespeare. With Jim Mad Dog Mattis
characterized as ".. the last independently minded, globally respected, major figure left in
the administration".. . Again, it really says that.
Because woe the man who tries to bring US troops home, or even promises to do so a few days
before Christmas. For pulling out America's finest, Donald Trump is being portrayed as
something eerily close to the antichrist. That truly is the world on its head. Bringing troops
home to their families equals chaos.
Look, guys, if Trump has been guilty of criminal behavior, the US justice system should be
able to find that out and convict him for it. But that's not what this is about anymore. A
million articles have been written, like these ones in the Guardian, with the sole intention,
evidence being scarce to non-existent, of smearing him to the extent that people see every
subsequent article in the light of a man having previously been smeared.
The US stumbled into the holiday season with a sense of unravelling, as a large chunk of
the federal government ground to a halt, the stock market crashed and the last independently
minded, globally respected, major figure left in the administration announced he could no
longer work with the president. The defense secretary, James Mattis, handed in his
resignation on Thursday, over Donald Trump's abrupt decision to pull US troops out of
Syria.
On Saturday another senior official joined the White House exodus. Brett McGurk, the
special envoy for the global coalition to defeat Isis and the US official closest to
America's Kurdish allies in the region, was reported to have handed in his resignation on
Friday. That night, senators flew back to Washington from as far away as Hawaii for emergency
talks aimed at finding a compromise on Trump's demand for nearly $6bn for a wall on the
southern border, a campaign promise which has become an obsession.
Now look at the next headline, December 23, Graeme Wearden, Guardian, and ask yourself if
it's really Trump saying he doesn't agree with the rate hikes that fuels the fears, or whether
it's the hikes themselves. And also ask yourself: when Trump and Mnuchin both deny reports of
Trump firing Powell, why do journalists keep saying the opposite? Because they want to fuel
some fears?
From where I'm sitting, it looks perfectly logical that Trump says he doesn't think Powell's
decisions are good for the US economy. And it doesn't matter which one of the two turns out to
be right: Trump isn't the only person who disagrees with the Fed hikes.
The main suspect for 2019 market turmoil is the inevitable fallout from the Fed's QE under
Bernanke and Yellen. And there is something to be said for Powell trying to normalize rates,
but there's no doubt that may hasten, if not cause, turmoil. Blaming it on Trump not agreeing
with Jay Powell is pretty much as left field as it gets.
Over the weekend, a flurry of reports claimed Donald Trump had discussed the possibility
of firing the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. Such an unprecedented move would
trigger further instability in the markets, which have already had their worst year since the
2008 crisis. US officials scrambled to deny Trump had suggested ousting Powell, who was
appointed by the president barely a year ago.
The Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, tweeted that he had spoken to the president, who
insisted he "never suggested firing" Powell, and did not believe he had the right to do this
. However, Trump also declared – via Mnuchin – that he "totally disagrees" with
the Fed's "absolutely terrible" policy of raising interest rates and unwinding its
bond-buying stimulus programme, piling further pressure on the US's independent central
bank.
And now, in the only article in the Guardian series that's December 24, not 23, by Victoria
Bekiempis and agencies, the plunging numbers in the stock markets are Trump's fault, too.
Top Democrats have accused Donald Trump of "plunging the country into chaos" as top
officials met to discuss a growing rout in stock markets caused in part by the president's
persistent attacks on the Federal Reserve and a government shutdown. "It's Christmas Eve and
President Trump is plunging the country into chaos," the two top Democrats in Congress, House
speaker nominee Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, wrote in a joint
statement on Monday. "The stock market is tanking and the president is waging a personal war
on the Federal Reserve – after he just fired the Secretary of Defense."
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve on Monday, describing it as the "only problem" for
the US economy, even as top officials convened the "plunge protection team" forged after the
1987 crash to discuss the growing rout in stock markets. The crisis call on Monday between US
financial regulators and the US treasury department failed to assure markets, and stocks fell
again amid concern about slowing economic growth, the continuing government shutdown, and
reports that Trump had discussed firing Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell.
The last one is from one Jonathan Jones, again December 23, again for the Guardian. And it
takes the top award in the narrative building contest.
Again, the Guardian editorial team that okayed this article is still the same as the one
that allowed the fake Assange/Manafort one, an editorial team that sees no problem in making
things up in order to smear people. To portray Trump, Assange and anyone who's had the
misfortune of being born in Russia as suspicious if not outright criminal.
But look at what Jones has to say, and what Guardian editor-in-chief Kathy Viner and her ilk
allowed and pressured him to say. He wants to have a say in how Trump should dress (seasonal
knitwear), he evokes the image of Nazi architect Albert Speer for no reason at all, and then
it's a matter of mere inches until you arrive at Trump as a king, an emperor, an inner
tyrant.
"He's in a tuxedo!", Like that's a bad thing for Christmas. "She's in white!". Oh dear, call
the pope. If both Trumps would have put on Christmas sweaters in front of a fire, the writer
would have found something negative in that.
The absence of intimacy in the Trumps' official Christmas portrait freezes the heart. Can
it be that hard to create a cosy image of the presidential couple, perhaps in front of a
roaring hearth, maybe in seasonal knitwear? Or is this quasi-dictatorial image exactly what
the president wants to project? Look on my Christmas trees, ye mighty, and despair! If so, it
fuels suspicions that it is only the checks and balances of a 230-year-old constitution that
are keeping America from the darkest of political fates. You couldn't create a creepier
Yuletide scene if you tried. Multiple Christmas trees are currently a status symbol for the
wealthy, but this picture shows the risks.
Instead of a homely symbol of midwinter cheer, these disciplined arboreal ranks with their
uniform decorations are arrayed like massed soldiers or colossal columns designed by Albert
Speer. The setting is the Cross Hall in the White House and, while the incumbent president
cannot be held responsible for its architecture, why heighten its severity with such rigid,
heartless seasonal trappings? Everything here communicates cold, empty magnificence. Tree
lights that are as frigid as icicles are mirrored in a cold polished floor. Equally frosty
illuminations are projected on the ceiling. Instead of twinkling fairy magic, this lifeless
lighting creates a sterile, inhuman atmosphere.
You can't imagine kids playing among these trees or any conceivable fun being had by
anyone. It suggests the micromanaged, corporate Christmas of a Citizen Kane who has long
since lost touch with the ordinary, warm pleasures of real life. In the centre of this
disturbing piece of conceptual art stand Donald and Melania Trump. He's in a tuxedo, she's
wearing white – and not a woolly hat in sight. Their formal smartness adds to the
emotional numbness of the scene. Trump's shark-like grin has nothing generous or friendly
about it. He seems to want to show off his beautiful wife and his fantastic home rather than
any of the cuddly holiday spirit a conventional politician might strive to share at this
time.
It begs a question: how can a man who so glaringly lacks anything like a common touch be
such a successful "populist"? What can a midwestern voter find in this image to connect with?
Perhaps that's the point. After more than two centuries of democracy, Trump is offering the
US people a king, or emperor. In this picture, he gives full vent to his inner tyrant. If
this portrait contains any truth about the state of America and the world, may Santa help us
all.
I realize that you may be tired of the whole story. I realize you may have been caught in
the anti-Trump narrative. And I am by no means a Trump fan. But I will keep on dragging you
back to this. Because the discussion should not be based on a handful of media moguls not
liking Trump. It should not be based on innuendo and smear. If Trump is to be convicted, it
must be on evidence.
And there is no such evidence. Robert Mueller has charged 34 people, but none with what his
mandate was based on, none with Russia collusion. This means that the American political
system, and democracy itself, is under severe threat by the very media that are supposed to be
its gate keepers.
None of this is about Trump, or about whether you like him or not, or even if he's a shady
character or not. Instead, it's about the influence the media have on how our opinions and
ideas about people and events are being shaped on a daily basis.
And once you acknowledge that your opinions of Trump, Putin et al, even without any proof of
a connection between them, are actively being molded by the press you expect to inform you
about the truth behind what goes on, you will have to acknowledge, too, that you are a captive
of forces that use your gullibility to make a profit off you.
If our media need to make up things all the time about who's guilty of what, because our
justice systems are incapable of that, then we have a problem so enormous we may not be able to
overcome it in our present settings.
Alternatively, if we trust our justice systems to deliver true justice, we don't need a
hundred articles a day to tell us how Trump or Putin are such terrible threats to our world.
Our judges will tell us, not our journalists or media who are only in it for a profit.
I can say: "let's start off 2019 trying to leave prejudice behind", and as much as that is
needed and you may agree with me, it's no use if you don't realize to what extent your views of
the world have been shaped by prejudice.
I see people reacting to the star writer at Der Spiegel who wrote a lot about Trump, being
exposed as a fraud. I also see people trying to defend Julian Assange from the Guardian article
about his alleged meetings with Paul Manafort, that was an obvious big fat lie (the truth is
Manafort talked to Ecuador to help them 'sell' Assange to the US).
But reacting to the very obvious stuff is not enough . The echo chamber distorts the truth
about Trump every single day, and at least six times on Sunda y, as this essay of mine shows.
It's just that after two years of this going on 24/7, it is perceived as the normal.
Everyone makes money dumping on the Donald, it's a proven success formula, so why would the
Guardian and Der Spiegel stay behind? They'd only hurt their own bottom line.
It has nothing to do with journalism, though, or news. It's smear and dirt, the business
model of the National Enquirer. That's how far our once truthful media have fallen.
All these journalists are influenced and manipulated by 'Australian-American Leadership
Dialogue', 'Atlantikbrücke', Open Society Foundation money etc. Wars boost the NYSE
because many weapons manufacturers are listed there.
If the journalists weren't manipulated all 2018 compilations would not have omitted the
World Cup in Russia.
"... Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating schemes have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in persuasion. "Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of scandalous. ..."
"... Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision for fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History is littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen in this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. ..."
This message is clear and concise. It is however never going to be heard beyond the
'Guardian'.
The MSM are hardly going to publish this article, nor are they going to
reference it, why should they? It goes against everything they have been fighting for and the
tin ear of their readership are unwilling to change teir views.
The only thing that they understand is money and the concentration of wealth. This
misonception as Dennis So far this has been handed to them on a plate, the taxation system
has enabled them to manipulate an multiply their earnings. So much of money the has nothing
to do with adding value to this countries economy but is speculative in nature based on
financial and overseas instruments.
No is the time for our government to take the lead and start as the Victorian ALP have
done and invest in people and jobs on the back of strategic investment. It is a fallacy that
governments don't create jobs they, through their policies do just that.
Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating
schemes have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in
persuasion. "Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of
scandalous.
Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision
for fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History
is littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen
in this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
When governments like the LNP (driven as it is by its ideology of greed, the IPA manifesto
and Gina Rinehart's idea of what Australia should look like [and how little she should pay to
pillage "communally owned" assets to enrich herself beyond imagination - she has no greater
claim over the Pilbara than any other Australian, but like all who live by the ethos of
greed, she thinks she should get it all for nothing]).
When the LNP talk about "small government" and "slashing red tape" it is politician-speak
for small government and NO red tape for the rich. What it also means is much more government
and red tape for the poor and vulnerable - as we would expect, the rich and powerful, who
really dictate economic and social policy in this country enlist willing governments to enact
measures that suppress the lower classes. It is not quite calling out the military (as Hawke
did during the pilot's strike at the insistence of the corpulent Ables - one act for which I
will always despise Hawke), but it has the same result by more surreptitious, lasting and
egregious means.
And one of the lasting legacies of the philosophies of neo-liberalism, from which the
Hanson's of the world "suck their oxygen" is that the political and corporate dialogue of the
last 30 or so years has pushed the notion of self-entitlement and vilification of the poor
and vulnerable further down the economic ladder. So now, we have countless Australians on
reasonable incomes who, like the rich, are convinced that all of our social and economic ills
can be rectified if we stop giving handouts to the bludgers, the malingerers, the disabled
and the indigenous - the neo-liberal rhetoric is now so widespread that it is easier than
ever for the vulnerable to be attacked and for many, that is seen as absolutely necessary. It
is the false US-sourced notion that if you are poor, it is because you deserve to be and if I
am rich - it isn't luck or inheritance - it is because I deserve it. This world-view makes it
so much easier to attack the vulnerable as receiving way to much to sit at home and
bludge.
Want to forget the now disgraced CEO of Australia Post who bought a Sydney mansion for $22
million and now wants to sell it for $40 million - tax free I might add. He is entitled to
that wealth enhancement. But someone on the dole smokes a spliff now and then and we think
they should lose their entitlements to an income that doesn't even get them up to the poverty
line (but they should be grateful for that pittance). Want to forget the CEO's who
pretentiously do their "sleeping rough" for a night and proclaim their empathy for the
homeless who would shriek at paying more tax to genuinely fund programmes to help the down
and outs. No problem - just embrace the selfish and greedy neo-liberalism philosophy.
This article is excellent and well overdue. All we need to do now is to wrench control of our
mainstream media out of the hands of Corporate (foreign) control. We are being told to vote
against ourselves in order for the few corporate elite to accrue massive wealth and
power over us.
MEDIA laws need to be very strict with very, very severe financial penalties for bias and
propaganda. Certainly remove this concept of self regulation whereby they sit on their own
disciplinary boards. Raise the standards of our media and allow us to retrieve some semblance
of our democracy.
Without media control, how would corporations be able to manipulate and propagandise the
populace with their own vested interests.
That is why governments are doing corporate bidding and getting fascist style surveillance
of its people, in order to counteract the ability of the people to gain knowledge through the
internet and vote against corporate control of our democracy.... nothing to do with terrorism
which was caused mostly by corporate foreign extraction of wealth through weapon sales;
resource acquisition, etc.
It is back to control of our mainstream media by the very (foreign) corporations that are
sucking out our wealth and putting nothing back.
Corporate media ia all powerful. They insidiously permeate the populace with corporate
views of Australia's financial and economy; infrastructure and every aspect of social
life from birth to euthanasia with racism and religion thrown in for good measure.
Should a politician have the audacity to act against their corporate interests, they do
not last long, without exclusions - PMs Whitlam and Rudd being prime examples.
This current mob of gutless underachieving dinosaur neo con nutters in govt, are
completely turning over Australia to these Corporate (foreign) parasites and our prospect is
not looking good.
Within no time we will be a Corporatocracy (as is the USA) and along with that comes 1%
owning 99% of the wealth; third world poverty; crime through the roof; drugs out of control;
public health and education a joke; public services non existent; legal system in disarray
and entrenched with bias and inequity.
"... The political strategy behind these contradictions is simple: it is difficult to criticise government spending on health and education, or popular regulations like consumer protection and limits on executive pay. So why not just criticise all government spending and all ..."
After the mining boom and decades of economic growth, how can Australia be broke?
Gina Rinehart was becoming the world's richest woman those on the minimum wage were falling further and
further behind
Australia just experienced one of the biggest mining booms in
world history. But even at the peak of that boom, there was no talk of the wonderful opportunity we finally had to invest in world-class
mental health or domestic violence crisis services.
Nor was there much talk from either major party about how the wealth of the
mining boom gave us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in remote Indigenous communities. Nope, the peak of the mining boom
was not the time to help those who had missed out in decades past, but the Howard government thought it was a great time to introduce
permanent tax cuts for high-income earners. These, of course, are the tax cuts that caused the budget deficits we have today.
Millions of tonnes of explosives were used during the mining boom to build more than 100 new mines, but it wasn't just prime farmland
that was blasted away in the boom, it was access to the middle class. At the same time that Gina Rinehart was becoming the world's
richest woman on the back of rising iron ore prices, those on the minimum wage were falling further and further behind their fellow
Australians.
Like Joe Hockey, Rinehart saw the problem of inequality as having more to do with the character of the poor than
with the rules of the game: "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something
to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."
Privatisation is deeply unpopular with voters. Here's how to end it | John Quiggin
Australia isn't poor; it is rich beyond the imagining of anyone living in the 1970s or 80s. But so much of that
new wealth has been vacuumed up by a few, and so little of that new wealth has been paid in tax, that the public has
been convinced that ours is a country struggling to pay its bills.
Convincing Australians that our nation is poor and that our governments "can't afford" to provide the level of services they provided
in the past has not just helped to lower our expectations of our public services and infrastructure, it has helped to lower our expectations
of democracy itself. A public school in Sydney has had to ban kids from running in the playground because it was so overcrowded.
Trains have become so crowded at peak hours that many people, especially the frail and the disabled, are reluctant to use them. And
those who have lost their jobs now wait for hours on the phone when they reach out to Centrelink for help.
Although people with low expectations are easier to con, fomenting cynicism about democracy comes at a long-term cost. Indeed,
as the current crop of politicians is beginning to discover, people with low expectations feel they have nothing to lose.
As more and more people live with the poverty and job insecurity that flow directly from neoliberal welfare and industrial relations
policies, the scare campaigns run so successfully by the likes of the Business Council of Australia have lost their sting. Scary
stories about the economy become like car alarms: once they attracted attention, but now they simply annoy those forced to listen.
'If governments can't make a difference and all politicians are corrupt, why not vote for outsiders?
After decades of hearing conservative politicians say that government is the problem, a growing number of conservative
voters no longer care which major party forms government. If governments can't make a difference and all politicians
are corrupt, why not vote for outsiders like Jacqui Lambie or Clive Palmer? There is perhaps no clearer evidence of
the short-termism of the Liberal and National parties today than their willingness to fan the flames of anti-politician
rhetoric without considering that it is their own voters who are most likely to heed the message.
Back when he was leading the campaign against Australia becoming a republic, Tony Abbott famously argued that you couldn't trust
politicians to choose our head of state. And more recently, in campaigning against marriage equality, Minister Matt Canavan was featured
in a television advertisement laughing at the thought that we could trust politicians.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world
Convincing Australians that the country was broke also helped convince us that we have no choice but to sell the
family silver. But of course we have a choice. Just as there is no right answer as to whether it's better to rent
a home or buy one, there is no right answer to whether it's better for governments to own the electricity supply,
the postal service or the water supply, or none of these things.
Different governments in different countries make different decisions at different points in time. While much of neoliberalism's
rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives.
Indeed, even the so-called free marketeers in Australia can see alternatives.
Consider stadiums, for example. The NSW Liberal government has a long track record of being pro-privatisation. It has sold off
billions of dollars' worth of electricity, water and health infrastructure. But when it comes to football stadiums, it has no ideological
problem with public ownership, nor any fiscal inhibition about spending billions of taxpayers' dollars.
In 2016 the NSW Liberal government spent $220m buying back ANZ Stadium, built in the 1990s with taxpayer funds at a cost of $690m
and subsequently sold to Stadium Australia Group. Having bought back the stadium, the NSW government plans to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars refurbishing it. That same money could build a lot of school science labs, domestic violence crisis centres or skate parks
for the bored kids the shopping malls don't want scratching up their marble stairs. For the past 30 years, Australians have been
told that we can't afford high-quality public services, that public ownership of assets is inefficient, and that the pursuit of free
markets through deregulation would create wealth and prosperity for all. But none of this is true.
While the policy agenda
of neoliberalism has never been broadly applied in Australia, for 30 years the language
of neoliberalism has been applied to everything from environmental protection to care of the disabled. The result of the partial
application of policy and the broad application of language is not just a yawning gap between those with the greatest wealth and
those with the greatest need, but a country that is now riven by demographic, geographic and racial divides.
Cutting the budget deficit is very important – except when it isn't
Australian politics
isn't about ideology, it's about interests. The clearest proof of that claim is that neoliberal ideas such
as deregulation were never aimed at powerful interest groups like the pharmacists or the gambling industry. And savage spending cuts
were never aimed at subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry or private health insurers.
Tony Abbott, who claimed to have a philosophical problem with carbon taxing, once proposed a 20% increase in the tobacco excise
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows
powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their
enemies and giving money to their friends. Here are some examples:
John Howard said he was obsessed with deregulating the labour market, but introduced 762 pages of labour-market regulation,
which he entitled WorkChoices. He didn't deregulate the labour market; he re-regulated it in his preferred form. He knew that
government decisions matter. Similarly, the Abbott government declared it was waging a war on red tape, yet the Turnbull government
is determined to pass new laws restricting unions and NGOs.
If there is one thing that neoliberals really seem to believe, it is that reducing the budget deficit is very, very important.
Except when it isn't. The political and business leaders who said we needed to slash welfare spending because we had a "budget
emergency" are currently advocating a $65bn tax cut for business – even though the deficit is bigger now than it was at the
time of the alleged emergency.
The Productivity Commission and state treasuries spent years advocating the deregulation and privatisation of the electricity
industry – and succeeded in creating a "free market" system governed by 5,000 pages of electricity market rules. Electricity
is too dangerous and too important to be deregulated, and those pushing for deregulation always knew that. They didn't want
a free market; they simply wanted a market, one in which the government played a smaller role and the private sector made large
profits selling an essential service for much higher prices than the government ever charged.
The NSW government requires NGOs and disability service providers to compete with each other but, when it sold Port Botany
and the Port of Newcastle, it structured the sales to ensure that Newcastle could not compete with Port Botany for the landing
of the millions of containers that arrive by ship each year. While "competition policy" is applied to the vulnerable, those
buying billion-dollar assets are protected from those same forces of competition.
To be clear, there has been no obsession among the political elite with the neoliberal goals of reducing government spending,
regulation or tax collection in Australia over the past three decades. None. They didn't mean a word of it. While there may have
been economists, commentators and even business leaders who sincerely believed in those goals, it is clear from their actions, as
distinct from their words, that John Howard, Tony Abbott and even the former head of the Business Council of Australia Tony Shepherd,
the man tasked with running Abbott's National Commission of Audit, had no principled objection to spending large amounts of public
money on things they liked spending large amounts of public money on. Indeed, in his speakers' agency profile, Tony Shepherd brags
about his ability to get public money for private ventures:
It is no mean feat to convince governments to support private sector proposals, but as former prime minister, the honourable
Paul Keating, said, "Tony managed to get more money out of my government than any other person I can recall."
Hundreds of new pages of regulation now govern the conduct of charities. Billions of taxpayers' dollars have been spent by "small
government" politicians on everything from television ads for innovation to subsidies for marriage counselling. And Tony Abbott,
who claimed to have a philosophical problem with carbon taxing, once proposed a 20% increase in the tobacco excise.
The political strategy behind these contradictions is simple: it is difficult to criticise government spending on health and education,
or popular regulations like consumer protection and limits on executive pay. So why not just criticise all government spending and
all
red tape in general? Once you have convinced the public that all government spending is inefficient, you can set about
cutting spending on your enemies and retaining it for your friends. And once you convince people that all regulation is bad, you
can set about removing consumer protections while retaining the laws that protect the TV industry, the gambling industry, the pharmaceutical
industry and all your other friends.
Cover of Dead Right by Richard Denniss, Quarterly Essay.
When powerful groups want subsidies, we are told they will create jobs. When powerless groups want better funding
for domestic violence shelters or after-school reading groups, they are told of the need to reduce the budget deficit.
When powerful groups demand new regulations, we are told it will provide business with certainty, but when powerless
groups demand new regulations, they are told it will create sovereign risk.
Ideology has a bad name these days, but it simply means a "system of ideas and ideals." By that definition, it is possible to
think of neoliberalism as an ideology focused on the idea that market forces are superior to government decision-making. But while
large segments of Australian politics and business have draped themselves, and their policy preferences, in the cloak of neoliberal
ideas and ideals, in reality to call them "ideologues" is to flatter them. They lack the consistency and strength of principle to
warrant the title.
Tue 16 Oct 2018
13.00 EDT
Last modified on Tue 16 Oct 2018
19.11 EDT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
This article is over
2 months old
Australian economic growth has been a 'standout' says Bernie Fraser, but too many have missed the benefits.
Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/EPA
Neoliberalism has caused "misery and social polarisation" yet remains in vogue with the Coalition government,
according to the economist Bernie Fraser.
The former Treasury secretary and Reserve Bank governor has made the
comments in a presentation circulated to participants of the Australia Institute's revenue summit to be held in
Canberra on Wednesday.
Michael Keating, a former secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will also use the summit
to raise doubts about the Morrison government's budget forecasts.
Australia's housing boom is not heading for a soft landing. How did we get
here? | Greg Jericho
Read more
In the background notes for Fraser's speech, seen by Guardian Australia, he says that Australia's 27 consecutive
years of economic growth is a "standout", "Winx-like" performance.
But the record deserves only "qualified applause" because "too many Australians remain unemployed, under-employed,
underskilled, underpaid and lack job security".
Fraser warns that society has become "less fair, less compassionate and more divided" and "more devoid of trust in
almost every field of human activity" in the past 20 years.
"As a disinterested player in climate change negotiations and a miserable foreign aid donor, we have slipped well
down the list of good global citizens."
Political ideologies appear to have contributed to inequality and disadvantage in Australia in that time, he
argues.
Fraser in large part blames "neoliberalism" and its influence on policymaking for the "disconnect between
Australia's impressive economic growth story and its failure on so many markers to show progress towards a better,
fairer society".
"Favouring the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of community interests, can
lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes.
More than three million Australians living in poverty, Acoss report reveals
Read more
"Those unable to afford access to decent standards of housing, healthcare, and other essential services have to
settle for inferior arrangements, or go without."
Fraser says charitable organisations see the effects of "real poverty" that result in "misery, anxiety and loss of
self-esteem of mothers unable to put food on the table for their kids, of old and young homeless people, and the
victims of domestic violence and drug overdoses".
Fraser summarises the key thrusts of neoliberalism as "the pursuit of the lowest possible rates of income and most
other taxes and the maximum restraint on government interventions and spending programs".
Evidence in Australia and overseas shows the influence of neoliberalism on fiscal policy "and the misery and
social polarisation that has come with it", he says.
The global financial crisis "should have" marked a tipping point, when the "idealised view of financial markets
being self-regulating" was shattered. While Australia "avoided the worst traumas of the GFC" with prompt fiscal and
monetary policy responses, in Europe "taxes were increased and spending programs slashed", resulting in a further
five or six years of severe recession.
Fraser says that all political ideologies – taken to extremes – can be divisive and cause damage, including an
ideology "based on a state system".
But the former Reserve Bank governor focuses on neoliberalism because it "remains in vogue". The Morrison
government "continues to reaffirm its over-riding commitment to lower taxation, and to assert that this is the best
way to increase investment, jobs and economic growth" -
despite the lack of evidence to support the theory
.
Although Fraser recognises that politics never can or should be taken out of policymaking, he suggests the best
course is to "hammer away" at flaws of particular approaches.
In a separate presentation Keating – who headed PM&C from 1991 to 1996 – warns the government's promise to cap
expenditure while simultaneously cutting taxes and returning the budget to surplus is based on overly optimistic
assumptions of growth in GDP, wages and productivity.
Why are stock markets falling and how far will they go?
Read more
According to Keating, the government must stop assuming there have been no structural changes in the relationship
between unemployment and the rate of wage increases.
He notes that predictions of a tightening labour market leading to higher wages are predicated on assumptions of
growth averaging 3% or as much as 3.5%.
He will also say a sustained return to past rates of economic growth will be impossible unless we can ensure a
reasonably equitable distribution of income, involving a faster rate of wage increases, especially for the low-paid.
Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck, has a forthcoming book, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and
the Future of White Majorities . He argues that what I would call "bad nationalism" –
the global surge in rightwing populism – is driven by large-scale immigration, and the
threat it poses to the cultural identity of the ethnic majority. Some people fear change; they
prefer the monocultural landscape in which they grew up, and visible changes to it threaten
their sense of belonging and security. Certain attitudes are, if not hereditary, baked in to
the point where they may as well be.
He supports this view with plentiful survey data, a favourite nugget being that the way you
answer the question, "Would you prefer your children to be well-mannered, or to be
considerate?" is a major predictor of whether you'd vote for or against Trump and Brexit .
The question is a proxy for what the cognitive linguist George Lakoff calls the strict
father (well-mannered) versus the nurturant family (considerate) model. These frames are the
timeless and elemental organising principles for our political divisions –
authoritarian versus pluralist, right versus left – all the way back to Christ the
Warrior versus Christ the Saviour.
I believe people respond to authoritarian and pluralist arguments according to who's
making them, how trenchantly they are made, and the economic, media and political environment
around them. Austerity soil has always been notoriously fertile for authoritarian ideas. Yet
Kaufmann dismisses any economic factor, saying that had there been one, 2008 would have seen
an upturn in rightwing nationalism, not 2017. My view is that depressions take years, not
months, to grind people down.
To me the key questions are how are the key decisions made and by whom are they made?
Globalism (not globalization, mind you) is a process whereby decisionmaking gets shifted
farther and farther from the people and democratic accountability is continually weakened -
ironically often with the rationale that we need this to "compete with China".
As a result, national borders (and therefore cultures) become less and less important
and institutions like central banks, the EU, the WTO, etc. become ever more powerful. What
you call neoliberalism is an effect - not the cause - of this phenomenon, in my
opinion.
By the way, I agree with you that there is hope - in fact I am more optimistic today
than I have been for many years - although probably for very different reasons than
you.
I am quite sure that for the time being the nation state is an essential form of political
and economic organisation. So I accept the necessity of nations. I reject nationalist
ideologies which at best are confused, like ZW's argument, and at worst are very nasty
things indeed.
I was stunned by the modernity of Renan's speech when I read it. Glad to see that it is
available online. Hope you read it.
Globalisation is the ability to move goods/finance/ideas/culture around the global at
speeds unheard of - there is no way to alter this, so your definition is inexact by quite a
margin.
What is happening is neoliberalism - the economic sytem which has hijacked Globalisation
- is playing havoc across the world.
These are not one and the same thing. Nationalism is a reaction to neoliberailsm, and
the way it is concentrating wealth in the hands of the few.
Take a look at places like Finland, Norway and other parts of Europe, where they have
restrained neoliberalism and do not have the same levels of inequality as in the USA or the
UK. Japan is the most equal developed nation in the world. We need to marry strong
democratic structures (at national and global level) with globalisation at the expense of
neo-liberalism, not in support of it.
In short, your view is depressing and misguided. There is hope.
Globalism is a system where a cosmopolitan class of technocratic elites makes all the
decisions after talking among themselves in well-appointed conference rooms to which common
people are not given access (think of what goes on in Brussels or in the ECB tower every
day).
Democracy is something else.
In my opinion the two are mutually incompatible.
Yes, I'm talking about both British and non-British Muslims. Here's the clarification
you're looking for: ICM Research for Channel 4 found that more than 100,000 British Muslims
sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only
one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody
close to them had become involved with jihadists.
In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law
in areas with large Muslim populations.
On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be
illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons.
39% of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5%
for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of
women accused of adultery.
Admittedly, this ICM survey is from 2016 so the picture may have improved, but I think
you'll agree, these attitudes are quite a long way from the enlightenment values
mentioned.
Open borders and nationalism are really different issues. One can recognise the need for
borders and border controls without convincing oneself that the people within a given
border line are therefore endowed with some common essence about which they can feel pride
or shame.
The pity about this is that liberal writers like ZW nearly always start from zero on
this issue as if there wasn't a whole mass of discussion of a very detailed kind that has
already taken place. Thus I would say that Ernest Renan's speech to the Surbonne in the
1880s published as What is a Nation? (reprinted in Shloma Sand's book On the
Nation and the 'Jewish People' ) is well in advance of ZW's musings.
I am with Einstein on this. He was once asked if he regarded himself as a German or a Jew.
He replied: "I look upon myself as a man. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the
measles of mankind".
I found ZW's suggestion that "you do not need to be proud of Oliver Cromwell in order to be
proud of Jessica Ennis-Hill" both revealing and ridiculous. If one is going to pick a
figure from English history not to be proud of why on earth would one choose Cromwell? And
on what grounds exactly does ZW feel proud of JE-H?
The Cromwell reference leads to a further point. Can the English, on ZW's argument, take
pride in the actions of Scots prior to the Act of Union? And can they take pride in the
actions of the Irish from Northern but not Southern Ireland?
I would nuance what you say just a little. Our actions contribute to producing not only
things but also people. A parent can feel justified pride in the actions of his/her
children as can a teacher in the actions of his/her pupils. There can also be a justified
sense of collective pride for people who have contributed to that collective. ZW is right
about that. She gets into a muddle when she tries to project this collective pride
backwards in time to things we could have had no part in.
People can be proud of their country , there is nothing wrong with it ,but when a country
consists of many ethnic groups and religions, identifying the country only with majority
ethno linguistic or religious group can lead to discrimination , alienation and resentment
. This has led to civil wars in many regions. Canada and Switzerland are some of the
exceptions where federal system and equalities of ethno linguistic groups have strengthened
their countries .I would call this good nationalism.
On the other hand, many countries in Asia and Africa are suffering from the conflicts due
to persecution or discrimination inflicted upon minorities from the majoritarian
governments.
Modi in India is using the nationalistic card, trying to give an impression that the
country only belongs to Hindus and Hindi speakers. In reality, India is not even a country
, it is a collection of nation states with many ethnic groups , languages and religions
which were united during the British rule. It is more diverse than the whole of Europe
.However Modi is keen to perpetuate the myth India is homogenous , this natinalistic
ideology might risk formenting divisions and conflicts in the future.I would call it 'bad
nationalism '
Aren't we looking for the word patriotism as opposed to nationalism here Mz. Williams? I've
always cleaved to Orwell's definitions of patriotism and nationalism. Predictably,
nationalism gets short shrift.....largely because nationalism is dim, divisive and utterly
undigestible for the vast majority of a nation at ease with itself. This is why Moggo,
Bojo, Foxy and Gove prefer nationalism.
I'm not the one who has a problem with neo-liberalism, it's provided for me more than
adequately. Having spent a lot of time living overseas, it's provided ALL Australians with a
far better deal than a few billion others.
If you are too naive to see this, then maybe you need to try an alternative for a while.
It's quite ok, i'll be waiting for when the alternative fails (they always do) and I can come
back and pick off the assets from the carcus of that little experiment for less than a cent
in the dollar.
The dog eat dog economy simply represents our nature, it's who we are, we thrive under
libertarianism.
Po-faced, Libertarian BOLLOCKS.
Privatisation is sucker-farming.
Milking the punters, like ants milk aphids.
Farming them, like bellbirds do with leaf-bugs.
And even THAT is only part of the equation.
The fondest goal, the one which gives the management class hard-ons ?
Privatisation de-unionises their workforces.
It is quite strange that the biggest supporters of neo-liberal economics with its belief that
giving money to the rich will solve all our problems call themselves 'Christians'.
I can't remember when Jesus preached trickle down. I don't remember the bit where Jesus
said to treat those seeking asylum and fleeing violence like they are the scum of the earth.
I don't remember when Jesus said the poor needed a good kick in the guts while they are down
to motivate them to work harder. I don't remember when Jesus said we should cut funds from
the sick to balance the budget. I don't remember Jesus saying that if you bear false witness
often enough then you will fool enough of the people enough to keep power so you can look
after your corporate buddy buddies.
In fact, almost all of the politicians in the Coalition who proclaim to be 'Christian'
must have their own secret bible because nothing I have heard from the New Testament
justifies their actions.
Me, I'm an atheist and I have more care, consideration, ethics and compassion than the
entire collection of right wing bible bashers sitting in parliament today.
Thanks for this. We need more of these articles pointing out the bullshit behind this story
that the Coalition has been feeding the gullible peasantry with for over 30 years, sneering,
smirking and sniggering as truckloads of public money goes to private corporations. The money
received from selling off public assets has been shoved into private businesses who then feel
very free to charge like bulls.
It's a shame so many folk still fall for this bullshit meaning that their own families, work
colleagues and community get shafted through diminishing public services.
They used to tell me I was building a dream
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow or guns to bear
I was always there right on the job
They used to tell me I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad, I made it run
Made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun
Brick and rivet and lime
Once I built a tower, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle de dum
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum
Say, don't you remember, they called me Al
It was Al all the time
Say, don't you remember, I'm your pal
Buddy, can you spare a dime?
'This is more or less the definition of increased productivity and it is what ultimately
leads to improved living standards for everyone'
Lazy, neoliberal, supply-side economic guff. Neoliberals undermine government and
democracy and then scavenge on the wreckage. When does 'ultimately' begin for 'everyone'?
Never.
'Private companies provide the same service with much less labour'
Firing people is the answer? What a hardened realist you are. Must be great to be so
certain in your neoliberal convictions. Are you really telling us that every privatisation
has been a success?
These pieces of infrastructure have been built through generations of work and wise
investment - they are not any one government's to sell. It's just easier for a corrupt,
rudderless, feckless neoliberal shill to sell it than it is for them to to run it.
Can't even begin to address the characteristic Libertarian slyness in all that.
But I'll try.
"What you call neoliberalism was a set of responses to the failure of socialism or as Tony
Blair said 'what matters is what works'."
Incorrect.
What I--what the world--calls "Neoliberalism', is the corpse of Classical economics,
resurrected post-WW2 by Friedman and Hayek's 'Mont Pelerin Society. '
Why was it buried ?
Because during the Great Depression, its dogmatic insistence on continued austerity and wage
cuts only made things worse.
After all, in an economic slump, whats the worst thing you can do ?
Deprive people of whatever little purchasing power they have.
So, goodbye Classical economics.
After which, govts SPENT their societies out of slump, putting people to work.
(O, the horror ! O, the heresy !)
The public works of that era include Germany's autobahns and the US New Deal projects,
including the Tennessee Valley system and similar in Western States.
( O the horror ! O the heresy !)
Friedman, Hayek and the gang looked at those and post-WW2 programs of public benefit, such as
the UK's NHS and shat themselves. Typical fear-driven conservatives, they were convinced such
programs represented the thin end of the wedge which MUST end in imposition of Soviet-style
conditions.
What utter paranoid crap.
Their resurrected corpse of Classical economics ?.
THAT is what is 'Neoliberalism'.
Whether or not I call it so is immaterial.
Then, this lofty bit of finger-wagging assertion;
"This process of economic evolution is necessarily imperfect and incomplete...."
Your Lordship's overview is appreciated...
"....but currently leaves you free to own a computer, read news on-line, communicate using
the internet (maybe using NBN?) and express your views freely. "
Sez who ?
You ?
Besides, the only one talking about that old bogey, "socialism" is you.
Because its a conveniently perjorative label, eh ?
Pretty infantile, though.
"Anybody who doesn't agree with EVERYTHING I say, must be a 'socialist.' And they can't
play with my toys."
PS 'Adam', why do LIbertarians always project a Superiority Complex ?
Why are the buggers always so PLEASED WITH THEMSELVES ?
Neoliberalism = Socialism for the Rich - Capitalism for the Poor.
Politics needs reform, plain & simple. Fed ICAC and Integrity Commission is a good
start but it's not enough. The rules have to change too. Major decisions like privatising
services or tax handouts to the rich, shouldn't by law be allowed to get through parliament
or the senate unless the claims being made to justify them are quantifiable &
demonstrated to be in the National Interest. Currently politicians have no obligation to do
either.
e.g. claiming that jobs will be created if Penalty rates are cut = there's no way to
quantify such a BS claim and Doug Cameron got them to admit that in Senate Estimates. Even so
they were allowed to lie through their teeth and impose it anyway with no requirement to
prove their BS claims. This corporate tax handout = once again they claim it will lead to
more wealth to average Australians and more jobs but it can't be quantified or guaranteed via
regulation so it's all bullshit. The rich will hoard the wealth & kick Australians in the
guts as usual. That's what they've always done and always will do. Privatisation of
electricity..what a crock of shit. They claimed it would create competition and drive down
prices. What's happened? The complete opposite but politicians KNOW they're not accountable
and therein 'lies' the problem. The shortsheeting of the original NBN, = yet another lie.
They've totally crippled Australia's ability to compete in a digital age and completely
screwed regional 2nd tier cities and towns in terms of growth. As far as the National
interest is concerned the shortsheeting of the NBN is the complete opposite. Even so they
were allowed to bastardise that too without any accountability whatsoever. Australians need
to start demanding political reform so these bastards are accountable to the people.
Neoliberalism is just the academic name for the political ideology of greed, corruption, self
interest, self entitlement, corporate welfare, inequality, user pays, and poverty is your
fault.
Do you see any contradiction between privatised electricity and socialised stadiums?
Neoliberalism explains it all. Corruption in politics means that only profitable assets
are privatised. Stadiums lose money, so are kept in private hands as corporate welfare for
the various billionaire team owners and TV networks.
I love Richard Denniss! What a brilliantly concise and yet well supported argument. Now we
just need someone who can say it in terms that will persuade unwilling voters to think
carefully about their vote. If they do think carefully they simply cannot return this
government to power, now that they're all revealed as nothing but crony capitalists.
I must admit that like many people I also thought neoliberalism was an ideology, but then
I couldn't understand why they were so inconsistent in their spending of 'tax-payers'
funds'.
From now on I'll be pointing out those inconsistencies with more confidence - armed with
Richard's incontrovertible points, and also by a closer reading of Canadian Kean Birch's
article:
[The term neoliberalism ] is used to refer to an economic system in which the
"free" market is extended to every part of our public and personal worlds.
And here's wikipedia's definition of crony capitalism:
Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of
risks they take, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business
class and the political class.
NB But there's a more explicit definition here, which I like much better:
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business
depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be
exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special
tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.
Yes, we have a spot of bother, and I think that their name - Institute of Public Affairs - is
quite a misnomer.
The way these people operate is more akin to Opus Dei and many other 'secret societies'
that have another public face altogether.
Given that IPA's agenda is a private members wish list which has a huge impact on matters
of a broad public nature, it's rather akin to incest, and we know where the confusion between
Church and State takes us regarding separation of powers, exactly where we are right now .two
Royal Commissions that are joined at the hip, Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
(2013 – 2017) and our current horror show Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation,
and Financial Services Industry which could for all intents and purposes be as long as
aforementioned.
Stay with me, as these are issues that relate to other 'energy' systems, namely money, sex
and power, and if we have any doubts as to how far this cancer has spread, a quick purview of
the following members ought to resolve it for you:
For the 70th Birthday big bash, we know that guests to the party were:
• Gina Rinehart
• Rupert Murdoch
• Tony Abbott
• George Pell - Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
• Michael Kroger - President of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party of Australia
and former director of the IPA
• Mitch Fifield - Communications Minister
Think horizontal and vertical industries/associations and you begin to get the picture,
and that's before thinking about BCA and VECCI.
First, elect the other mob next time around. They're in the pockets of the multinationals and
the US alliance as well, but they're not quite as bad, yet. The next thing is a full-on
assault on mainstream media. The frontline of the revolution, if there is to be one, is the
media. No more guns or territorial claims, it's a battle for the mind. Education is the key.
The "Neolibs" attack education at every opportunity - teachers, curriculum, funding etc. etc.
but there's nothing wrong with education - the real problem is that the mainstream media
relentlessly, all day every day works to an agenda of dis-education, deliberately undermining
and destroying the work of our schools. They preach doubt and mistrust - of learning, facts,
truth, intelligence, pure science, art, music, culture, thoughtfulness, forbearance, empathy
and altruism. They teach us to monetise and gamble on everything. Their aim is to dumb
everyone down to the point where not only can't they read an analog clock or drive their own
car but become entirely dependent on the word of authority (of which they are the mouthpiece)
for a continued existence. Today, with our vast social platforms we can target their lies and
threats, one by one. Pick each one, attack it, viciously, loudly, risibly, with facts,
comedy, derision and invitations to dance. Spread it wide. Call them out at every
opportunity. Sneer them into oblivion. Mainstream media is the primary problem. That's what
must be destroyed.
No, regrettably they have not.
The neoliberalist 'mistake' has been going on for around 40 yrs now - it has proved a
relentless descent into inequality and austerity.
Chris Bowen
at the National Press Club : "...Labor will go to the next election:
Achieving budget balance in the same year as the government;
Delivering bigger cumulative budget surpluses over forward estimates as well as substantially
bigger surpluses over the ten year medium term; and
That the majority of savings raised from our revenue measures over the medium term will go
towards budget repair and paying down debt...."
Pure neoliberal economic poison that will create further hardship for our citizens, worsen
inequality and recess the economy yet further.
People have got to come to understand that the bigger surpluses Bowen speaks of are
federal tax collection surpluses; i.e. he intends to withdraw further spending capacity from
the private sector, all while the current account deficit already draws 3.5% GDP (~$30bn) a
yr from that same heavily indebted private sector.
This Bowen statement report
from the SMH : "The whiff of a surplus, not reaching at least 1 per cent of GDP until 2026-27, does not
adequately protect Australia against the potential roiling seas of international
uncertainty," he will say.
"Australia needs bigger surpluses, sooner than the government is scheduling.
"We can't afford to let the next four years go to waste in the efforts for a healthier, safer
budget surplus."
Absolute macroeconomic stupidity, arrogant, vandalous ideological madness.
When will the people come to their senses and stop supporting such socially destructive
errant neoliberal economic alchemy?
Just look at the Citizens Assembly overseeing the law change in the recent Irish referendum.
Worked a treat, cause those involved wanted to find the bvest alternative, rather than
feather their own nest.
It is indeed important to make the distinction between the ideology of neoliberalism - the
ideology of private enterprise is good, and public spending is bad - and the operational
system of crony capitalism - the game of mates played by government and the special
interests.
And it is certainly equally important to call out the monumental hypocrisy involved in the
government's application of the ideology's set of rules to the powerless and public and the
government's application of corrupt practice rules to the special interests.
The system is destroying the egalitarian character of Australia and fanning the flames of
nativist authoritarianism here.
But what's even more dangerous is the fundamental dishonesty that the system necessitates,
and the alienating influence it has - on top of the growing economic inequality.
The system has destroyed the economic and environmental viability and sustainability of
the planet on which human civilization depends.
What is becoming increasingly clear to more and more of the public is that - simple put-
the system cannot be allowed to go on as it has been proceeding because it threatens the
future of civilization on earth.
Change is imperative now. However, how that will unfold is unclear, as well as, the toll
the destruc5turing system will take.
What is clear is that a great restructuring must happen - and soon.
Michael Greenwood , Geoff Naylor and David Murray on the failures of economic policy
While agreeing with the thrust of Paul Mason's article (
A new politics of emotion is needed to beat the far right , Journal, 26 November), it is
surely necessary to employ economics if we are to defeat neoliberalism. We have lived under
this regime, with increasing severity, for 25 years or so. The result has been the stagnation
of real incomes for the large majority, with the benefits of GDP growth accruing to those at
the top of income and wealth distributions. This has suppressed growth, as those with less
money tend to spend it and those with more hide it and avoid tax. Lower UK growth is clearly
shown in comparative data.
So if neoliberalism is a school of economics, it is a failure if the aim of economic policy
is to encourage growth and the reinvestment of the benefits. Of course, neoliberalism is not
economics, it is political dogma, supported by its beneficiaries. We need economics
undergraduates to demand to be taught real economics and not the propaganda of power that is
neoliberalism.
Michael Greenwood Manchester
• In his search for a political narrative of economic hope to counteract the rise of
rightwing populism, Paul Mason overlooks the sense of belonging that exists in faith
communities. Here, a selfless collaboration for the inclusive good of one another has never
required disruption of the free-market economy. It is just that this ethos has not been
introduced at the national economic and political levels.
Geoff Naylor Winchester, Hampshire
• All suffered the same 2007-08 financial crash, but the "UK has weakest wage growth of
wealthy nations" ( Report
, 27 November). Anything to do with Tory-led government economic policy?
David Murray Wallington, Surrey
For 40 years, the ideology popularly known as "neoliberalism" has dominated political decision-making in the English-speaking
west.
People hate
it . Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services, poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the
forcibly unemployed have delivered, not promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth
of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be considered
vulgar
yet the philosophy's entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate resources that one of its megaphones
once declared its triumph "the end of history".
... ... ...
Paul Keating's rejection
It was a year ago that a third sign first appeared, when the dark horse of Australian prime ministers, Paul Keating, made public
an on-balance rejection of neoliberal economics. Although Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser instigated Australia's first neoliberal policies,
it was Keating's architecture of privatisation and deregulation as a Labor treasurer and prime minister that's most well remembered.
Now, "we have a comatose world economy held together by debt and central bank money," Keating has said, "Liberal economics has run
into a dead end and has had no answer to the contemporary malaise." What does the disavowal mean? In terms of his Labor heir Bill Shorten's growing appetite for redistributive taxation and close relationship to the union movement, it means "if Bill Shorten becomes
PM, the rule of engagement between labour and capital will be rewritten," according to The Australian this week. Can't wait!
Tony
Abbott becomes a fan of nationalising assets
Or maybe's Sukkar's right about the socialists termiting his beloved Liberal party. How else to explain the earthquake-like paradigm
shift represented by the sixth sign? Since when do neoliberal conservatives argue for the renationalisation of infrastructure, as
is the push of Tony Abbott's gang to nationalise the coal-fired Liddell power station? It may be a cynical stunt to take an unscientific
stand against climate action, but seizing the means of production remains seizing the means of production, um, comrade. "You know,
nationalising assets is what the Liberal party was founded to stop governments doing," said Turnbull, even as he hid in the dens
and in the rocks of the mountains to weather – strange coincidence –
yet another Newspoll
loss.
"new introduction to a re-released Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.
Collective, democratic political action is our only chance for freedom and enjoyment."
Might be true. But frightening that people should naively still think that democracy is to be found in the 'Dictatorship of
the Proletariat' [ ie those who know what's good for you even if you don't like it ] of the Communist Manifesto after the revelations
of what that leads to in the Gulag Archipelago , Mao's China , Pol Pot , Kim John - un .
How quickly the world forgets. - you
might just as well advocate Mein Kampf it's the same thing in the end !
That's what you claim and it might be so but I'm not interested in keeping a score on the matter. The point you failed to get
is that the people you mentioned where totalitarian thugs. They used the banner of communism to achieve their ends. They would
have used what ever ideology that was in fashion to achieve the same results.
Does present day neo-liberalism actually qualify as a political movement?
Vested interests and the dollar seem to have all the power. Lies and deception are so common the truth is seen as the enemy.
The voting public are merely fools for manipulation. Nah, neo-liberalism is not government, it is something far nastier, and clearly
not what the public vote for, presuming a vote actually counts for anything anymore.
The strong man with the dagger is followed by the weak man with the sponge." Lord
Acton
George Herbert Walker Bush died on Saturday. He was 94 years old. Thanks to decisions he made
throughout his career, thousands – perhaps millions – of people never got near 94. He
invaded Iraq in 1991, instituted sanctions that destroyed the country. He pardoned those involved
in the Iran-Contra affair and was head of the CIA when Operation Condor launched the military coup
in Argentina in 1976 .
Instead, Simon Tisdall – a mindless servant to the status quo, always happy to weave
invective about our designated enemies – treats us to paragraph after paragraph of inane
anecdotes.
Good old Georgie once gave him a lift in Air Force One.
Barbara gave him useful advice about raising Springer Spaniels.
The following words and phrases are not found anywhere in this article: CIA, Iraq,
Iran-Contra, Argentinian coup, Iran Air Flight 655, NAZI, Panama.
Rather, Tisdall refers Bush's term as "before the era of fake news". Which makes him either a
complete a liar or profoundly under-qualified to write on the subject – as the Bush-era
spawned the original fake news: The Nayirah testimony . A pack of lies told
before the Senate, and used to justify a war in the middle-east.
Bush started two wars as President. Planned and enabled countless crimes as director of the
CIA. pardoned all those implicated in the Iran-Contra affair. Refused to apologise when the US
Navy "accidentally" shot down an Iranian airliner, killing over 200 civilians, including 60
children.
He was the original neocon – his administration brought us Cheney and Powell and
Rumsfeld. Gave birth to the ideology that stage-managed 9/11, launched the "War on Terror", and
cut a blood-stained swath across North Africa and the Middle East.
We don't hear about that.
What we DO hear about is Bush's "deep sense of public duty and service" and that
"Bush was a patriot who did not need cheap slogans to express his belief in enduring American
greatness". No space is given over to analysis, to examine the fact that "belief in enduring
American greatness" is quasi-fascism, and responsible for more violent deaths this century than
any other cause you can name.
In hundreds of words, a notionally left-wing paper has nothing but praise for a highly
unpopular right-wing president. No space is given over even to the gentlest of rebukes.
The whole article is an exercise in talking without saying anything. Pleasantries replacing
truth. Platitudes where facts should be. A nothing burger, with a void on the side and an extra
order of beige.
It's an obituary of Harold Shipman that eschews murder talk and rhapsodises about his love of
gardening.
A eulogy to Pinochet that praises his economic reforms but neglects all the soccer stadiums
full of corpses.
An epitaph to Hitler that focuses, not on his "controversial political career", but on his
painting and his vegetarianism.
Did you know Genghis Khan once lent me a pencil? He was a swell guy. The world will miss
him.
We're no longer supposed to examine the lives, characters or morals of our leaders. Only
"honour their memory" and be "grateful for their service". History is presented to us, not as a
series of choices made by people in power, but as a collection of inevitabilities. Consequences
are tragic but unavoidable. Like long-dead family squabbles – To dwell on them is unseemly,
and to assign blame unfair.
Just as with John McCain, apologism and revisionism are sold to us as manners and good taste.
Attempts to redress the balance and tell the truth are met with stern glares and declarations
that it is "too soon".
It's never "too soon" to tell the truth.
John McCain was a dangerous war-mongering lunatic. George Bush Sr was a sociopath from a
family of corrupt sociopaths. The world would be a far better, and much safer place if just one
major newspaper was willing to say that.
Really, there are two obituaries to write here:
First – George HW Bush, corrupt patriarch of an old and malign family, passing out of
this world to face whatever eternal punishment (hopefully) awaits those who sell their immortal
soul in exchange for a brief taste of power.
Second – The Guardian, perhaps a decent newspaper once-upon-a-time, now a dried out
husk. A zombified slave to the state, mindless and brainless and lifeless. No questions, no
reservations, no hesitation. Obediently licking up the mess their masters leave behind.
It's sickening.
Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting.
Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
My mother believed it was only Bush Senior's longevity that prevented some of the neo-cons from
bumping off Bush Junior. He was President in name only and has long since fulfilled his
usefulness in committing the US to endless war. He is prone to verbal gaffes and that must make
him a liability, and when powerful evil people get nervous they often turn deadly.
Cut&Pasted from Lavrov interview in today's Saker Vineyard:
Question: When the death of President George H.W. Bush was announced, President Putin
expressed his condolences in a very emotional message. George Bush Sr. believed that one of the
worst mistakes of his presidency was failure to prevent the Soviet Union's dissolution. Did you
meet with him? What are your impressions of him?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe that George Bush Sr greatly contributed to the development of the
United States and ensured that his country responsibly played its role in the world,
considering its weight in international affairs.
I remember very well how President George H.W. Bush visited Moscow, and then he went to
Ukraine where he encouraged the Soviet republics' political forces to do their duty by
preserving the country rather than create huge, tragic problems for millions of people who
became citizens of different states the morning after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Mr Bush was a great politician. I believe that every word that will be said about his
achievements reflect the people's true attitude to this man. However, one comment about the
link between President Bush and the demise of the Soviet Union. I heard a commentator say that
George Bush Sr made history by helping Mikhail Gorbachev soft-land the Soviet Union. In fact,
George Bush Sr never did that; he simply wanted to protect millions of people from political
games. This is what we can say confidently about him.
It was German journalist, Udo Ulfkotte actually spilled the beans regarding the western media
in his best seller, Journalisten Gekaufte, (Bought Journalists). Ulfkotte described the degree
to which the CIA has penetrated the western media and corrupted, or bribed ( including himself)
the system which has become a PR organization for the intelligence services, and MIC. On
publication it immediately sold 120,000.00 copies and then strangely became unavailable in
English. He was described as a 'conspiracy theorist' (but of course) and died at the relatively
young age of a heart attack at 56. There are some salient issues surrounding his death raised
by Jonas Schneider in his book 'The Mysterious Death of Udo Ulfkotte: Evidence for a Murder.
You know already what I will respond to this. And I know already what you will say in return.
So, instead of getting into a back and forth about it, I will simply leave you with something
to consider.
The fact that each successive report that comes out that refutes the claims of the truther
movement is automatically dismissed by people like you shows how conspiracy theory thinking
works. The final 9/11 report comes out in 2004 and, of course, the truthers dismiss it
because it was written by a branch of the federal government who you believe perpetrated 9/11
in the first place. Then Popular Mechanics publishes a 5,500 word report in 2005 extensively
answering and debunking the movement claims.
Here, you people can't claim that it was a government cover-up -- at least not directly --
because Popular Mechanics is a privately owned publication. Therefore, new sub-conspiracy
theories are invented to "prove" how Popular Mechanics is part of the cover-up. To give just
one example Christopher Bollyn "claimed to have discovered why the 100-year-old engineering
magazine would take part in a government cover-up of the crime of the century: A young
researcher on the magazine's staff named Benjamin Chertoff was a cousin of then-Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the magazine was seeking to whitewash the criminal
conspiracy with its coverage." (Slate 2011) Here we are seeing the kind of incredible mental
contortion that truthers are willing to engage in to continue believing their theories.
Then in 2008 the National Institute of Standards and Technology released the final
installment of its study into the causes behind the collapse of the buildings -- $16 million
was invested into the investigation. And, as I well know, you and other truthers will have a
smart Alec come-back as to why the NIST report is wrong, its authors are part of the vast
conspiracy and so on. On and on it goes no matter how many reports are published by however
many experts.
Again, I am not interested in getting dragged into a back-and-forth about the merits and
demerits of these reports. Rather, I wish to point out the flawed reasoning inherent to 9/11
trutherism: that it has its own internal mechanisms for discounting any evidence that
contradicts its central tenets. It therefore constitutes a closed system of thought because
there is nothing that would ever count as a refutation. In other words, for all contradictory
evidence another explanation is made to retroactively fit the latest gap in the theory that
is exposed.
Now, I know full well that this is probably not going to change your mind either. And I'm
sure that there will be plenty of responses to this comment and thumbs down from Off-Guardian
readers. But I hope that you at least consider whether you are wrong about this subject. For
my part, I worry that 9/11 trutherism obscures what are indeed important subjects -- US
imperialism, US govt. corruption, the nefarious influence of the CIA, the legitimate
grievance that people in the Middle East have against the US, Israel, the Saudi dictatorship
and so on. Above all, I worry that 9/11 trutherism makes it open season for the real enemies
-- the US foreign policy establishment, et cetera -- to portray the resistance to them and
their agenda as a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes. I feel strongly that the left
needs to jettison this in-group, conspiracy theory-type stuff really become a major force and
overturn the status quo.
People like you must count as a great success for the obedience training that keeps
capitalist society running smoothly, with the few dissidents casually dismissed as "a bunch
of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes".
Even NIST eventually admitted that WTC-7 free-fell for 2.5 seconds. That can only happen
if all the support columns fail at exactly the same time; otherwise it would topple over
sideways. Only controlled explosives can make that happen.
Your touching faith in the word of ruling-class "experts", over the evidence of your own
eyes, and basic physics, is a credit to the Middle Ages. It would warm the hearts of the
Catholic theologians who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew, as a
matter of revealed truth, that what he said couldn't possibly be true.
What do the claims of a bunch of tinfoil-hat-wearing fruitcakes count for, against not
just ruling class dogma, but the entire weight of respectable middle-class opinion? The
social status and careers of millions of right-thinking professionals, like you, depend on
believing, or at least pretending to believe, not just the 9/11 Official Story, but all the
other Official Stories as well. How could all those comfy middle-class people, with their
comfy middle-class careers and high-status friends, be wrong? That would throw the entire
plan for next weekend's dinner party into question.
Do you believe the Offical Skripal Story? The Official ISIS story? The Official Syrian
Chemical Weapons Story? The Official JFK Assassination Story? The Official USS Liberty Story?
The Official Tonkin Gulf Story? How do you decide which Official Stories to believe, except
on the basis of careerism and status-seeking?
Again, I am not interested in getting drawn into a back-and-forth about the various claims of
9/11 truthers like yourself. I would just like to make one comment and then leave two things
for yourself and other truthers on here to consider.
First, I would like to comment upon the fact that I have been subjected to some rather
nasty personalized abuse on this thread simply for challenging the claims of trutherism. I'm
not pointing this out to feel aggrieved or to search for sympathy or to make myself out as
some kind of victim. Rather I do so to illustrate how it is indicative of the negative and
mind-closing effects of the group-think and the conspiracy theorist mind-set. It goes
something like this: "everyone who questions the tenets of the great truther theory is the
enemy, not just a skeptic but rather a collaborator in the evil system that suppresses the
"truth"."
The people it discusses were truthers and many of them reexamined their beliefs after
being confronted by actual specialists on the subjects basing their truther beliefs on. If
you are open-minded as you claim to be, then have the decency to at least read the article
and consider its points, rather than just reflexively rejecting the source as part of the
great cover-up.
Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Noam Chomsky. Now, I am well aware
that you think Chomsky is a sell-out for not getting on board with trutherism and that you
have all kinds of fancy come-backs as to why he is wrong. But he raises a very important
issue of priorities for people on the anti-imperialist left to consider. Is this obsession
with this issue really helping us to fight against imperialism and all of the other
iniquities of the world? I think not:
"One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of
energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their
institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be,
if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is
treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and
activist work." Noam Chomsky
Ah "truther", that neologism which serves the same purpose as the recasting of the term
"conspiracy" to designate foolishness, gullibilty etc.
And as for Chomsky, well here's what he had to say about the 9/11 "inside job" theory:
"And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any
significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out
who killed John Kennedy. Who knows? Who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why
does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?"
Let's just consider that for a moment. Chomsky is considering the possibilty -- however
remote in his view -- that 9/11 may indeed have been an inside job. And he's saying it
doesn't have any significance that the US goverment carried out an attack on its own
population! It doesn't have any significance that the "war on terror" was launched on the
basis of a lie!
This is the moment when Chomsky truly stood revealed. He was like the kid with his hand in
the cookie jar who instantly concocts any number of excuses all of which contradict each
other. And yet even when caught out like this, he has his supporters who say he "dispels 9/11
theories with sheer logic"!
That's the one. I mean – who knows and who cares? It's not as if a terrorist attack on
mainland America that altered the face of New York and launched a war across the world is
actually important.
Well, I think the fact that Noam Chomsky has said this demonstrates how few people accept
these 9/11 truther ideas -- even amongst people who generally agree with your (and my) kind
of politics. George Galloway, who like Chomsky is about as far politically from the neocons
as you can get, has also spoken very eloquently against trutherism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5ToK6g0m8
Ironically, the only remotely public figure who does that I've heard mentioned on this
thread is some Reaganite crank that I had never heard of until now. That really does not bode
well for you, does it?
And having now listened to Mr Galloway and once again having to put up with his portentous
stretching out ..of the ..sentence to -- quite frankly pad the time out, I see that his
"points" come down to the following:
Two planes flew into the twin towers. Yes -- there's no disputing that one.
GW Bush could not possibly have planned the thing himself. Yes again -- no dispute. At
this point I must express my gratitude to Reagan for finally proving that the guy in front is
just a puppet.
If the US did it themselves and it "got out" it would be the end of America's credibility.
Yes indeed. Which is why, all across the mainstream press, it will only ever be presented as
a "nutty conspiracy theory"
Galloway: "I saw, myself, the airplanes hitting the twin towers."
-- which is supposed to constitute proof of the official
Evil-Terrorists-In-A-Cave-In-Afghanistan story.
attention, "flaxgirl": your grand unified theory of 9/11 now needs to incorporate George
Galloway as a fake witness for the US government, which seems strange, given his decades of
opposition, both before and after, to the imperial warfare for which 9/11 served as a
pretext.
The political function of the No-Planes-At-WTC claims could not be more clear; it's so
that people who dispute other aspects of the Official Story can all be dismissed as deranged
idiots.
But Peter you need to look at the evidence for yourself and not take others' word for it. And
be guided by those who know how buildings collapse -- Chomsky certainly doesn't.
This is a wonderful tutorial by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth.
The story of 9/11 is utterly preposterous. The only reason people believe it is to do with
psychology of how we relate to power nothing to do with the actuality of the story -- because
it's utterly ludicrous.
Wut? " less violent ones like England, the US or France " From here on it just gets worse
until Chomsky has no credible position left to argue from.
Heightened sense of cognitive dissonance by old Noam.
' even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, then who cares? It doesn't have any
significance."
Wow, for someone with such intellect this is some low-level thinking. I almost feel sorry
for Chomsky for holding such an immoral position. Would he feel the same way if his wife was
murdered? "Ah, there's other things to worry about, anything else is a diversion of energy."
Very sad.
Where basic physics is concerned we should not speak of theory. The only possible explanation
for the collapse of the buildings is controlled demolition. There is no doubt whatsoever that
9/11 was an inside conspiracy. There is also no doubt that death and injury were staged
– at least, there is zero evidence of its reality in the visual record and one would
think that for the 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured claimed there would be at least one piece of
evidence for their reality, rather than every piece (anomalously small in number) in the
visual record perfectly fitting "staged". Not to mention other anomalies unrelated to the
visual record and that actual killing and injuring of people by the perpetrators would take a
highly-problematic form in the shape of a great number of loved ones (as opposed to the tiny
number presented) and the injured themselves when controlled demolition was so obvious.
When you say that there is no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy, I feel you
are being overconfident unless what you are saying is that there is some evidence that some
figures at the World Trade Centres seemed to have foreknowledge.
Frankly, although we all have our theories as to who was responsible, I remain in full
agreement with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth who state simply that the official
account conflicts with physics. All else is suspicion and supposition. It may well be well
grounded supposition, but until we discover who planned and executed the event and who
definitely had foreknowledge, what we are dealing with is speculation.
The problem with that is that the great many people who refuse to believe anything other
than the official account of 9/11 dismiss our views as those of cranks
The buildings came down by controlled demolition. The evidence for that is
incontrovertible and the rationale presented by NIST for fire being the cause is demonstrably
not based on a skerrick of evidence and is obviously fraudulent and false. There is not a
single reason to suspect that the cause of collapse of all the buildings wasn't controlled
demolition. If you believe there is a single reason to suspect another cause can you please
provide it.
Since waking up to 9/11, I find that people either decide something is something with too
little evidence or refrain from deciding on what something is when the evidence is so
overwhelming you're practically drowning in it. Being conservative in judgement in the face
of overwhelming evidence is no virtue in my opinion.
I have engaged in conversation with Mick West who runs the metabunk.org website that
allegedly debunks all the conspiracy theories. We have gone back and forth a number of times
over the cause of WTC-7's collapse and I have invited him to respond to an Occam's Razor
challenge to provide 10 points that favour "fire" over "controlled demolition". He did not
respond to the challenge, nor could he provide a single point that favours fire over
controlled demolition. Not a single point -- didn't change his mind though. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
Nor has anyone responded to my other Occam's Razor challenges. I judge when I see that
there is a reasonable amount of evidence and that evidence points all one way and there is no
evidence pointing any other way. If you disagree with this method fair enough.
And just to add, that, of course, it must be an inside job in the case of controlled
demolition. As Graeme MacQueen says, there is no room in the official story for controlled
demolition.
The big secret is though that death and injury were staged. That's the real secret.
It was a totally excellent piece. No reservations.
"Theory"? Are you serious? If you believe that 9/11 was the work of 19 barely-trained
terrorists (one of whom cried when asked to do steep turns and stalls according to his
alleged flying instructor but was tasked with the most impossibly-expert manoeuvre of doing a
330 degree turn into the Pentagon), armed with boxcutters who managed to hijack 4 planes,
navigate them into 3 iconic buildings without being molested by a single fighter interceptor
through the most defended airspace on earth, which subsequently caused the 10-second
collapses (displaying all the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of
fire-caused collapses) of three high-rise steel frame buildings, here's a $5,000 challenge
for you. All you have to do is provide 10 points that support the "fire" hypothesis over the
"controlled demolition" hypothesis for the collapse of WTC-7 and you can choose your own
structural engineer to validate your points. There's so very much material on the collapse it
shouldn't be very difficult. In fact, all you have to do is come up with one point to support
WTC-7's collapse by fire and I'll give you $5,000. One point -- validated by a structural
engineer of your choice. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
9/11 is probably the biggest hoax in history and includes the very clever subhoax of 3,000
dead and 6,000 injured. Not only was it a hoax but they did not aim for realism in any shape
or form and gave us extra clues in addition to their preposterous
against-physical-and-administrative-reality story.
This is what Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, who has
had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business, has to say
about 9/11. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/
According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, the vaunted National Security
State of the World's Only Superpower was defeated by a few young Saudi Arabians armed only
with box cutters. The American National Security State proved to be totally helpless and was
dealt the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on any country claiming to be a power.
That day no aspect of the National Security State worked. Everything failed.
The US Air Force for the first time in its history could not get intercepter jet fighters
into the air.
The National Security Council failed.
All sixteen US intelligence agencies failed as did those of America's NATO and Israeli
allies.
Air Traffic Control failed.
Airport Security failed four times at the same moment on the same day. The probability of
such a failure is zero.
If such a thing had actually happened, there would have been demands from the White House,
from Congress, and from the media for an investigation. Officials would have been held
accountable for their failures. Heads would have rolled.
Instead, the White House resisted for one year the 9/11 families' demands for an
investigation. Finally, a collection of politicians was assembled to listen to the
government's account and to write it down. The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of
the 9/11 Commission have said that information was withheld from the commission, lies were
told to the commission, and that the commission "was set up to fail." The worst security
failure in history resulted in not a single firing. No one was held responsible.
Washington concluded that 9/11 was possible because America lacked a police state.
The PATRIOT Act, which was awaiting the event was quickly passed by the congressional idiots.
The Act established executive branch independence of law and the Constitution. The Act and
follow-up measures have institutionalized a police state in "the land of the free."
Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset dying of renal failure, was blamed despite his explicit
denial. For the next ten years Osama bin Laden was the bogyman that provided the excuse for
Washington to kill countless numbers of Muslims. Then suddenly on May 2, 2011, Obama claimed
that US Navy SEALs had killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Eyewitnesses on the scene contradicted
the White House's story. Osama bin Laden became the only human in history to survive renal
failure for ten years. There was no dialysis machine in what was said to be bin Laden's
hideaway. The numerous obituaries of bin Laden's death in December 2001 went down the memory
hole. And the SEAL team died a few weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash in
Afghanistan. The thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier from which bin Laden was said
to have been dumped into the Indian Ocean wrote home that no such burial took place.
The fairy tale story of bin Laden's murder by Seal Team Six served to end the challenge by
disappointed Democrats to Obama's nomination for a second term. It also freed the "war on
terror" from the bin Laden constraint. Washington wanted to attack Libya, Syria, and Iran,
countries in which bin Laden was known not to have organizations, and the succession of faked
bin Laden videos, in which bin Laden grew progressively younger as the fake bin Laden claimed
credit for each successive attack, had lost credibility among experts.
Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were
not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House
had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history
to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a
coverup.
After 13 years people at home and abroad find the government's story less believable.
The case made by independent experts is now so compelling that mainstream media has opened to
it. Here is Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec#t=23
In response to proposed Senate legislation that would target Russia's state-controlled banks
by freezing their access to dollars -- a step which could genuinely damage the Russian economy
-- Moscow issued a new threat. "If we end up we end up with something like a ban on banking
activities or the use of certain currencies, we can clearly call this a declaration of economic
war," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
stated , emphasizing that Moscow would "respond to this war. By economic means, by
political means and if necessary by other means."
... ... ...
Putin doesn't even need to rely on his military to harm American interests either. He could
choose to openly increase economic and political support for North Korea, thereby weakening
Washington's ability to pressure North Korea to curtail its nuclear program. Given that North
Korea remains on the cusp of being able to reach the continental United States with a ballistic
missile this would constitute a significant setback for American interests.
... ... ...
To be clear, Medvedev's threats may be mere bluster, and Moscow could respond to dollar
sanctions by hunkering down even further and try to ride out the economic and political storm.
However, if harsh sanctions were on the verge of causing the Russian economy to collapse --
especially if this resulted in unrest which threatened the stability of the Putin regime --
Moscow might well end up lashing out in unpredictable ways. American policymakers should be
forewarned and prepared.
Josh Cohen contributes to a number of media outlets including National Interest, Foreign
Policy, Reuters, Washington Post and others.
There are so many painful places in the US foreign politics: North Korea, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Latin America, North Africa, Yemen. All this weaknesses could be used
by the US foes and Russia knows it. I won't be surprised if Russia pushes this weakspots.
Yes, the US politicians have to be ready to aggresive and success reaction of Russia. And
they have to make an informed decisions. Very cautiously.
Can someone cite just one instance of American government imposing "sanctions" on a
foreign government where it actually worked to USA interests? Don't cite Iran, Trump scrapped
that deal - so much for negotiation with USA - think Boeing happy about all those lost
airplane orders?
"Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov" - really? Why the author did
not mention that Ukraine made 2(!) acts of piracy against Russian vessels before Russia
answered? Vessels "Nord" and "Mehanik Pogodin" are still seized by Ukraine against of law,
while Russia inspects vessels in INTERNAL waters of Azov according to law.
Because it is not popular opinion in US massmedia. Ukraine is always right, Russia is
always evil. Nobody want to pay you if you defend Russians. But if you will blame them in all
sins - you have a chance to recive few dollars from Dems or from military corporations.
If you have another opinion - you are russian troll.
Inspection of ships in the Azov Sea is carried out in accordance with the agreement on
economic activities in the Sea of Azov, Russia and Ukraine signed in 2012, Russia did not
inspect Ukrainian ships until 2018, but after threats to blow up the Crimean Bridge, Russia
began using the right to inspect all vessels in the Azov Sea seas
In the Ukraine there is a civil war, Russia's involvement in the poisoning of the "former
Russian spy" has not been proven by anyone, and the holy belief in "election meddling" looks
like a sign of idiocy.
I agree with you, too much lie. These american authors live in their own cloud castle
which has no relations with reality. Only money from military corporations who need
enemy.
Many inconsistencies and blatant lies on this article, but I wish to focus on this
particular one.
The author claims "Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov that could
serve as a pretext for a significant Russian military escalation in the region -- a step
right out of Moscow's 2008 playbook for its war in Georgia."
The 2008 South Ossetia war has been internationally recognized to be instigated by Georgia
itself (even the official EU report on the subject admitted this clearly). In what way did
Russia provoke the Georgian attack according to the author?
What evidence can he present to support this thesis? Or is he merely lying out of his
teeth?
Russia has attacked many countries, including Afghanistan in 1979 and Ukraine in 2014.
Luckily your terrorist colleague Zakharchenko has been dealt with.
Russia never attacked Ukraine. This propaganda bullshit lives only in someones damaged
brains and on papers of some mass media.
Zakharcheko never made any terror act. He defended his people from Ukraine nazis, who shelled
civil homes, kindergardens and schools from all possible guns. He never harmed any civil
human being. Vice versa - Kiev's bandits shell civil citizens of Donbass every day. There is
"Alley of angels" in Donetsk - the cemetry of kids killed by Kiev's terrorists.
In 1979 USSR entered Afghanistan by REQUEST OF LEGAL GOVERNEMENT of Afganistan. Because US
sponsored and supplied with weapons antigovernment bandits in Afgahnistan. CIA never hided
this. And waht do US do today in Syria? Who asked them to kill people and government forces
in Syria? And why did US sponsored putch in Kiev in 2014?
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
"... It is also a nice illustration of how "Westminster Style" democracy works. Any chance that the electorate might elect a left wing government and you get a Zinoviev letter or a Bologna railway station bombing. ..."
"... In other words "Elect whom you like". ("Provided we like them too!") It's really a bit like herding sheep. ..."
The documents reveal him as Alexis Bellegarde, one of four White Russian aristocrats believed
to have been behind an infamous forgery 15 years before the war began. The revelations of Bellegarde's
importance to MI6 will increase suspicions that British agents had a hand in the production of the
"Zinoviev letter"; its leak to the Daily Mail many believe cost Labour the 1924 general election.
foolisholdman -> Brian Milne 11 Oct 2015 05:55
Brian Milne
It is also a nice illustration of how "Westminster Style" democracy works. Any chance that
the electorate might elect a left wing government and you get a Zinoviev letter or a Bologna railway
station bombing.
In other words "Elect whom you like". ("Provided we like them too!") It's really a bit
like herding sheep.
AlbertTatlock53 -> LordUpminster 11 Oct 2015 08:35
Despite the blandness of the OH volumes on Ultra, some facts did leak out, like having a month's
notice of the Italian declaration of war and useful tactical and operational details like the
positions of wolf packs. It also reminded me of a couple of anecdotes about Ultra information
by unwitting sources in memoirs. I wouldn't deprecate Ultra or the British war effort that far.
The British army that went to Normandy was the most mechanised and armoured army in history and
pulled rather more than its own weight in the coalition. The principal offensive weapon of the
British empire was Bomber Command, which in the spring-summer of 1943 began to devastate the German
war economy.
The Soviet and then the US contributions to the war dwarfed the British empire but only relatively,
it was still a superpower in 1945, though by the Suez crime it had become a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Murder Inc.
LordUpminster ID7678903 11 Oct 2015 04:04
And no doubt the establishment will continue to play such dirty tricks to undermine our
so called democracy
Not the slightest: according to our friend jamesforysthe below that's essentially what they're
for.
Re. the Zinoviev letter, I did see one theory many years ago that the man behind it was the
then-Polish Army Minister Władysław Sikorski, the one who later headed the Polish exile government
in London and was killed in an air crash. Certainly in October 1924 he was bragging to people
in governmental circles in Warsaw that it was his agents who had arranged it - though why exactly
is not easy to see, given that Poland had no particular political interest in Britain at the time.
I suspect that it was empty boasting, and that it was Russian emigrés who were responsible.
Coming up soon: conclusive proof that Jeremy Corbyn was once an agent of the Tsarist Okhrana.
Brian Milne 11 Oct 2015 04:00
Had Labour won, thus Baldwin, MacDonald, Baldwin, Chamberlain probably not have been the course
of politics, would the UK necessarily have moved further left? The question remains to be seen,
but unless somebody more genuinely socialist had replaced MacDonald probably not. However, the
outcome may well have been a far more amicable relationship with the Soviet Union, the Versailles
Treaty and League of Nations possibly better conformed to and the rise of Hitler less likely.
The Zinoviev letter may well have been as much a contributory denominator in that than is implied.
Of course, we hall never know really, only historians expounding their own theories and interpretations
of history.
samuel glover -> jamesforsythe 11 Oct 2015 01:43
"Some brilliant espionage across the Middle-east and Israel is precisely what's needed
to bring these politically infantile areas into western like democratic administrations, this
century, not next. And with fewer wars. "
First, you think western intelligence agencies **haven't** been prominent in the history of
that region?!?!?
Second, you think these same agencies are capable of just whipping up entire social and political
structures and cultures on demand? Do you read newspapers?
Remember that these agencies -- in America, in Britain, in every NATO country -- spent decades
and billions of dollars and billions of man-hours staring obsessively at the USSR. EVERY ONE of
them was completely blindsided when the Soviet Union folded up.
error418 -> jamesforsythe 10 Oct 2015 23:21
"Our" best interests or that intelligence service´s best interests? ISI in Pakistan is a good
example of such a service gone rogue. Experts in election rigging.
Frisco27 10 Oct 2015 19:06
"Sexing up" documents? What a scumbag... That would never happen these days.
"... Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market. ..."
"... The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension fund go? ..."
"... Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled. Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership. ..."
"... family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300 to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery. ..."
"... Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo. ..."
"... Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs. ..."
"... So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context. ..."
"... Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this. I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via the capitalist countries. ..."
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality. They still struggle
for access to the basics
... ... ...
The disparities in wealth that we term "income inequality" are no accident, and they can't be fixed by fiddling at the edges of
our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom.
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access
to the most basic tools of life are almost nil.
... ... ...
Too often, the answer by those who have hoarded everything is they will choose to "give back" in a manner of their choosing –
just look at Mark Zuckerberg and his much-derided plan to "give away" 99% of his Facebook stock. He is unlikely to help change inequality
or poverty any more than "giving away" of $100m helped children in Newark schools.
Allowing any of the 100 richest Americans to choose how they fix "income inequality" will not make the country more equal or even
guarantee more access to life. You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools, even when you're the master; but more
to the point, who would tear down his own house to distribute the bricks among so very many others?
mkenney63 5 Dec 2015 20:37
Excellent article. The problems we face are structural and can only be solved by making fundamental changes. We must bring
an end to "Citizens United", modern day "Jim Crow" and the military industrial complex in order to restore our democracy. Then
maybe, just maybe, we can have an economic system that will treat all with fairness and respect. Crony capitalism has had its
day, it has mutated into criminality.
Kencathedrus -> Marcedward 5 Dec 2015 20:23
In the pre-capitalist system people learnt crafts to keep themselves afloat. The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Now
we have the church of Education promising a better life if we get into debt to buy (sorry, earn) degrees.
The whole system is messed up and now we have millions of people on this planet who can't function even those with degrees.
Barbarians are howling at the gates of Europe. The USA is rotting from within. As Marx predicted the Capitalists are merely paying
their own grave diggers.
mkenney63 -> Bobishere 5 Dec 2015 20:17
I would suggest you read the economic and political history of the past 30 years. To help you in your study let me recommend
a couple of recent books: "Winner Take all Politics" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson and "The Age of Acquiescence" by Steve Fraser.
It always amazes me that one can be so blind the facts of recent American history; it's not just "a statistical inequality", it's
been a well thought-out strategy over time to rig the system, a strategy engaged in by politicians and capitalists. Shine some
light on this issue by acquainting yourself with the facts.
Maharaja Brovinda -> Singh Jill Harrison 5 Dec 2015 19:42
We play out the prisoner's dilemma in life, in general, over and over in different circumstances, every day. And we always
choose the dominant - rational - solution. But the best solution is not based on rationality, but rather on trust and faith in
each other - rather ironically for our current, evidence based society!
Steven Palmer 5 Dec 2015 19:19
Like crack addicts the philanthropricks only seek to extend their individual glory, social image their primary goal, and yet
given the context they will burn in history. Philanthroptits should at least offset the immeasurable damage they have done through
their medieval wealth accumulation. Collaborative philanthropy for basic income is a good idea, but ye, masters tools.
BlairM -> Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 19:10
Well, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all those other economic
systems that have been tried from time to time.
I'd rather just have the freedom to earn money as I please, and if that means inequality, it's a small price to pay for not
having some feudal lord or some party bureaucrat stomping on my humanity.
brusuz 5 Dec 2015 18:52
As long as wealth can be created by shuffling money from one place to another in the giant crap shoot we call our economy,
nothing will change. Until something takes place to make it advantageous for the investor capitalists to put that money to work
doing something that actually produces some benefit to the society as a whole, they will continue their extractive machinations.
I see nothing on the horizon that is going to change any of that, and to cast this as some sort of a racial issue is quite superficial.
We have all gotten the shaft, since there is no upward mobility available to anyone. Since the Bush crowd of neocons took power,
we have all been shackled with "individual solutions to societal created problems."
Jimi Del Duca 5 Dec 2015 18:31
Friends, Capitalism is structural exploitation of ALL WORKERS. Thinking about it as solely a race issue is divisive. What we
need is CLASS SOLIDARITY and ORGANIZATION. See iww.org We are the fighting union with no use for capitalists!
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 18:04
You'd be better off reading Marx if you want to understand capitalism. I think you are ascribing the word to what you think
it should be rather than what it is.
It is essentially a class structure rather than any defined economic system. Neoliberal is essentially laissez faire capitalism.
It is designed to suborn nation states to corporate benefit.
AmyInNH -> tommydog
They make $40 a month. Working 7 days a week. At least 12 hour days. Who's fed you that "we're doing them a favor" BS?
And I've news for you regarding "Those whose skills are less adaptable to doing so are seeing their earnings decline." We have
many people who have 3 masters degrees making less than minimum wage. We have top notch STEM students shunned so corporations
can hire captive/cheaper foreign labor, called H1-Bs, who then wait 10 years working for them waiting for their employment based
green card. Or "visiting" students here on J1 visas, so the employers can get out of paying: social security, federal unemployment
insurance, etc.
Wake up and smell the coffee tommydog. They've more than a thumb on the scale.
I am a socialist. I decided to read this piece to see if Mr. Thrasher could write about market savagery without propounding the
fiction that whites are somehow exempt from the effects of it.
No, he could not. I clicked on the link accompanying his assertion
that whites who are high school dropouts earn more than blacks with college degrees, and I read the linked piece in full. The
linked piece does not in fact compare income (i.e., yearly earnings) of white high school dropouts with those of black college
graduates, but it does compare family wealth across racial cohorts (though not educational ones), and the gap there is indeed
stark, with average white family wealth in the six figures (full disclosure, I am white, and my personal wealth is below zero,
as I owe more in student loans than I own, so perhaps I am not really white, or I do not fully partake of "whiteness," or whatever),
and average black family wealth in the four figures.
The reason for this likely has a lot to do with home ownership disparities, which in turn are linked in significant part to
racist redlining practices. So white dropouts often live in homes their parents or grandparents bought, while many black college
graduates whose parents were locked out of home ownership by institutional racism and, possibly, the withering of manufacturing
jobs just as the northward migration was beginning to bear some economic fruit for black families, are still struggling to become
homeowners. Thus, the higher average wealth for the dropout who lives in a family owned home.
But this is not what Mr. Thrasher wrote. He specifically used the words "earn more," creating the impression that some white
ignoramus is simply going to stumble his way into a higher salary than a cultivated, college educated black person. That is simply
not the case, and the difference does matter.
Why does it matter? Because I regularly see middle aged whites who are broken and homeless on the streets of the town where
I live, and I know they are simply the tip of a growing mountain of privation. Yeah, go ahead, call it white tears if you want,
but if you cannot see that millions (including, of course, not simply folks who are out and out homeless, but folks who are struggling
to get enough to eat and routinely go without needed medication and medical care) of people who have "white privilege" are indeed
oppressed by global capitalism then I would say that you are, at the end of the day, NO BETTER THAN THE WHITES YOU DISDAIN.
If you have read this far, then you realize that I am in no way denying the reality of structural racism. But an account of
economic savagery that entirely subsumes it into non-economic categories (race, gender, age), that refuses to acknowledge that
blacks can be exploiters and whites can be exploited, is simply conservatism by other means. One gets the sense that if we have
enough black millionaires and enough whites dying of things like a lack of medical care, then this might bring just a little bit
of warmth to the hearts of people like Mr. Thrasher.
Call it what you want, but don't call it progressive. Maybe it is historical karma. Which is understandable, as there is no
reason why globally privileged blacks in places like the U.S. or Great Britain should bear the burden of being any more selfless
or humane than globally privileged whites are or have been. The Steven Thrashers of humanity are certainly no worse than many
of the whites they cannot seem to recognize as fully human are.
But nor are they any better.
JohnLG 5 Dec 2015 17:23
I agree that the term "income inequality" is so vague that falls between useless and diversionary, but so too is most use of
the word "capitalism", or so it seems to me. Typically missing is a penetrating analysis of where the problem lies, a comprehensibly
supported remedy, or large-scale examples of anything except what's not working. "Income inequality" is pretty abstract until
we look specifically at the consequences for individuals and society, and take a comprehensive look at all that is unequal. What
does "capitalism" mean? Is capitalism the root of all this? Is capitalism any activity undertaken for profit, or substantial monopolization
of markets and power?
Power tends to corrupt. Money is a form of power, but there are others. The use of power to essentially cheat, oppress or kill
others is corrupt, whether that power is in the form of a weapon, wealth, the powers of the state, or all of the above. Power
is seductive and addictive. Even those with good intensions can be corrupted by an excess of power and insufficient accountability,
while predators are drawn to power like sharks to blood. Democracy involves dispersion of power, ideally throughout a whole society.
A constitutional democracy may offer protection even to minorities against a "tyranny of the majority" so long as a love of justice
prevails. Selective "liberty and justice" is not liberty and justice at all, but rather a tyranny of the many against the few,
as in racism, or of the few against the many, as by despots. Both forms reinforce each other in the same society, both are corrupt,
and any "ism" can be corrupted by narcissism. To what degree is any society a shining example of government of, for, and by the
people, and to what degree can one discover empirical evidence of corruption? What do we do about it?
AmyInNH -> CaptainGrey 5 Dec 2015 17:15
You're too funny. It's not "lifting billions out of poverty". It's moving malicious manufacturing practices to the other side
of the planet. To the lands of no labor laws. To hide it from consumers. To hide profits.
And it is dying. Legislatively they choke off their natural competition, which is an essential element of capitalism. Monopoly
isn't capitalism. And when they bribe legislators, we don't have democracy any more either.
Jeremiah2000 -> Teresa Trujillo 5 Dec 2015 16:53
Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out
your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market.
The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension
fund go?
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:45
Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government
also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled.
Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency
of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.
The words "OWN" and "ASSETS" are the key descriptors of the definition of wealth. But these words are not well understood by
the vast majority of Americans or for that matter, global citizens. They are limited to the vocabulary used by the wealthy ownership
class and financial publications, which are not widely read, and not even taught in our colleges and universities.
The wealthy ownership class did not become wealthy because they are "three times as smart." Still there is a valid argument
that the vast majority of Americans do not pay particular attention to the financial world and educate themselves on wealth building
within the current system's limited past-savings paradigm. Significantly, the wealthy OWNERSHIP class use their political power
(power always follows property OWNERSHIP) to write the system rules to benefit and enhance their wealth. As such they have benefited
from forging trade policy agreements which further concentrate OWNERSHIP on a global scale, military-industrial complex subsidies
and government contracts, tax code provisions and loopholes and collective-bargaining rules – policy changes they've used their
wealth to champion.
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:44
Unfortunately, when it comes to recommendations for solutions to economic inequality, virtually every commentator, politician
and economist is stuck in viewing the world in one factor terms – human labor, in spite of their implied understanding that the
rich are rich because they OWN the non-human means of production – physical capital. The proposed variety of wealth-building programs,
like "universal savings accounts that might be subsidized for low-income savers," are not practical solutions because they rely
on savings (a denial of consumption which lessens demand in the economy), which the vast majority of Americans do not have, and
for those who can save their savings are modest and insignificant. Though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through
the "stock market exchanges," purchased with their earnings as labor workers (savings), their stock holdings are relatively minuscule,
as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners. Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans
own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent
of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don't affect the incomes of most retirees.
As for taxpayer-supported saving subsidies or other wage-boosting measures, those who have only their labor power and its precarious
value held up by coercive rigging and who desperately need capital ownership to enable them to be capital workers (their productive
assets applied in the economy) as well as labor workers to have a way to earn more income, cannot satisfy their unsatisfied needs
and wants and sufficiently provide for themselves and their families. With only access to labor wages, the 99 percenters will
continue, in desperation, to demand more and more pay for the same or less work, as their input is exponentially replaced by productive
capital.
As such, the vast majority of American consumers will continue to be strapped to mounting consumer debt bills, stagnant wages
and inflationary price pressures. As their ONLY source of income is through wage employment, economic insecurity for the 99 percent
majority of people means they cannot survive more than a week or two without a paycheck. Thus, the production side of the economy
is under-nourished and hobbled as a result, because there are fewer and fewer "customers with money." We thus need to free economic
growth from the slavery of past savings.
I mentioned that political power follows property OWNERSHIP because with concentrated capital asset OWNERSHIP our elected representatives
are far too often bought with the expectation that they protect and enhance the interests of the wealthiest Americans, the OWNERSHIP
class they too overwhelmingly belong to.
Many, including the author of this article, have concluded that with such a concentrated OWNERSHIP stronghold the wealthy have
on our politics, "it's hard to see where this cycle ends." The ONLY way to reverse this cycle and broaden capital asset OWNERSHIP
universally is a political revolution. (Bernie Sanders, are you listening?)
The political revolution must address the problem of lack of demand. To create demand, the FUTURE economy must be financed
in ways that create new capital OWNERS, who will benefit from the full earnings of the FUTURE productive capability of the American
economy, and without taking from those who already OWN. This means significantly slowing the further concentration of capital
asset wealth among those who are already wealthy and ensuring that the system is reformed to promote inclusive prosperity, inclusive
opportunity, and inclusive economic justice.
yamialwaysright 5 Dec 2015 16:13
I was interested and in agreement until I read about structured racism. Many black kidsin the US grow up without a father in
the house. They turn to anti-social behaviour and crime. Once you are poor it is hard to get out of being poor but Journalists
are not doing justice to a critique of US Society if they ignore the fact that some people behave in a self-destructive way. I
would imagine that if some black men in the US and the UK stuck with one woman and played a positive role in the life of their
kids, those kids would have a better chance at life. People of different racial and ethnic origin do this also but there does
seem to be a disproportionate problem with some black US men and some black UK men. Poverty is one problem but growing up in poverty
and without a father figure adds to the problem.
What the author writes applies to other countries not just the US in relation to the super wealthy being a small proportion
of the population yet having the same wealth as a high percentage of the population. This in not a black or latino issue but a
wealth distribution issue that affects everyone irrespective of race or ethnic origin. The top 1%, 5% or 10% having most of the
wealth is well-known in many countries.
nuthermerican4u 5 Dec 2015 15:59
Capitalism, especially the current vulture capitalism, is dog eat dog. Always was, always will be. My advice is that if you
are a capitalist that values your heirs, invest in getting off this soon-to-be slag heap and find other planets to pillage and
rape. Either go all out for capitalism or reign in this beast before it kills all of us.
soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:32
Our antiquated class structure demonstrates the trickle up of Capitalism and the need to counterbalance it with progressive
taxation.
In the 1960s/1970s we used high taxes on the wealthy to counter balance the trickle up of Capitalism and achieved much greater
equality.
Today we have low taxes on the wealthy and Capitalism's trickle up is widening the inequality gap.
We are cutting benefits for the disabled, poor and elderly so inequality can get wider and the idle rich can remain idle.
They have issued enough propaganda to make people think it's those at the bottom that don't work.
Every society since the dawn of civilization has had a Leisure Class at the top, in the UK we call them the Aristocracy and
they have been doing nothing for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone
else doing all the work.
Feudalism - exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism - exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
The system itself provides for the idle rich and always has done from the first civilisations right up to the 21st Century.
The rich taking from the poor is always built into the system, taxes and benefits are the counterbalance that needs to be applied
externally.
Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 15:31
I often chuckle when I read some of the right wing comments on articles such as this. Firstly, I question if readers actually
read the article references I've highlighted, before rushing to comment.
Secondly, the comments are generated by cifers who probably haven't set the world alight, haven't made a difference in their
local community, they'll have never created thousands of jobs in order to reward themselves with huge dividends having and as
a consequence enjoy spectacular asset/investment growth, at best they'll be chugging along, just about keeping their shit together
and yet they support a system that's broken, other than for the one percent, of the one percent.
A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies issued this week analyzed the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans
and found that "the wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the
United States". That means that 100 families – most of whom are white – have as much wealth as the 41,000,000 black folks walking
around the country (and the million or so locked up) combined.
Similarly, the report also stated that "the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino
population" of the nation. Here again, the breakdown in actual humans is broke down: 186 overwhelmingly white folks have more
money than that an astounding 55,000,000 Latino people.
family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300
to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans
to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:26
It is the 21st Century and most of the land in the UK is still owned by the descendants of feudal warlords that killed people
and stole their land and wealth.
When there is no land to build houses for generation rent, land ownership becomes an issue.
David Cameron is married into the aristocracy and George Osborne is a member of the aristocracy, they must both be well acquainted
with the Leisure Class.
I can't find any hard work going on looking at the Wikipedia page for David Cameron's father-in-law. His family have been on
their estate since the sixteenth century and judging by today's thinking, expect to be on it until the end of time.
George Osborne's aristocratic pedigree goes back to the Tudor era:
"he is an aristocrat with a pedigree stretching back to early in the Tudor era. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, is the
17th holder of a hereditary baronetcy that has been passed from father to son for 10 generations, and of which George is next
in line."
If we have people at the bottom who are not working the whole of civilisation will be turned on its head.
"The modern industrial society developed from the barbarian tribal society, which featured a leisure class supported
by subordinated working classes employed in economically productive occupations. The leisure class is composed of people exempted
from manual work and from practicing economically productive occupations, because they belong to the leisure class."
The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, by Thorstein Veblen. It was written a long time ago but
much of it is as true today as it was then. The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight.
DBChas 5 Dec 2015 15:13
"income inequality" is best viewed as structural capitalism. It's not as if, did black and brown people and female people somehow
(miraculously) attain the economic status of the lower-paid, white, male person, the problem would be solved--simply by adjusting
pay scales. The problem is inherent to capitalism, which doesn't mean certain "types" of people aren't more disadvantaged for
their "type." No one is saying that. For capitalists, it's easier to rationalize the obscene unfairness (only rich people say,
"life's not fair") when their "type" is regarded as superior to a different "type," whether that be with respect to color or gender
or both.
Over time--a long time--the dominant party (white males since the Dark Ages, also the life-span of capitalism coincidentally
enough) came to dominance by various means, too many to try to list, or even know of. Why white males? BTW, just because most
in power and in money are white males does not mean ALL white males are in positions of power and wealth. Most are not, and these
facts help to fog the issue.
Indeed, "income inequality," is not an accident, nor can it be fixed, as the author notes, by tweaking (presumably he means
capitalism). And he's quite right too in saying, "You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools..." I take that
ALSO to mean, the problem can't be fixed by way of what Hedges has called a collapsing liberal establishment with its various
institutions, officially speaking. That is, it's not institutional racism that's collapsing, but that institution is not officially
recognized as such.
HOWEVER, it IS possible, even when burdened with an economics that is capitalism, to redistribute wealth, and I don't just
mean Mark Zuckerberg's. I mean all wealth in whatever form can be redistributed if/when government decides it can. And THIS TIME,
unlike the 1950s-60s, not only would taxes on the wealthy be the same as then but the wealth redistributed would be redistributed
to ALL, not just to white families, and perhaps in particular to red families, the oft forgotten ones.
This is a matter of political will. But, of course, if that means whites as the largest voting block insist on electing to
office those without the political will, nothing will change. In that case, other means have to be considered, and just a reminder:
If the government fails to serve the people, the Constitution gives to the people the right to depose that government. But again,
if whites as the largest voting block AND as the largest sub-group in the nation (and women are the largest part of that block,
often voting as their men vote--just the facts, please, however unpleasant) have little interest in seeing to making necessary
changes at least in voting booths, then...what? Bolshevism or what? No one seems to know and it's practically taboo even to talk
about possibilities. Americans did it once, but not inclusively and not even paid in many instances. When it happens again, it
has to happen with and for the participation of ALL. And it's worth noting that it will have to happen again, because capitalism
by its very nature cannot survive itself. That is, as Marx rightly noted, capitalism will eventually collapse by dint of its internal
contradictions.
mbidding Jeremiah2000 5 Dec 2015 15:08
Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might
find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo.
Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere
in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that
you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have
a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt
to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs.
Consider as well that you don't have transportation to get a job that would improve your circumstances. You earn too much to
qualify for meaningful levels of food support programs and fall into the insurance gap for subsidies because you live in a state
that for ideological reasons refuses to expand Medicaid coverage. Your local schools are a disgrace but you can't take advantage
of so-called school choice programs (vouchers, charters, and the like) as you don't have transportation or the time (given your
employer's refusal to set fixed working hours for minimum wage part time work) to get your kids to that fine choice school.
You may have a fridge and a stove, but you have no food to cook. You may have access to running water and electricity, but
you can't afford to pay the bills for such on account of having to choose between putting food in that fridge or flushing that
toilet. You can't be there reliably for your kids to help with school, etc, because you work constantly shifting hours for crap
pay.
Get back to me after six months to a year after living in such circumstances and then tell me again how Americans don't really
live in poverty simply because they have access to appliances.
Earl Shelton 5 Dec 2015 15:08
The Earned Income Tax Credit seems to me a good starting point for reform. It has been around since the 70s -- conceived by
Nixon/Moynihan -- and signed by socialist (kidding) Gerald Ford -- it already *redistributes* income (don't choke on the term,
O'Reilly) directly from tax revenue (which is still largely progressive) to the working poor, with kids.
That program should be massively expanded to tax the 1% -- and especially the top 1/10 of 1% (including a wealth tax) -- and
distribute the money to the bottom half of society, mostly in the form of work training, child care and other things that help
put them in and keep them in the middle class. It is a mechanism already in existence to correct the worst ravages of Capitalism.
Use it to build shared prosperity.
oKWJNRo 5 Dec 2015 14:40
So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those
who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap
if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context.
We can probably all agree that Capitalism has brought about widespread improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions,
for example, compared to the feudal system that preceded it... But it also disproportionately benefits the upper echelons of Capitalist
societies and is wholly unequal by design.
Capitalism depends upon the existence of a large underclass that can be exploited. This is part of the process of how surplus
value is created and wealth is extracted from labour. This much is indisputable. It is therefore obvious that capitalism isn't
an ideal system for most of us living on this planet.
As for the improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions etc that Capitalism has fostered... Most of these were
won through long struggles against the Capitalist hegemony by the masses. We would have certainly chosen to make these improvements
to our landscape sooner if Capitalism hadn't made every effort to stop us. The problem today is that Capitalism and its powerful
beneficiaries have successfully convinced us that there is no possible alternative. It won't give us the chance to try or even
permit us to believe there could be another, better way.
Martin Joseph -> realdoge 5 Dec 2015 14:33
Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to
the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic
systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this.
I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via
the capitalist countries.
VWFeature 5 Dec 2015 14:29
Markets, economies and tax systems are created by people, and based on rules they agree on. Those rules can favor general prosperity
or concentration of wealth. Destruction and predation are easier than creation and cooperation, so our rules have to favor cooperation
if we want to avoid predation and destructive conflicts.
In the 1930's the US changed many of those rules to favor general prosperity. Since then they've been gradually changed to
favor wealth concentration and predation. They can be changed back.
The trick is creating a system that encourages innovation while putting a safety net under the population so failure doesn't
end in starvation.
A large part of our current problems is the natural tendency for large companies to get larger and larger until their failure
would adversely affect too many others, so they're not allowed to fail. Tax law, not antitrust law, has to work against this.
If a company can reduce its tax rate by breaking into 20 smaller (still huge) companies, then competition is preserved and no
one company can dominate and control markets.
Robert Goldschmidt -> Jake321 5 Dec 2015 14:27
Bernie Sanders has it right on -- we can only heal our system by first having millions rise up and demand an end to the corruption
of the corporations controlling our elected representatives. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
moonwrap02 5 Dec 2015 14:26
The effects of wealth distribution has far reaching consequences. It is not just about money, but creating a fair society -
one that is co-operative and cohesive. The present system has allowed an ever divide between the rich and poor, creating a two
tier society where neither the twain shall meet. The rich and poor are almost different species on the planet and no longer belong
to the same community. Commonality of interest is lost and so it's difficult to form community and to have good, friendly relationships
across class differences that are that large.
"If capitalism is to be seen to be fair, the same rules are to apply to the big guy as to the little guy,"
Sorry. I get it now. You actually think that because the Washington elite has repealed Glass-Steagel that we live in a unregulated
capitalistic system.
This is so far from the truth that I wasn't comprehending that anyone could think that. You can see the graph of pages published
in the Federal Register here. Unregulated capitalism? Wow.
Dodd Frank was passed in 2010 (without a single Republican vote). Originally it was 2,300 pages. It is STILL being written
by nameless bureaucrats and is over 20,000 pages. Unregulated capitalism? Really?
But the reality is that Goliath is conspiring with the government to regulate what size sling David can use and how many stones
and how many ounces.
So we need more government regulations? They will disallow David from anything but spitwads and only two of those.
neuronmaker -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:16
Do you understand the concept of corporations which are products of capitalism?
The legal institutions within each capitalist corporations and nations are just that, they are capitalist and all about making
profits.
The law is made by the rich capitalists and for the rich capitalists. Each Legislation is a link in the chain of economic slavery
by capitalists.
Capitalism and the concept of money is a construction of the human mind, as it does not exist in the natural world. This construction
is all about using other human beings like blood suckers to sustain a cruel and evil life style - with blood and brutality as
the core ideology.
Marcedward -> MarjaE 5 Dec 2015 14:12
I would agree that our system of help for the less-well-off could be more accessible and more generous, but that doesn't negate
that point that there is a lot of help out there - the most important help being that totally free educational system. Think about
it, a free education, and to get the most out of it a student merely has to show up, obey the rules, do the homework and study
for tests. It's all laid out there for the kids like a helicopter mom laying out her kids clothes. How much easier can we make
it? If people can't be bothered to show up and put in effort, how is their failure based on racism
tommydog -> martinusher 5 Dec 2015 14:12
As you are referring to Carlos Slim, interestingly while he is Mexican by birth his parents were both Lebanese.
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:12
Why isn't that capitalism? It's raw capitalism on steroids.
Zara Von Fritz -> Toughspike 5 Dec 2015 14:12
It's an equal opportunity plantation now.
Robert Goldschmidt 5 Dec 2015 14:11
The key to repairing the system is to identify the causes of our problems.
Here is my list:
The information technology revolution which continues to destroy wages by enabling automation and outsourcing.
The reformation of monopolies which price gouge and block innovation.
Hitting ecological limits such as climate change, water shortages, unsustainable farming.
Then we can make meaningful changes such as regulation of the portion of corporate profit that are pay, enforcement of national
and regional antitrust laws and an escalating carbon tax.
Zara Von Fritz -> PostCorbyn 5 Dec 2015 14:11
If you can believe these quality of life or happiness indexes they put out so often, the winners tend to be places that have
nice environments and a higher socialist mix in their economy. Of course there are examples of poor countries that practice the
same but its not clear that their choice is causal rather than reactive.
We created this mess and we can fix it.
Zara Von Fritz -> dig4victory 5 Dec 2015 14:03
Yes Basic Income is possibly the mythical third way. It socialises wealth to a point but at the same time frees markets from
their obligation to perpetually grow and create jobs for the sake of jobs and also hereford reduces the subsequent need for governments
to attempt to control them beyond maintaining their health.
Zara Von Fritz 5 Dec 2015 13:48
As I understand it, you don't just fiddle with capitalism, you counteract it, or counterweight it. A level of capitalism, or
credit accumulation, and a level of socialism has always existed, including democracy which is a manifestation of socialism (1
vote each). So the project of capital accumulation seems to be out of control because larger accumulations become more powerful
and meanwhile the power of labour in the marketplace has become less so due to forces driving unemployment. The danger is that
capital's power to control the democratic system reaches a point of no return.
Jeremiah2000 -> bifess 5 Dec 2015 13:42
"I do not have the economic freedom to grow my own food because i do not have access to enough land to grow it and i do not
have the economic clout to buy a piece of land."
Economic freedom does NOT mean you get money for free. It means that means that if you grow food for personal use, the federal
government doesn't trash the Constitution by using the insterstate commerce clause to say that it can regulate how much you grow
on your own personal land.
Economic freedom means that if you have a widget, you can choose to set the price for $10 or $100 and that a buyer is free
to buy it from you or not buy it from you. It does NOT mean that you are entitled to "free" widgets.
"If capitalism has not managed to eradicate poverty in rich first world countries then just what chance if there of capitalism
eradicating poverty on a global scale?"
The average person in poverty in the U.S. doesn't live in poverty:
In fact, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones, and a healthy majority-58.2 percent-have computers.
Fully 96.1 percent of American households in "poverty" have a television to watch, and 83.2 percent of them have a video-recording
device in case they cannot get home in time to watch the football game or their favorite television show and they want to record
it for watching later.
Refrigerators (97.8 percent), gas or electric stoves (96.6 percent) and microwaves (93.2 percent) are standard equipment in
the homes of Americans in "poverty."
More than 83 percent have air-conditioning.
Interestingly, the appliances surveyed by the Census Bureau that households in poverty are least likely to own are dish washers
(44.9 percent) and food freezers (26.2 percent).
However, most Americans in "poverty" do not need to go to a laundromat. According to the Census Bureau, 68.7 percent of households
in poverty have a clothes washer and 65.3 percent have a clothes dryer.
"... By far the biggest act of wage slavery rebellion, don't buy shit. The less you buy, the less you need to earn. Holidays by far the minority of your life should not be a desperate escape from the majority of your life. Spend less, work less and actually really enjoy living more. ..."
"... How about don't shop at Walmart (they helped boost the Chinese economy while committing hari kari on the American Dream) and actually engaging in proper labour action? Calling in sick is just plain childish. ..."
"... I'm all for sticking it to "the man," but when you call into work for a stupid reason (and a hangover is a very stupid reason), it is selfish, and does more damage to the cause of worker's rights, not less. I don't know about where you work, but if I call in sick to my job, other people have to pick up my slack. I work for a public library, and we don't have a lot of funds, so we have the bear minimum of employees we can have and still work efficiently. As such, if anybody calls in, everyone else, up to and including the library director, have to take on more work. ..."
"Phoning in sick is a revolutionary act." I loved that slogan. It came to me, as so many good things did, from Housmans, the radical
bookshop in King's Cross. There you could rummage through all sorts of anarchist pamphlets and there I discovered, in the early 80s,
the wondrous little magazine Processed World. It told you basically how to screw up your workplace. It was smart and full of small
acts of random subversion. In many ways it was ahead of its time as it was coming out of San Francisco and prefiguring Silicon Valley.
It saw the machines coming. Jobs were increasingly boring and innately meaningless. Workers were "data slaves" working for IBM ("Intensely
Boring Machines").
What Processed World was doing was trying to disrupt the identification so many office workers were meant to feel with their management,
not through old-style union organising, but through small acts of subversion. The modern office, it stressed, has nothing to do with
human need. Its rebellion was about working as little as possible, disinformation and sabotage. It was making alienation fun. In
1981, it could not have known that a self-service till cannot ever phone in sick.
I was thinking of this today, as I wanted to do just that. I have made myself ill with a hangover. A hangover, I always feel,
is nature's way of telling you to have a day off. One can be macho about it and eat your way back to sentience via the medium of
bacon sandwiches and Maltesers. At work, one is dehydrated, irritable and only semi-present. Better, surely, though to let the day
fall through you and dream away.
Having worked in America, though, I can say for sure that they brook no excuses whatsoever. When I was late for work and said
things like, "My alarm clock did not go off", they would say that this was not a suitable explanation, which flummoxed me. I had
to make up others. This was just to work in a shop.
This model of working – long hours, very few holidays, few breaks, two incomes needed to raise kids, crazed loyalty demanded by
huge corporations, the American way – is where we're heading. Except now the model is even more punishing. It is China. We are expected
to compete with an economy whose workers are often closer to indentured slaves than anything else.
This is what striving is, then: dangerous, demoralising, often dirty work. Buckle down. It's the only way forward, apparently,
which is why our glorious leaders are sucking up to China, which is immoral, never mind ridiculously short-term thinking.
So again I must really speak up for the skivers. What we have to understand about austerity is its psychic effects. People must
have less. So they must have less leisure, too. The fact is life is about more than work and work is rapidly changing. Skiving in
China may get you killed but here it may be a small act of resistance, or it may just be that skivers remind us that there is meaning
outside wage-slavery.
Work is too often discussed by middle-class people in ways that are simply unrecognisable to anyone who has done crappy jobs.
Much work is not interesting and never has been. Now that we have a political and media elite who go from Oxbridge to working for
a newspaper or a politician, a lot of nonsense is spouted. These people have not cleaned urinals on a nightshift. They don't sit
lonely in petrol stations manning the till. They don't have to ask permission for a toilet break in a call centre. Instead, their
work provides their own special identity. It is very important.
Low-status jobs, like caring, are for others. The bottom-wipers of this world do it for the glory, I suppose. But when we talk
of the coming automation that will reduce employment, bottom-wiping will not be mechanised. Nor will it be romanticised, as old male
manual labour is. The mad idea of reopening the coal mines was part of the left's strange notion of the nobility of labour. Have
these people ever been down a coal mine? Would they want that life for their children?
Instead we need to talk about the dehumanising nature of work. Bertrand Russell and Keynes thought our goal should be less work,
that technology would mean fewer hours.
Far from work giving meaning to life, in some surveys 40% of us say that our jobs are meaningless. Nonetheless, the art of skiving
is verboten as we cram our children with ever longer hours of school and homework. All this striving is for what exactly? A soul-destroying
job?
Just as education is decided by those who loved school, discussions about work are had by those to whom it is about more than
income.
The parts of our lives that are not work – the places we dream or play or care, the space we may find creative – all these are
deemed outside the economy. All this time is unproductive. But who decides that?
Skiving work is bad only to those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
So go on: phone in sick. You know you want to.
friedad 23 Oct 2015 18:27
We now exist in a society in which the Fear Cloud is wrapped around each citizen. Our proud history of Union and Labor, fighting
for decent wages and living conditions for all citizens, and mostly achieving these aims, a history, which should be taught to
every child educated in every school in this country, now gradually but surely eroded by ruthless speculators in government, is
the future generations are inheriting. The workforce in fear of taking a sick day, the young looking for work in fear of speaking
out at diminishing rewards, definitely this 21st Century is the Century of Fear. And how is this fear denied, with mind blowing
drugs, regardless if it is is alcohol, description drugs, illicit drugs, a society in denial. We do not require a heavenly object
to destroy us, a few soulless monsters in our mist are masters of manipulators, getting closer and closer to accomplish their
aim of having zombies doing their beckoning. Need a kidney, no worries, zombie dishwasher, is handy for one. Oh wait that time
is already here.
Hemulen6 23 Oct 2015 15:06
Oh join the real world, Suzanne! Many companies now have a limit to how often you can be sick. In the case of the charity I
work for it's 9 days a year. I overstepped it, I was genuinely sick, and was hauled up in front of Occupational Health. That will
now go on my record and count against me. I work for a cancer care charity. Irony? Surely not.
AlexLeo -> rebel7 23 Oct 2015 13:34
Which is exactly my point. You compete on relevant job skills and quality of your product, not what school you have attended.
Yes, there are thousands, tens of thousands of folks here around San Jose who barely speak English, but are smart and hard
working as hell and it takes them a few years to get to 150-200K per year, Many of them get to 300-400K, if they come from strong
schools in their countries of origin, compared to the 10k or so where they came from, but probably more than the whining readership
here.
This is really difficult to swallow for the Brits back in Britain, isn't it. Those who have moved over have experiences the
type of social mobility unthinkable in Britain, but they have had to work hard and get to 300K-700K per year, much better than
the 50-100K their parents used to make back in GB. These are averages based on personal interactions with say 50 Brits in the
last 15 + years, all employed in the Silicon Valley in very different jobs and roles.
Todd Owens -> Scott W 23 Oct 2015 11:00
I get what you're saying and I agree with a lot of what you said. My only gripe is most employees do not see an operation from
a business owner or managerial / financial perspective. They don't understand the costs associated with their performance or lack
thereof. I've worked on a lot of projects that we're operating at a loss for a future payoff. When someone decides they don't
want to do the work they're contracted to perform that can have a cascading effect on the entire company.
All in all what's being described is for the most part misguided because most people are not in the position or even care to
evaluate the particulars. So saying you should do this to accomplish that is bullshit because it's rarely such a simple equation.
If anything this type of tactic will leaf to MORE loss and less money for payroll.
weematt -> Barry1858 23 Oct 2015 09:04
Sorry you just can't have a 'nicer' capitalism.
War ( business by other means) and unemployment ( you can't buck the market), are inevitable concomitants of capitalist competition
over markets, trade routes and spheres of interests. (Remember the war science of Nagasaki and Hiroshima from the 'good guys'
?)
"..capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt". (Marx)
You can't have full employment, or even the 'Right to Work'.
There is always ,even in boom times a reserve army of unemployed, to drive down wages. (If necessary they will inject inflation
into the economy)
Unemployment is currently 5.5 percent or 1,860,000 people. If their "equilibrium rate" of unemployment is 4% rather than 5% this
would still mean 1,352,000 "need be unemployed". The government don't want these people to find jobs as it would strengthen workers'
bargaining position over wages, but that doesn't stop them harassing them with useless and petty form-filling, reporting to the
so-called "job centre" just for the sake of it, calling them scroungers and now saying they are mentally defective.
Government is 'over' you not 'for' you.
Governments do not exist to ensure 'fair do's' but to manage social expectations with the minimum of dissent, commensurate
with the needs of capitalism in the interests of profit.
Worker participation amounts to self managing workers self exploitation for the maximum of profit for the capitalist class.
Exploitation takes place at the point of production.
" Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the
revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wages system!'"
Karl Marx [Value, Price and Profit]
John Kellar 23 Oct 2015 07:19
Fortunately; as a retired veteran I don't have to worry about phoning in sick.However; during my Air Force days if you were
sick, you had to get yourself to the Base Medical Section and prove to a medical officer that you were sick. If you convinced
the medical officer of your sickness then you may have been luck to receive on or two days sick leave. For those who were very
sick or incapable of getting themselves to Base Medical an ambulance would be sent - promptly.
Rchrd Hrrcks -> wumpysmum 23 Oct 2015 04:17
The function of civil disobedience is to cause problems for the government. Let's imagine that we could get 100,000 people
to agree to phone in sick on a particular date in protest at austerity etc. Leaving aside the direct problems to the economy that
this would cause. It would also demonstrate a willingness to take action. It would demonstrate a capability to organise mass direct
action. It would demonstrate an ability to bring people together to fight injustice. In and of itself it might not have much impact,
but as a precedent set it could be the beginning of something massive, including further acts of civil disobedience.
wumpysmum Rchrd Hrrcks 23 Oct 2015 03:51
There's already a form of civil disobedience called industrial action, which the govt are currently attacking by attempting
to change statute. Random sickies as per my post above are certainly not the answer in the public sector at least, they make no
coherent political point just cause problems for colleagues. Sadly too in many sectors and with the advent of zero hours contracts
sickies put workers at risk of sanctions and lose them earnings.
Alyeska 22 Oct 2015 22:18
I'm American. I currently have two jobs and work about 70 hours a week, and I get no paid sick days. In fact, the last time
I had a job with a paid sick day was 2001. If I could afford a day off, you think I'd be working 70 hours a week?
I barely make rent most months, and yes... I have two college degrees. When I try to organize my coworkers to unionize for
decent pay and benefits, they all tell me not to bother.... they are too scared of getting on management's "bad side" and "getting
in trouble" (yes, even though the law says management can't retaliate.)
Unions are different in the USA than in the UK. The workforce has to take a vote to unionize the company workers; you can't
"just join" a union here. That's why our pay and working conditions have gotten worse, year after year.
rtb1961 22 Oct 2015 21:58
By far the biggest act of wage slavery rebellion, don't buy shit. The less you buy, the less you need to earn. Holidays
by far the minority of your life should not be a desperate escape from the majority of your life. Spend less, work less and actually
really enjoy living more.
Pay less attention to advertising and more attention to the enjoyable simplicity of life, of real direct human relationships,
all of them, the ones in passing where you wish a stranger well, chats with service staff to make their life better as well as
your own, exchange thoughts and ideas with others, be a human being and share humanity with other human beings.
Mkjaks 22 Oct 2015 20:35
How about don't shop at Walmart (they helped boost the Chinese economy while committing hari kari on the American Dream)
and actually engaging in proper labour action? Calling in sick is just plain childish.
toffee1 22 Oct 2015 19:13
It is only considered productive if it feeds the beast, that is, contribute to the accumulation of capital so that the beast
can have more power over us. The issue here is the wage labor. The 93 percent of the U.S. working population perform wage labor
(see BLS site). It is the highest proportion in any society ever came into history. Under the wage labor (employment) contract,
the worker gives up his/her decision making autonomy. The worker accepts the full command of his/her employer during the labor
process. The employer directs and commands the labor process to achieve the goals set by himself. Compare this, for example, self-employed
providing a service (for example, a plumber). In this case, the customer describes the problem to the service provider but the
service provider makes all the decisions on how to organize and apply his labor to solve the problem. Or compare it to a democratically
organized coop, where workers make all the decisions collectively, where, how and what to produce. Under the present economic
system, a great majority of us are condemned to work in large corporations performing wage labor. The system of wage labor stripping
us from autonomy on our own labor, creates all the misery in our present world through alienation. Men and women lose their humanity
alienated from their own labor. Outside the world of wage labor, labor can be a source self-realization and true freedom. Labor
can be the real fulfillment and love. Labor together our capacity to love make us human. Bourgeoisie dehumanized us steeling our
humanity. Bourgeoisie, who sold her soul to the beast, attempting to turn us into ever consuming machines for the accumulation
of capital.
patimac54 -> Zach Baker 22 Oct 2015 17:39
Well said. Most retail employers have cut staff to the minimum possible to keep the stores open so if anyone is off sick, it's
the devil's own job trying to just get customers served. Making your colleagues work even harder than they normally do because
you can't be bothered to act responsibly and show up is just plain selfish.
And sorry, Suzanne, skiving work is nothing more than an act of complete disrespect for those you work with. If you don't understand
that, try getting a proper job for a few months and learn how to exercise some self control.
TettyBlaBla -> FranzWilde 22 Oct 2015 17:25
It's quite the opposite in government jobs where I am in the US. As the fiscal year comes to a close, managers look at their
budgets and go on huge spending sprees, particularly for temp (zero hours in some countries) help and consultants. They fear if
they don't spend everything or even a bit more, their spending will be cut in the next budget. This results in people coming in
to do work on projects that have no point or usefulness, that will never be completed or even presented up the food chain of management,
and ends up costing taxpayers a small fortune.
I did this one year at an Air Quality Agency's IT department while the paid employees sat at their desks watching portable
televisions all day. It was truly demeaning.
oommph -> Michael John Jackson 22 Oct 2015 16:59
Thing is though, children - dependents to pay for - are the easiest way to keep yourself chained to work.
The homemaker model works as long as your spouse's employer retains them (and your spouse retains you in an era of 40% divorce).
You are just as dependent on an employer and "work" but far less in control of it now.
Zach Baker 22 Oct 2015 16:41
I'm all for sticking it to "the man," but when you call into work for a stupid reason (and a hangover is a very stupid
reason), it is selfish, and does more damage to the cause of worker's rights, not less. I don't know about where you work, but
if I call in sick to my job, other people have to pick up my slack. I work for a public library, and we don't have a lot of funds,
so we have the bear minimum of employees we can have and still work efficiently. As such, if anybody calls in, everyone else,
up to and including the library director, have to take on more work. If I found out one of my co-workers called in because
of a hangover, I'd be pissed. You made the choice to get drunk, knowing that you had to work the following morning. Putting it
into the same category of someone who is sick and may not have the luxury of taking off because of a bad employer is insulting.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
The trouble with CIA democrats is not that they are stupid, but that that are evil.
Hillary proved to be really destructive witch during her Obama stunt as the Secretary of State. Destroyed Libya and Ukraine,
which is no small feat.
Notable quotes:
"... The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided. ..."
"... She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League. ..."
The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:
Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to
harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous.
Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national
security at grave risk.
This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy)
destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the
hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the
consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in
Antiwar.com in 2015:
The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State
Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all
other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked
the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and
al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the
ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.
This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a.
"Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our
Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we
empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to
ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch
shows.
After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be
commenting on this matter.
a different chris, December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am
> the people who want to harm us are there & at war
Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.
CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic
National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike
appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five weeks prior to this and
approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the
2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the
five weeks had passed when the DNC published a press release stating that
CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate the NGP-VAN issues
(that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).
Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to
investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network
when the DNC emails were acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being
acquired and didn't publish logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either,
the latter of which is odd considering what
their product's features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a
monitoring capacity .
Believe it or not, all these faces are fake. They have been synthesized by Nvidia's new AI
algorithm, a generative adversarial network capable of automagically creating humans, cats, and
even cars.
Credit: Nvidia
The technology works so well that we can expect synthetic image search engines soon - just
like Google's, but generating new fake images on the fly that look real. Yes, you know where
that is going - and sure, it can be a lot of fun, but also scary . Check out the video. It
truly defies belief:
According to Nvidia, its GAN is built around a concept called "style transfer." Rather than
trying to copy and paste elements of different faces into a frankenperson, the system analyzes
three basic styles - coarse, middle, and fine styles - and merges them transparently into
something completely new.
Coarse styles include parameters such as pose, the face's shape, or the hair style. Middle
styles include facial features, like the shape of the nose, cheeks, or mouth. Finally, fine
styles affect the color of the face's features like skin and hair.
According to the scientists, the generator is "capable of separating inconsequential
variation from high-level attributes" too, in order to eliminate noise that is irrelevant for
the new synthetic face.
For example, it can distinguish a hairdo from the actual hair, eliminating the former while
applying the latter to the final photo. It can also specify the strength of how styles are
applied to obtain more or less subtle effects.
Not only the generative adversarial network is capable of autonomously creating human faces,
but it can do the same with animals like cats. It can even create new cars and even
bedrooms.
Credit: Nvidia
Nvidia's system is not only capable of generating completely new synthetic faces, but it can
also seamlessly modify specific features of real people, like age, the hair or skin colors of
any person.
The applications for such a system are amazing. From paradigm-changing synthetic free-to-use
image search pages that may be the end of stock photo services to people accurately previewing
hair styling changes. And of course, porn.
you're one
of the millions of human beings who, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, still
believe there is such a thing as "the truth," you might not want to read this essay. Seriously,
it can be extremely upsetting when you discover that there is no "truth" or rather, that what
we're all conditioned to regard as "truth" from the time we are children is just the product of
a technology of power, and not an empirical state of being. Humans, upon first encountering
this fact, have been known to freak completely out and start jabbering about the "Word of God,"
or "the immutable laws of quantum physics," and run around burning other people at the stake or
locking them up and injecting them with Thorazine. I don't want to be responsible for anything
like that, so consider this your trigger warning.
OK, now that that's out of the way, let's take a look at how "truth" is manufactured. It's
actually not that complicated. See, the "truth" is well, it's a story, essentially. It's
whatever story we are telling ourselves at any given point in history ("we" being the majority
of people, those conforming to the rules of whatever system wields enough power to dictate the
story it wants everyone to be telling themselves). Everyone understands this intuitively, but
the majority of people pretend they don't in order to be able to get by in the system, which
punishes anyone who does not conform to its rules, or who contradicts its story. So, basically,
to manufacture the truth, all you really need is (a) a story, and (b) enough power to coerce a
majority of people in your society to pretend to believe it.
I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better
debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan
Cook ,
Craig Murray ,
Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama, and many others). [ ed. including
us ]
The short version is, The Guardian's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix
his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort,
Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on
numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans
into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian
prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual
anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The
Guardian quietly revised the piece (employing the subjunctive mood rather
liberally), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had
never published it.
The Guardian's latest attack on Julian Assange was not only a fallacious smear, it
represented a desperate attempt on behalf of the British intelligence community to conflate the
pending US charges against the journalist with Russiagate. The Guardian's article seeks to
deflect from the reality that the prosecution of Assange will
focus on Chelsea Manning-Era releases and Vault 7, not the DNC or Podesta emails.
We assert this claim based on the timing of the publication, the Guardian's history of
subservience to British intelligence agencies, animosity between The Guardian and WikiLeaks,
and the longstanding personal feud between Guardian journalist Luke Harding and Assange. This
conclusion is also supported by Harding's financial and career interest in propping up the
Russiagate narrative
"... " The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." ..."
"... 2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns." ..."
"... "There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." ..."
"... " This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." ..."
"... One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente " ..."
"... The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador. ..."
"... The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories. ..."
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." ..."
"... That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez , raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some. ..."
Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple
serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though
not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at
the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando
Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the
USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador .
Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian
Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now
been
definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy
between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he
was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear
authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories
based on fabricated documents.
In May,
Disobedient Media reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or
rather, the normal
security operations of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That
hit-piece ,
co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an
anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly
refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept , and also by WikiLeaks as an "anonymous libel" with which the
Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."
How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns
out.
Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a
comprehensive report
detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums
up her findings, which are worth reading in full :
" The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the
Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S.
government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both
Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa."
As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that
during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against
humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot
at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by
the court.
Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson
recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian
stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted : 2014 Ecuador's
Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was
fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake
Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."
Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement which reads in part:
"There is also evidence that
the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and
opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the
document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and
replaced with a version with this evidence removed)."
The statement also notes that
Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010
coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.
It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest
libelous article were photographed with
Villavicencio in Ecuador shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange
had conducted meetings with Manafort.
Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: " This video from the news wire
Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally
uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified
shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would
appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.
Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the
gall to publish another image of himself
with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "
One of my greatest journalistic experiences was
working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the
Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @somos_lafuente " [Translated from Spanish]
The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the
disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all
involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims,
or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.
Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted
by WikiLeaks via Twitter does show that
Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange
allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be
viewed, however, thanks to archive services.
The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence
showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it
documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and
fabricated stories.
All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding
and Collyns – Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even
quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these
three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?
Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its
already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.
Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism
Craig Murray calls Harding an " MI6
tool ", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook,
hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as
fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of
anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists
of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.
To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again
recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire
Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the
internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it
was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.
In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and
WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the
pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer
previously noted , Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: " Collusion: Secret
Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to
Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty
narrative his book supports.
Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that
Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his
pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the
case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on
behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book
sales.
That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange
story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version
of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez
, raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad
sources who duped them, as claimed by some.
It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same
intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee
for.
In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on
its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending
prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an
onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the
largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building
in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.
The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of
the establishment when it comes to Assange.
"No taxation without representation" is the cornerstone to the founding of the nation. Is
it not ?
Every Neocon Oligarch who Conspired to Defraud us into "war of aggression" should have ALL
their assets seized to pay for the costs of the wars they lied us into.
No more, no less.
Choosing to "Boycott Israel "may help the suffering Palestinians to some small degree, but
if anyone is serious about helping The UNITED STATES ..The highest priority should be SEIZING
the ASSETS of EVERY individual who LIED us into WAR.
The law is crystal clear on this ..and its on YOUR SIDE.
The people just need a referendum like "THE WAR FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT of 2020″
(retroactive to 2002.)
They just need to sign it and push it through .By "majority" mandate.
Why waste time boycotting Israel .When 300 million Americans are one step away from
rightfully taking back ALL their MONEY from every Neocon Oligarch who "conspired to defraud"
us into war ?
Think about how hard Americans have worked to build our country in 200 years we created
the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth.
Yet all that wealth has been Squandered, in a mere 17 years, because we were defrauded
into illegal wars of aggression.
Its not right.
Make THEM pay for the wars they lied us into.
Every penny.
Take back you solvency . Americans.
This is the smart play .its legal its just and its right there for you.
"... early in its life and throughout its existence ..."
"... The foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and continued doing so throughout its existence, as such, the foundation should have registered under FARA. ..."
"... good foundation for truth and transparency ..."
"... "These are not our facts. They are not your facts. They are the facts of the Clinton Foundation," ..."
"... misuse of donated public funds ..."
"... falsely attested that it received funds and used them for charitable purposes which was, in fact, not the case. Rather the foundation pursued in an array of activities both domestically and abroad ..."
"... properly characterized as profit-oriented and taxable undertakings of private enterprise, again failing the operational tests of philanthropy referenced above ..."
"... it was hard to tell where the Clinton State Department ended and the Clinton Foundation began ..."
"... Alice in Wonderland ..."
"... We have a ruling saying there is sufficient grounds to go forward with a criminal investigation of the Trump Foundation, not the Clinton Foundation ..."
Fraud
investigators have exposed the Clinton Foundation's alleged misdeeds in a Congressional
hearing, describing it as a de facto "foreign agent" devoted not to charity but to "advancing
the personal interests of its principals." The Clinton Foundation acted as an agent of foreign
governments " early in its life and throughout its existence ," according to testimony
by former government forensic investigator John Moynihan, which, if true, would not only render
it in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act but also would violate its nonprofit
charter, putting it on the hook for a massive quantity of unpaid taxes.
The foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and
continued doing so throughout its existence, as such, the foundation should have registered
under FARA.
Moynihan and fellow ex-government investigator Lawrence Doyle shared 6,000 pages of evidence
with the IRS over 18 months ago, only to be met with silence. They shared them with the FBI
multiple times – ditto. Yet when the pair testified before the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, they refused to turn over the documents, stating they did not want
to interfere with any ongoing investigations.
The committee chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said witnesses' reluctance to share all the
documents was hardly a " good foundation for truth and transparency ," while Rep. Jody
Hice (R-GA) said he felt the duo was " using " the panel for their own benefit.
"These are not our facts. They are not your facts. They are the facts of the Clinton
Foundation," said Moynihan, maintaining his interest in the case is purely financial
– not political.
Testifying on their findings, Doyle highlighted the Foundation's alleged " misuse of
donated public funds ," explaining that it " falsely attested that it received funds
and used them for charitable purposes which was, in fact, not the case. Rather the foundation
pursued in an array of activities both domestically and abroad ," which included
activities " properly characterized as profit-oriented and taxable undertakings of private
enterprise, again failing the operational tests of philanthropy referenced above ,"
referring to the equally non-charitable pursuit of funding the Clinton Presidential
Library.
John Huber, appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the Clinton
Foundation after Sessions recused himself from doing so, was conspicuously absent from the
hearing, even though his job is to probe Clinton's approval of the sale of US uranium assets to
Russia.
Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton also gave testimony, outlining how " it was hard to tell
where the Clinton State Department ended and the Clinton Foundation began " – so
much so that the King of Bahrain, unable to meet with Clinton as Secretary of State, secured a
meeting with the Foundation instead.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) likened the testimony to " Alice in Wonderland ,"
claiming yet another investigation of the Clintons was an attempt to distract from the ongoing
investigations of Trump. " We have a ruling saying there is sufficient grounds to go
forward with a criminal investigation of the Trump Foundation, not the Clinton Foundation
," he said, adding that the committee had an informant in the Uranium One deal-making process
who was unable to present any evidence of wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, the FBI has missed a deadline to turn over information on why they raided the
home of another Clinton Foundation whistleblower, Nathan Cain, earlier this week. Cain's lawyer
says his client – who reportedly gave the Justice Department documents showing federal
officials failed to investigate criminal activity related to the Uranium One deal – was
accused of possessing stolen federal property.
Overall, arms sales increased in 2017, with total global sales nearing 400
billion dollars, marking a 2.5 percent increase from last year and the third year of continued
growth for the industry.
Russia comes in second, with year-over-year growth in arms production. In 2017, Russia
provided the world with 10 percent of arms sales, closely followed by The UK.
Only major arms companies were included in this study. China was excluded due to
insufficient data.
Problem with this is that the buyers of all that American weaponry are definitely not got
any 'bang for the proverbial buck' (pun intended). Horrendously overpriced weaponry which in
most instances render less value and effectiveness than similarly available Russian
analogues.
They know, the arms are inferior garbage, it's just like mafioso protection money or
better known as extortion. The charge a fortune for substandard weapons and MIC folks keep
the change. Same as murican tax payers. If there were no boogie men created then what would
be the justification for all the spending on military hardware?
There is no return on investment here. It's money laundering.
Letter of intent only. They have literally purchased none of those orders, despite
repeated US harassment for the 15 Billion for the THAADS to get the ball rolling. All bluster
and boasting and smoke and mirrors.
My suspicion is that SA under MBS is considering switching sides slowly and will purchase
Russian and Chinese instead. If the US had foreknowledge of this, hence the switch in tone re
butchering journalists and Yemenis ... hence why MBS isn't Time Magazine poster boy at the
moment.
Your correct I went back and checked it was order book not delivery,MBS situation is very
interesting with the recent high five with Putin there was some backstory that it was
celebration of a certain US admirals demise that was causing them problems whether true or
not I dont know but it would not surprise me if S400's end up in Saudi Arabia
Remember that old stuff about Krupp being the "Merchant of Death"? Aren't we, like, edging
into that territory? Is this what the Founders and Ratifiers had in mind? Could this enormous
arms trade and our military expenditures and adventures be a clue that we're on the wrong
track?
Swing between extremes, however, consistent in US history, economic predatory dependence on
free/ultra cheap labor with no legal rights. Current instantiation, offshored and illegal and
"temporary" immigrant labor. Note neither party in the US is proposing "immigration reform"
is green card upon hire. Ds merely propose green card for time served for those over X number
of years donated as captive/cheap.
The entitled to cheap/captive now want it in law, national laws and trade agreements.
All privilege/no responsibilities, including taxes.
Doesn't scale. 1929 says so, 2008 says so.
Liberals, the Left, Progressives -- whatever you want to call them suffer from a basic
problem. They don't work together and have no common goals. As the article stated they
complain but offer no real solutions that they can agree on. Should we emphasize gay pride or
should we emphasize good-paying jobs and benefits with good social welfare benefits? Until
they can agree at least on priorities they will never reform the current corrupt system -- it
is too entrenched. Even if the Capitalist Monstrosity we have now self-destructs as the
writer indicates -- nothing good will replace it until the Left get their act together.
"Lesser of two evils" needs to go on the burn pile.
Encumbent congress needs a turn over.
Not showing up to vote is not okay. If people can't think of someone they want to write-in,
"none of the above" is a protest vote. Not voting is silence, which equals consent.
Local elections, beat back Koch/ALEC, hiding on ballots as "Libertarian". "Privatize
everything" is their mantra, so they can further profitize via inescapeable taxes, while
gutting "regulation" - safety and market integrity, with no accountability.
Corporation 101: limited liability. While means we are left holding the bag. As in bailout -
$125 billion in 1990, up to $7.7 trillion in 2008.
Anything the Economist presents as the overriding choice is probably best relegated to
one factor among many. I respect Milanovic's work, but he's seeing things from where we are
now. Remember we've seen populist surges come and go from the witch-burnings and religious
panics of the 17th century to 1890s Bryanism and the 1930s far right, and each time they've
yielded to a more articulate vision, though the last time it cost sixty million dead - not
something we want to see repeated. This time it's hard because dissent still clings to a
"post-ideological" delusion that those on top never succumbed to. But change will come as
what I'd term "post-rational" alternatives fail to deliver. Let's hope it's sooner rather
than later.
"Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt." Thank you Martin, at least someone
writing in the Guardian has got the point!
We voted against the EU's unelected European Central Bank, its unelected European Commission,
its European Court of Justice, its Common Agricultural Policy and its Common Fisheries
Policy.
We voted against the EU's treaty-enshrined 'austerity' (= depression) policies, which have
impoverished Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
We voted against the EU/US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would
privatise all our public services, which threatens all our rights, and which discriminates
against the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
We voted against the EU's tariffs against African farmers' cheaper produce.
We opposed the City of London Corporation, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the IMF,
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, which all wanted us to
stay in the EU.
We voted against the EU's undemocratic trilogue procedure and its pro-austerity Semester
programme. We voted to leave this undemocratic, privatisation-enforcing, austerity-enforcing
body.
Bailout was because that was public savings, pensions, 401ks, etc. the banks were playing
with, and lost. Bailout is billing all of us for it. Bad, letting the banks/financial
"services" not only survive but continue the exact same practices.
Bailout: $7.2 to $7.7 trillion. Current derivative holdings: $500 trillion.
Not just moral hazard but economic hazard when capitalism basic rule is broken, allow bad
businesses to die of their own accord. Subversion currently called "too big to fail", rather
than tell the public "we lost all your savings, pensions, ...".
Relocating poverty from the East into the West isn't improvement.
Creating sweatshops in the East isn't raising their standard of living.
Creating economies so economically unstable that population declines isn't improvement.
Trying to bury that fact with immigration isn't improvement.
Configuring all of the above for record profit for the benefit of a tiny percentage of the
population isn't improvement.
Gaming tax law to avoid paying into/for extensive business use of federal services and tax
base isn't improvement.
Game over. Time for a reboot.
I am glad you finally concede a point on neo-liberalism. The moral hazard argument is
extremely poor and typical in this era of runaway CEO pay, of a tendency to substitute
self-help fables (a la "The monk who sold his Ferrari) and pop psychology ( a la Moral
Hazard) for credible economic analysis.
The economic crisis is rooted in the profit motive just as capitalist economic growth is.
Lowering of Tarrif barriers, outsourcing, changes in value capture (added value), new
financial instruments, were attempts to restore the falling rate of profit. They did for a
while, but, as always happens with Capitalism, the seeds of the new crisis were in the
solution to the old.
And all the while the state continues growing in an attempt to keep capitalism afloat.
Neoliberalism failed ( or should I say "small state" ) and here is the graph to prove it: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp03t.png
Interesting, and I believe accurate, analysis of the economic and political forces afoot.
However it is ludicrous to state that Donald trump, who is a serial corpratist, out-sourcer,
tax avoider and scam artist, actually believes any of those populist principles that you
ascribe so firmly to him. The best and safest outcome of our election, in my opinion, would
be to have a Clinton administration tempered by the influences from the populist wings of
both parties.
Great article, however the elite globalists are in complete denial in the US. Our only choice
is to vote them out of power because the are owned by Wall Street. Both Bernie and Trump
supporters should unite to vote establishment out of Washington.
There were similar observations in the immediate aftermath of 2008, and doubtless before.
Many of us thought the crisis would trigger a rethink of the whole direction of the previous
three decades, but instead we got austerity and a further lurch to the right, or at best
Obama-style stimulus and modest tweaks which were better than the former but still rather
missed the point. I still find it flabbergasting and depressing, but on reflection the 1930s
should have been a warning of not just the economic hazards but also the political fallout,
at least in Europe. The difference was that this time left ideology had all but vacated the
field in the 1980s and was in no position to lead a fightback: all we can hope for is better
late than never.
Yes it is, it's an extremely bad thing destroying the fabric of society. Social science
has documented that even the better off are more happy, satisfied with life and feel safer in
societies (i.e. the Scandinavian) where there is a relatively high degree of economic
equality. Yes, economic inequality is a BAD thing in itself.
Oh, give me a break. Social science will document anything it can publish, no matter how
spurious. If Scandanavia is so great, why are they such pissheads? There has always been
inequality, including in workers' paradises like the Soviet Union and Communist China.
Inequality is what got us where we are today, through natural selection. Phenotype is largely
dependent on genotype, so why shouldn't we pass on material wealth as well as our genes?
Surely it is a parent's right to afford their offspring advantages if they can do so?
Have you got any numbers? Or references for your allegations. I say the average or median
wealth, opportunity, economic circumstance and health measures are substantially better than
a generation (lets say 30 years) ago.
Again I don't think our system is perfect. I don't deny that some in our societies
struggle and don't benefit, particularly the poorly educated, disabled, mentally ill and drug
addicted. I actually agree that we could better target our social redistribution from those
that have to those that need help. I disagree that we need higher taxes, protectionism,
socialism, more public servants, more legislation. Indeed I disagree with proposition that
other systems are better.
George Orwell said, in the 30s, that the price of social justice would include a lowering of
living standards for the working- & middle-classes, at least temporarily, so I follow
your line of thought. However, the outrageous tilt toward the upper .1% has no "adjustment"
fluff to shield it from the harsh despotism it represents. So, do put that in your
statistical pipe and smoke it.
Add to this that Trump changed his election slogan from "make America [ "working class"]
great again" to "make Amerca [financial oligarchy] great again"
The only problem is that 'America' does not exist. America is a part description of a
continent and I think we are talking about the USA (only one country on North American
soil) Why do the yanks always have to exaggerate their own importance like the Olympics
bloke who claimed he was robbed at gunpoint lol! Do the USAians actually have an
inferiority complex?
Exploitation is high on the priority list of any Tory government, wealth should be
distributed much more fairly than it currently is. The tories only serve the rich, they have
no time or empathy for the poor.
Empathy and compassion are vacant in the tory philosophy of the world. These two
components make up a psychopathic personality.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The idea that examiners should not criticize any bank misconduct, predation, or 'unsafe and unsound practice' that does not constitute a felony is obviously insane. ..."
"... The trade association complaint that examiners dare to criticize non-felonious bank conduct – and the WSJ ..."
"... I have more than a passing acquaintance with banking, banking regulation, and banking's rectitude (such an old fashioned word) in the importance for Main Street's survival, and for the country's as a whole survival as a trusted pivot point in world finance , or for the survival of the whole American project. I know this sounds like an over-the-top assertion on my part, however I believe it true. ..."
"... Obama et al confusing "banking" with sound banking is too ironic, imo. ..."
"... It was actually worse than this. The very deliberate strategy was to indoctrinate employees of federal regulatory agencies to see the companies they regulated not as "partners" but as "customers" to be served. This theme is repeated again and again in Bush era agency reports. Elizabeth Warren was viciously attacked early in the Obama Administration for calling for a new "watchdog" agency to protect consumers. The idea that a federal agency would dedicate itself to protecting citizens first was portrayed as dangerously radical by industry. ..."
"... Models on Clinton and Bush. What's not to like? Why isn't msm and dem elites showing him the love when he's following their long term policies? And we might assume these would be hills policies if she had been pushed over the line. A little thought realizes that in spite of the pearl clutching they far prefer him to Bernie. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is
to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas
City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives
The Wall Street Journal published an article
on December 12, 2018 that should warn us of coming disaster: "Banks Get Kinder, Gentler
Treatment Under Trump." The last time a regulatory head lamented that regulators were not
"kinder and gentler" promptly ushered in the Enron-era fraud epidemic. President Bush made
Harvey Pitt his Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair in August 2001 and, in one of
his early major addresses, he spoke on October 22, 2001 to a group of accounting
leaders.
Pitt, as a private counsel, represented all the top tier audit firms, and they had
successfully pushed Bush to appoint him to run the SEC. The second sentence of Pitt's speech
bemoaned the fact that the SEC had not been "a kinder and gentler place for accountants." He
concluded his first paragraph with the statement that the SEC and the auditors needed to work
"in partnership." He soon reiterated that point: "We view the accounting profession as our
partner" and amped it up by calling accountants the SEC's "critical partner."
Pitt expanded on that point: "I am committed to the principle that government is and must be
a service industry." That, of course, would not be controversial if he meant a service agency
(not "industry") for the public. Pitt, however, meant that the SEC should be a "service
industry" for the auditors and corporations.
Pitt then turned to pronouncing the SEC to be the guilty party in the "partnership." He
claimed that the SEC had terrorized accountants. He then stated that he had ordered the SEC to
end this fictional terror campaign.
[A]ccountants became afraid to talk to the SEC, and the SEC appeared to be unwilling to
listen to the profession. Those days are ended.
This prompted Pitt to ratchet even higher his "partnership" language.
I speak for the entire Commission when I say that we want to have a continuing dialogue,
and partnership, with the accounting profession,
Recall that Pitt spoke on October 22, 2001. Here are the relevant excerpts from the NY
Times' Enron
timeline :
Oct. 16 – Enron announces $638 million in third-quarter losses and a $1.2 billion
reduction in shareholder equity stemming from writeoffs related to failed broadband and water
trading ventures as well as unwinding of so-called Raptors, or fragile entities backed by
falling Enron stock created to hedge inflated asset values and keep hundreds of millions of
dollars in debt off the energy company's books.
Oct. 19 – Securities and Exchange Commission launches inquiry into Enron
finances.
Oct. 22 – Enron acknowledges SEC inquiry into a possible conflict of interest
related to the company's dealings with Fastow's partnerships.
Oct. 23 – Lay professes confidence in Fastow to analysts.
Oct. 24 – Fastow ousted.
The key fact is that even as Enron was obviously spiraling toward imminent collapse (it
filed for bankruptcy on December 2) – and the SEC knew it – Pitt offered no warning
in his speech. The auditors and the corporate CEOs and CFOs were not the SEC's 'partners.'
Thousands of CEOs and CFOs were filing false financial statements – with 'clean' opinions
from the then 'Big 5' auditors. Pitt was blind to the 'accounting control fraud' epidemic that
was raging at the time he spoke to the accountants. Thousands of his putative auditor
'partners' were getting rich by blessing fraudulent financial statements and harming the
investors that the SEC is actually supposed to serve.
Tom Frank aptly characterized the Bush appointees that completed the destruction of
effective financial regulation as "The Wrecking Crew." It is important, however, to understand
that Bush largely adopted and intensified Clinton's war against effective regulation. Clinton
and Bush led the unremitting bipartisan assault on regulation for 16 years. That produced the
criminogenic environment that produced the three largest financial fraud epidemics in history
that hyper-inflated the real estate bubble and drove the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).
President Trump has renewed the Clinton/Bush war on regulation and he has appointed banking
regulatory leaders that have consciously modeled their assault on regulation on Bush and
Clinton's 'Wrecking Crews.'
Bill Clinton's euphemism for his war on effective regulation was "Reinventing Government."
Clinton appointed VP Al Gore to lead the assault. (Clinton and Gore are "New Democrat" leaders
– the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.) Gore decided he needed to choose an
anti-regulator to conduct the day-to-day leadership. We know from Bob Stone's memoir the sole
substantive advice he gave Gore in their first meeting that caused Gore to appoint him as that
leader. "Do not 'waste one second going after waste, fraud, and abuse.'" Elite insider fraud
is, historically, the leading cause of bank losses and failures, so Stone's advice was sure to
lead to devastating financial crises. It is telling that it was the fact that Stone gave
obviously idiotic advice to Gore that led him to select Stone as the field commander of Clinton
and Gore's war on effective regulation.
Stone convinced the Clinton-Gore administration to embrace the defining element of crony
capitalism as its signature mantra for its war on effective regulation. Stone and his troops
ordered us to refer to the banks, not the American people, as our "customers." Peters' foreword
to Stone's book admits the action, but is clueless about the impact.
Bob Stone's insistence on using the word "customer" was mocked by some -- but made an
enormous difference over the course of time. In general, he changed the vocabulary of public
service from 'procedure first' to 'service first.'"
That is a lie. We did not 'mock' the demand that we treat the banks rather than the American
people as our "customer" – we openly protested the outrageous order that we embrace and
encourage crony capitalism. Crony capitalism's core principle – which is unprincipled
– is that the government should treat elite CEOs as their 'customers' or 'partners.' A
number of us publicly expressed our rage at the corrupt order to treat CEOs as our customers.
The corrupt order caused me to leave the government.
Our purpose as regulators is to serve the people of the United States – not bank CEOs.
It was disgusting and dishonest for Peters to claim that our objection to crony capitalism
represented our (fictional) disdain for serving the public. Many S&L regulators risked
their careers by taking on elite S&L frauds and their powerful political fixers. Many of us
paid a heavy personal price because we acted to protect the public from these elite frauds. Our
efforts prevented the S&L debacle from causing a GFC – precisely because we
recognized the critical need to spend most of our time preventing and prosecuting the elite
frauds that Stone wanted us to ignore..
Trump's wrecking crew is devoted to recreating Clinton and Bush's disastrous crony
capitalism war on regulation that produced the GFC. In a June 8,
2018 article , the Wall Street Journal mocked Trump's appointment of Joseph Otting
as Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The illustration that introduces the article bears the
motto: "IN BANKS WE TRUST."
Otting, channeling his inner Pitt, declared his employees guilty of systematic misconduct
and embraced crony capitalism through Pitt's favorite phrase – "partnership."
I think it is more of a partnership with the banks as opposed to a dictatorial perspective
under the prior administration.
Otting, while he was in the industry, compared the OCC under President Obama to a fictional
interstellar terrorist. Obama appointed federal banking regulators that were pale imitation of
Ed Gray, Joe Selby, and Mike Patriarca – the leaders of the S&L reregulation. The
idea that Obama's banking regulators were akin to 'terrorists' is farcical.
The WSJ's December 12, 2018 article reported that Otting had also used Bob Stone's
favorite term to embrace crony capitalism.
Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting has also changed the tone from the top at his
agency, calling banks his "customers."
There are many terrible role models Trump could copy as his model of how to destroy banking
regulation and produce the next GFC, but Otting descended into unintentional self-parody when
he channeled word-for-word the most incompetent and dishonest members of Clinton and Bush's
wrecking crews.
The same article reported a trade association's statement that demonstrates the type of
outrageous reaction that crony capitalism inevitably breeds within industry.
Banks are suffering from "examiner criticisms that do not deal with any violation of law,"
said Greg Baer, CEO of the Bank Policy Institute ."
The article presented no response to this statement so I will explain why it is absurd.
First, "banks" do not "suffer" from "examiner criticism." Banks gain from examiner criticism.
Effective regulators (and whistleblowers) are the only people who routinely 'speak truth to
power.' Auditors, credit rating agencies, and attorneys routinely 'bless' the worst CEO abuses
that harm banks while enriching the CEO. The bank CEO cannot fire the examiner, so the
examiners' expert advice is the only truly "independent" advice the bank's board of directors
receives. That makes the examiners' criticisms invaluable to the bank. CEOs hate our advice
because we are the only 'control' (other than the episodic whistleblower) that is willing and
competent to criticize the CEO.
The idea that examiners should not criticize any bank misconduct, predation, or 'unsafe
and unsound practice' that does not constitute a felony is obviously insane. While
"violations of law" (felonies) are obviously of importance to us in almost all cases, our
greatest expertise is in identifying – and stopping – "unsafe and unsound
practices" because such practices, like fraud, are leading causes of bank losses and
failures.
Third, repeated "unsafe and unsound practices" are a leading indicator of likely elite
insider bank fraud and other "violations of law."
The trade association complaint that examiners dare to criticize non-felonious bank
conduct – and the WSJ reporters' failure to point out the absurdity of that
complaint – demonstrate that the banking industry's goal remains the destruction of
effective banking regulation. Trump's wrecking crew is using the Clinton and Bush playbook to
restore fully crony capitalism. He has greatly accelerated the onset of the next GFC.
Thank you for this, Bill Black. IMO the long-term de-regulatory policies under successive
administrations cited here, together with their neutering the rule of law by overturning the
Glass-Steagall Act; de-funding and failing to enforce antitrust, fraud and securities laws;
financial repression of the majority; hidden financial markets subsidies; and other policies
are just part of an organized, long-term systemic effort to enable, organize and subsidize
massive control and securities fraud; theft of and disinvestment in publicly owned resources
and services; environmental damage; and transfers of social costs that enable the organizers
to in turn gain a hugely disproportionate share of the nation's wealth and nearly absolute
political control under their "Citizens United" political framework.
Not to diminish, but among other things the current president provides nearly daily
entertainment, diversion and spectacle in our Brave New World that serves to obfuscate what
has occurred and is happening.
I'm with you Chauncey. I believe the rot really got started with creative accounting in
early 1970s. That's when accountants of every flavor lost themselves and were soon followed
by the lawyers. Sauce for the goose.
Banks and Insurers and many industrial concerns have become too big. We could avoid all
the regulatory problems by placing a maximum size on commercial endeavour.
A number of years ago I did both the primary capital program and environmental (NEPA) review
for major capital projects in a Federal Region. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at
stake. A local agency wanted us (the Feds) to approve pushing up many of their projects using
a so-called Public Private Partnership (PPP). This required the local agency to borrow many
millions from Wall Street while at the same time privatizing many of their here-to-fore
public operations. And of course there was an added benefit of instituting a non-union
shop.
To this end I was required to sit down with the local agency head (he actually wore white
shoes), his staff and several representatives of Goldman-Sachs. After the meeting ended, I
opined to the agency staff that Goldman-Sachs was "bullshit" and so were their projects.
Shortly thereafter I was removed to a less high-profile Region with projects that were not
all that griftable, and there was no danger of me having to review a PPP.
Oh, and I denied, denied, denied saying "bullshit."
Thank you, NC, for featuring these posts by Bill Black.
I have more than a passing acquaintance with banking, banking regulation, and banking's
rectitude (such an old fashioned word) in the importance for Main Street's survival, and for
the country's as a whole survival as a trusted pivot point in world finance , or for
the survival of the whole American project. I know this sounds like an over-the-top assertion
on my part, however I believe it true.
Main Street also knows the importance of sound banking. Sound banking is not a 'poker
chip' to be used for games. Sound banking is key to the American experiment in
self-determination, as it has been called.
Politicians who 'don't get this" have lost touch with the entire American enterprise,
imo. And, no, the neoliberal promise that nation-states no longer matter doesn't make this
point moot.
adding: US founding father Alexander Hambleton did understand the importance of sound
banking, and so Obama et al confusing "banking" with sound banking is too ironic, imo.
It was actually worse than this. The very deliberate strategy was to indoctrinate
employees of federal regulatory agencies to see the companies they regulated not as
"partners" but as "customers" to be served. This theme is repeated again and again in Bush
era agency reports. Elizabeth Warren was viciously attacked early in the Obama Administration
for calling for a new "watchdog" agency to protect consumers. The idea that a federal agency
would dedicate itself to protecting citizens first was portrayed as dangerously radical by
industry.
Models on Clinton and Bush.
What's not to like? Why isn't msm and dem elites showing him the love when he's following
their long term policies?
And we might assume these would be hills policies if she had been pushed over the line.
A little thought realizes that in spite of the pearl clutching they far prefer him to
Bernie.
After the Soviet-backed People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took power in 1978,
the Pentagon began arming the Islamist opposition to the PDPA. US officials, reeling from their
defeat in Vietnam, devised a policy of "sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire" in
Afghanistan, as CIA official Robert Gates wrote in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows .
When the Kremlin invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, in a reactionary attempt to strengthen
the PDPA regime in Kabul and stabilize the PDPA's relations with the Afghan rural elites,
Washington used Afghanistan as a battleground to bleed the Soviet army.
One of the CIA's main allies in carrying out this policy, recruiting tens of thousands of
Islamist fighters worldwide to go and fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was a young Saudi
billionaire, Osama bin Laden, the future leader of Al Qaeda. Hensman endorses the US policy in
Afghanistan, while remaining silent on the CIA-Al Qaeda alliance, and presents it as part of a
liberation struggle against Soviet imperialism.
She writes, "A PDPA coup in 1978 faced tribal revolts that developed into a full-scale
uprising by December 1979, when the Russians invaded and occupied Afghanistan. The military
campaign that followed resembled the US campaign in Vietnam in its brutality to civilians The
war had reached a stalemate in the mid-1980s when Reagan, who was already supporting the
mujahideen, agreed to supply them with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. These weapons turned the
tide against the Russians..."
Hensman's defense of the US role in the Soviet-Afghan war, and her silence on CIA-backed
Islamist terror networks, are reactionary. She hides the bloody character of the CIA-backed
Islamist proxy wars, both in 1979–1992 in Afghanistan and in 1979–1982 in Syria. It
is the descendants of these same forces, who are fighting today's Syrian war, that Hensman
hails as a "democratic revolution."
And then there's Brzezinski, with his murderous legacy that contains a curious thread linking
the Mujahideen "freedom fighters" to 9/11. As was written in the recently republished article
on the Bush family fortune and the Holocaust, "the only constant is the defense of the power
and privilege of the ruling oligarchy by whatever means are required."
--- Brzezinski acknowledged in an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel
Observateur in January 1998 that he initiated a policy in which the CIA covertly began arming
the mujahedeen in July 1978 -- six months before Soviet troops intervened in Afghanistan --
with the explicit aim of dragging the Soviet Union into a debilitating war.
Asked, given the catastrophe unleashed upon Afghanistan and the subsequent growth of
Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, whether he regretted the policy he championed in
Afghanistan, Brzezinski replied:
"Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing
the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets
officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of
giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally
the breakup of the Soviet empire."
Asked specifically whether he regretted the CIA's collaboration with and arming of
Islamist extremists, including Al Qaeda, in fomenting the war in Afghanistan, Brzezinski
responded contemptuously: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or
the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central
Europe and the end of the cold war?"
Kind of a funny aside: to find the Z-bigz quote I wanted, I put "Brzezinski on
Afghanistan" into duckduckgo, and the wsws obituary was third from the top.
It is very interesting and educational to read this pre-election article two years later and see where the author is
right and where he is wrong. The death of neoliberalism was greatly exaggerated. It simply mutated in the USA into "national
neoliberalism" under Trump. As no clear alternative exists it remain the dominant ideology and universities still
brainwash students with neoclassical economics. And in way catchy slogan "Make America great again" under Trump
means "Make American working and lower middle class great again"
It is also clear that Trump betrayed or was forced to betray most of his election promises. Standrd of living of common
americans did not improve under his watch. most of hi benefits of his tax cuts went to large corporations and financial
oligarch. He continued the policy of financial deregulation, which is tantamount of playing with open fire trying to
warm up the house
What we see under Trump is tremendous growth of political role of intelligence agencies which now are real kingmakers and can
sink any candidate which does not support their agenda. And USA intelligence agencies operated in 2016 in close cooperation
with the UK intelligence agencies to the extent that it is not clear who has the lead in creating Steele dossier. They are
definitely out of control of executive branch and play their own game. We also see a rise of CIA democrats as a desperate
attempt to preserve the power of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ('soft neoliberals" turned under Hillary into into warmongers
and neocons) . Hillary and Bill themselves clearly belong to CIA democrats too, not only to Wall Street democrats, despite the fact
that they sold Democratic Party to Wall Street in the past. New Labor in UK did the same.
But if it is more or less clear now what happened in the USa in 2016-2018, it is completely unclear what will happen next.
I think in no way neoliberalism will start to be dismantled. there is no social forces powerful enough to start this job, We
probably need another financial crisi of the scale of 2008 for this work to be reluctantly started by ruling
elite. And we better not to have this repetition of 2008 as it will be really devastating for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye turned to corporate evasion. ..."
"... It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present. ..."
"... In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has stagnated for over 30 years . ..."
"... On average, between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014. ..."
"... As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable. ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement. ..."
"... Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely one of secular stagnation . ..."
"... those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes, just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s. ..."
In the early 1980s the author was one of the first to herald the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the west. Here he argues
that this doctrine is now faltering. But what happens next?
The western financial crisis of 2007-8 was the worst since 1931, yet its immediate repercussions were surprisingly modest. The
crisis challenged the foundation stones of the long-dominant neoliberal ideology but it seemed to emerge largely unscathed. The banks
were bailed out; hardly any bankers on either side of the Atlantic were prosecuted for their crimes; and the price of their behaviour
was duly paid by the taxpayer. Subsequent economic policy, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, has relied overwhelmingly on monetary
policy, especially quantitative easing. It has failed. The western economy has stagnated and is now approaching its lost decade,
with no end in sight.
After almost nine years, we are finally beginning to reap the political whirlwind of the financial crisis. But how did neoliberalism
manage to survive virtually unscathed for so long? Although it failed the test of the real world, bequeathing the worst economic
disaster for seven decades, politically and intellectually it remained the only show in town. Parties of the right, centre and left
had all bought into its philosophy, New Labour a classic
in point. They knew no other way of thinking or doing: it had become the common sense. It was, as Antonio Gramsci put it, hegemonic.
But that hegemony cannot and will not survive the test of the real world.
The first inkling of the wider political consequences was evident in the turn in public opinion against the banks, bankers and
business leaders. For decades, they could do no wrong: they were feted as the role models of our age, the default troubleshooters
of choice in education, health and seemingly everything else. Now, though, their star was in steep descent, along with that of the
political class. The effect of the financial crisis was to undermine faith and trust in the competence of the governing elites. It
marked the beginnings of a wider political crisis.
But the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial
crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the
late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services
and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby
creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned
as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye
turned to corporate evasion.
It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic
period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism,
when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
But by far the most disastrous feature of the neoliberal period has been the huge growth in inequality. Until very recently, this
had been virtually ignored. With extraordinary speed, however, it has emerged as one of, if not the most important political issue
on both sides of the Atlantic, most dramatically in the US. It is, bar none, the issue that is driving the political discontent that
is now engulfing the west. Given the statistical evidence, it is puzzling, shocking even, that it has been disregarded for so long;
the explanation can only lie in the sheer extent of the hegemony of neoliberalism and its values.
But now reality has upset the doctrinal apple cart. In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced
very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income
while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than
it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has
stagnated for over 30 years .
A not so dissimilar picture is true of the UK. And the problem has grown more serious since the financial crisis. On average,
between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real
incomes between 2005 and 2014.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot
The reasons are not difficult to explain. The hyper-globalisation era has been systematically stacked in favour of capital against
labour: international trading agreements, drawn up in great secrecy, with business on the inside and the unions and citizens excluded,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being but the latest examples; the politico-legal attack on the unions;
the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the US and Europe that helped to undermine
the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers in any meaningful way.
As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of
countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late
70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none.
As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent
essay
in Foreign Affairs : "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens
that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both.
Brexit is a classic example of such populism. It has overturned a fundamental cornerstone of UK policy since the early 1970s.
Though ostensibly about Europe, it was in fact about much more: a cri de coeur from those who feel they have lost out and been left
behind, whose living standards have stagnated or worse since the 1980s, who feel dislocated by large-scale immigration over which
they have no control and who face an increasingly insecure and casualised labour market. Their revolt has paralysed the governing
elite, already claimed one prime minister, and left the latest one fumbling around in the dark looking for divine inspiration.
The wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US. This is particularly
remarkable in the US. For many decades, the idea of the "working class" was marginal to American political discourse. Most Americans
described themselves as middle class, a reflection of the aspirational pulse at the heart of American society. According to a Gallup
poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt. Hitherto, on both sides of the Atlantic, the agency of class has been in retreat
in the face of the emergence of a new range of identities and issues from gender and race to sexual orientation and the environment.
The return of class, because of its sheer reach, has the potential, like no other issue, to redefine the political landscape.
The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, is a function of politics
The re-emergence of class should not be confused with the labor movement. They are not synonymous: this is obvious in the US
and increasingly the case in the UK. Indeed, over the last half-century, there has been a growing separation between the two in Britain.
The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as
an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement.
Indeed, Ukip has been as important – in the form of immigration and Europe – in shaping its current attitudes as the Labour party.
In the United States, both Trump and Sanders have given expression to the working-class revolt, the latter almost as much as the
former. The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, as the left liked to think, is a function of
politics.
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic growth has never been particularly
strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done
better but even its growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely
one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that another financial crisis may well
beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced
in the 1930s. With this background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will be worse
off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they
are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the
mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western
financial crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most obvious in the United States,
with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of
Tony Atkinson
and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the political agenda. In the UK,
Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within the economics
profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such as Larry Summers and the Financial
Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical. The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals
and monetarists are in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognize that we are at
the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing
press or the parliamentary Labor party.
Following Ed Miliband's resignation as Labour leader, virtually no one foresaw the triumph of
Jeremy Corbyn in the subsequent leadership election.
The assumption had been more of the same, a Blairite or a halfway house like Miliband, certainly not anyone like Corbyn. But the
zeitgeist had changed. The membership, especially the young who had joined the party on an unprecedented scale, wanted a complete
break with New Labour. One of the reasons why the left has failed to emerge as the leader of the new mood of working-class disillusionment
is that most social democratic parties became, in varying degrees, disciples of neoliberalism and uber-globalisation. The most extreme
forms of this phenomenon were New Labour and the Democrats, who in the late 90s and 00s became its advance guard, personified by
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, triangulation and the third way.
But as David Marquand observed in a review for the New Statesman , what is the point of a social democratic party if
it doesn't represent the less fortunate, the underprivileged and the losers? New Labour deserted those who needed them, who historically
they were supposed to represent. Is it surprising that large sections have now deserted the party who deserted them? Blair, in his
reincarnation as a money-obsessed consultant to a shady bunch of presidents and dictators, is a fitting testament to the demise of
New Labour.
The rival contenders – Burnham, Cooper and Kendall – represented continuity. They were swept away by Corbyn, who won nearly 60%
of the votes. New Labour was over, as dead as Monty Python's parrot. Few grasped the meaning of what had happened. A Guardian
leader welcomed the surge in membership and then, lo and behold, urged support for Yvette Cooper, the very antithesis of the
reason for the enthusiasm. The PLP refused to accept the result and ever since has tried with might and main to remove Corbyn.
Just as the Labour party took far too long to come to terms with the rise of Thatcherism and the birth of a new era at the end
of the 70s, now it could not grasp that the Thatcherite paradigm, which they eventually came to embrace in the form of New Labour,
had finally run its course. Labour, like everyone else, is obliged to think anew. The membership in their antipathy to New Labour
turned to someone who had never accepted the latter, who was the polar opposite in almost every respect of Blair, and embodying an
authenticity and decency which Blair patently did not.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better
Corbyn is not a product of the new times, he is a throwback to the late 70s and early 80s. That is both his strength and also
his weakness. He is uncontaminated by the New Labour legacy because he has never accepted it. But nor, it would seem, does he understand
the nature of the new era. The danger is that he is possessed of feet of clay in what is a highly fluid and unpredictable political
environment, devoid of any certainties of almost any kind, in which Labour finds itself dangerously divided and weakened.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better. David Cameron was guilty of
a huge and irresponsible miscalculation over Brexit. He was forced to resign in the most ignominious of circumstances. The party
is hopelessly divided. It has no idea in which direction to move after Brexit. The Brexiters painted an optimistic picture of turning
away from the declining European market and embracing the expanding markets of the world, albeit barely mentioning by name which
countries it had in mind. It looks as if the new prime minister may have an anachronistic hostility towards China and a willingness
to undo the good work of George Osborne. If the government turns its back on China, by far the fastest growing market in the world,
where are they going to turn?
Brexit has left the country fragmented and deeply divided, with the very real prospect that Scotland might choose independence.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding that the neoliberal era is in its death throes.
Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere,
Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination
and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes
that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest
around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened
the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American
Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP
and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working
class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the
1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been
neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich
and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival
of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by
Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely
close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively
chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long
supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and
the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed
since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that
America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair,
with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's
European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting
the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure.
Trump's position
represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation
ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments
must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left.
He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump's appeal is to a
white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful
towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.
A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness
and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose
45%
tariffs on China , if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era
of protectionism.
Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not
mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much
else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the
nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining
ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our
own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.
End of cheap oil is the next milestone in the development of neoliberalism. It remain to be seen if it can survive the end of
cheap oil.
Notable quotes:
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... American politicians, Obama in particular, constantly talk about "the middle class" when they want to refer to the bulk of the working population, as if almost everybody were doctors, lawyers, teachers and managers. ..."
"... This situation in the USA remind me of Australia where we have a choice between two right wing parties ..."
"... austerity for the working class while the rich go untouched even to pay a fair share of taxation. It's world wide the servants of the 1% who own 50% of the world's economy. ..."
"... There is no country in the world that doesn't have a mixture of both. The mix is probably a bit strained in north Korea but those countries where private capital is supreme all have intolerable conditions for workers. The Nordic countries probably have the most enlightened approach and best living standards for the majority. Remember well the old adage: With communism man exploits man. With capitalism it's the other way round. ..."
"... one can only hope neoliberalism is dead and/or dying.... ..."
"... Trump does not truly represent the labor or economically frustrated class. He is saying things that they'd like to hear. He is a rich and pompous man who belongs to the class which benefited tremendously from neoliberalistic policies. People are so fed up with inequality, their emotions can be directed in any direction and manipulated. Anger needs a target - Mexicans, Blacks, women, Muslims, immigrants and the list expands. Trump is misleading them by speaking in their voices while enjoying the comfort of luxury that he built by exploiting those very people. ..."
Quote: According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working
class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
How strange. American politicians, Obama in particular, constantly talk about "the middle
class" when they want to refer to the bulk of the working population, as if almost everybody
were doctors, lawyers, teachers and managers. It's good therefore to know that the American
people know better than their politicians how to classify themselves.
This situation in the USA remind me of Australia where we have a choice between two right
wing parties. The LNP is extreme/ultra right wing and our Labor Party is right wing
controlled. At least in Britain you have a choice, from afar it seems that your Conservative
Party is equal to our LNP but your Labour Party seems to be a little more Left wing than our
Labor Party which is a good thing for Britain.
willpodmore your next target must be your tory government, they are doing to you what our
tory government in Australia is doing to us and if Trump gets elected the USA tory government
will do to them, austerity for the working class while the rich go untouched even to pay a
fair share of taxation. It's world wide the servants of the 1% who own 50% of the world's
economy. If you don't believe me type the 1% own 50% of Earth's economy into Dr Goggle and
see what come up.
The one thing all Left leaning people do agree on is 'fairness' and equity for all, in
economic terms it means that huge corporations pay a fair share of tax, as working people do.
Sadly Tory govts ignore the profits of corporations and fail to force them to pay a fair
share of tax. The basic problem that the neo-cons suffer from is insatiable greed where
enough is never enough, selfishness is also a trait along with lack of empathy or compassion
for their fellow mankind.
"neoliberalism" is simply unregulated capitalism as practiced by Tory governments around the
world. Labour governments usually regulate and force these huge corporations to pay a fair
share of taxation from their huge incomes. The corporations are owned by the 1% who own 50%
of the world economy and continuing to grow on a daily basis.
Yes, nothing has changed in my lifetime except the 1% now own 50% of Earth's economy. Working
people have always struggled while the rich build their mansions, both Bernie Sanders and
Jeremy Corbyn have the right idea of a fair distribution of wealth. This means these huge
corporations paying their fair share of their income in taxes to the host country so "all"
the people receive some benefit, apart from the 1%.
blaster1, the joke of the century, globalisation -- which will only increase to the benefit of
everyone eventually. You obviously have little knowledge apart from what the Tories feed you.
1% of the global population own 50% of Earth's economy and through their corporations who the
tories allow to avoid paying tax will build on that 50% how long will it eventually take the
other 99% to receive any benefit? 200,000 years?
Exploitation is high on the priority list of any Tory government, wealth should be
distributed much more fairly than it currently is. The tories only serve the rich, they have
no time or empathy for the poor. Empathy and compassion are vacant in the tory philosophy of
the world. These two components make up a psychopathic personality.
pantomimetorie yes, and England could also be if you had a government who were not merely
servants of the rich. A government interested in the fair distribution of wealth. Not a tory
government, obviously!
There's no such thing as neoliberalism, it's just capitalism and capitalism actually works,
unlike socialism.
Yes it works alright, it works for the 1% of the global population who own 50% of the global
economy, sadly it leaves in its wake an underclass of people living below the poverty line
struggling to survive. It works for the rich, but there is no mechanism in the system that
the conservative will use to force the rich to pay their fair share of taxation to the
country included in that are the multibillion pound multinational corporations who pay little
to naught in taxes also which leaves a huge swathe of the population on Struggle Street and
the sooner that democratic socialism is instituted the better off the other 99% will be.
Keep up! There is no country in the world that doesn't have a mixture of both. The mix is
probably a bit strained in north Korea but those countries where private capital is supreme
all have intolerable conditions for workers. The Nordic countries probably have the most
enlightened approach and best living standards for the majority. Remember well the old
adage:
With communism man exploits man.
With capitalism it's the other way round.
Think they call it lobbying. Companies pay professional lobby firms staffed with ex MPs or
whatever to ' meet' ministers. The PR companies make 'donations' to party funds and push for
government contracts, changes in legislation, favorable to their industry tax breaks. You
can do it of course. Write to your mp to get your local roads, parks, libraries, improved.
Don't hold your breath.
That has to be the joke of the year if not the century!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and
the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was
double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
It would be interesting to see those growth figures with inflation taken into account or
to average them out across the whole world and not just the West. I suspect that if the
massive growth in India, China and the rest of Asia was taken into account the growth figures
wouldn't be so bad.
Excuse me? You're the one claiming rural inhabitants "have no idea" what city life entails.
That may have been the case centuries ago, but not now. Offshoring is small potatoes in the shift of global production. It may have been big news
a decade ago. We aren't a decade ago.
"Poverty = no kids" is your myth. Human history proves otherwise. Nobody's "decimating western/westernized population for profit". Is what you're about
really more white people, fewer brown people? Just say it, this is the Guardian, we've heard
it all before.
So run your country then. But intelligently, not on the basis of twisted myth-making and
dodgy race myths that we had enough of in 1945.
The left, at least as far as I know, have not been able to build up a solid set of
ideas on which to build a political agenda nor have they sought to gain traction for their
ideas in sites of knowledge production. The neoliberals were organised and waiting when
their turn came. For me, the left have fragmented and have turned to cultural critiques and
identity politics, forgoing any kind of realistic transformative agenda.
Apologies for not answering earlier.
i) Traction in sites of knowledge production is happening certainly. Again I can point to the
article for support - Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang, Piketty etc did not arise to such prominence
due to an organised left-wing agenda but because events in the real world demanded an
explanation for why neoliberalism wasn't delivering its universal benison as promised, and
indeed was showing empirical signs that it might be poisonous to economic activity in certain
fundamental ways.
ii) In my view it is quite possible to support identity politics (social liberalism if you
like) and a more left wing view of economics. At present the more enthusiastic placard wavers
are seeing identity politics as more likely to produce a beneficial change, but many are
recognising that the former hegemony of neoliberalism is breaking, and the best way to really
enhance the welfare of vulnerable groups is to promote universal economic justice in some
form.
iii) You appear to want to replace one hegemonic system of thought with another. But these
are the wrong tactics for me, since we have things to do in the real world.
By all means explain some of the properties your new left hegemonic theory should have, I'd
be very interested to hear them.
But in the end the practical steps are obvious and consist of applying left wing principles
to the modern economy. An example would be privatising the natural monopoly of the
railways.
If that sounds retro, it isn't, because we've never had to deal with an economy in this
condition before. We must proceed step by step in my view. The hegemony of neoliberalism was
damaging and lasted 40 years and counting. We must be pragmatic to be successful, given what
we know about the modern economy, and proceed by finding successful strategies rather than an
abstruse new theory that ignores the messy present in favour of some pure, simple conception
of the world backed up by the PR department. As I said above, one of the critical faults of
neoliberalism is its insistence that it is the answer to everyone's prayers. That certainty
is also the seed of its destruction, because to avoid doubts it eventually has to answer
those unrealistic prayers.
Trump does not truly represent the labor or economically frustrated class. He is saying
things that they'd like to hear. He is a rich and pompous man who belongs to the class which
benefited tremendously from neoliberalistic policies. People are so fed up with inequality,
their emotions can be directed in any direction and manipulated. Anger needs a target -
Mexicans, Blacks, women, Muslims, immigrants and the list expands. Trump is misleading them
by speaking in their voices while enjoying the comfort of luxury that he built by exploiting
those very people.
Billions of Chinese and Indian have never seen a toilet in their life, so yes, they really
don't know what life in a city is. And that doesn't make them "dumb". In their domain,
farming, you don't look like a brain storm either.
Offshoring isn't a "tiny element". We are no longer self sustaining and if China slammed the
door (as they did for a brief instant on Japan), there'd be serious heartburn in the US
before transitioning.
The official western tautology is fail/fail for the public. Not enough jobs to consider
having kids? Too bad. Not enough money to raise your kids? Too bad. Due to natural events?
No, due to political gaming.
Decimating western/westernized population for profit. It's not complicated. It is you who
claim immigration is needed to leave it as it is. "Ending our ability to pay pensions by
ending immigration isn't improvement either. "
The west has no business meddling with the rest of the planet if it can't run their own
countries.
People aren't so dumb as you imagine. They really didn't know about life in the city? Every
village had its emigrant. I've no such disdain for those who made that move.
Offshoring's now a tiny element in western deindustrialisation. Your costs are too high,
you can't compete: don't blame those worse off than yourself, put your own house in order and
educate your workforce to do better than flip burgers.
"Birth control brings down reproduction rates" is a meaningless tautology. People have
been practising birth control for centuries, mainly by delaying marriage. The PRB peddles
malthusian nonsense that the past half-century has clearly discredited. I thought you were
for population growth anyway: "economies so economically unstable that population declines"?
Make your mind up.
The ridiculous boom did crash, in 2008. Maybe you missed it. I want to know how we go
forward. But people need to pay attention to what's going on outside our head too.
I correct misrepresentations of the truth such as yours.
And the problem with communism is that it suspends peoples right in favour of central
control.
Communism and socialism is a post -capitalist society, means exactly the same thing to
me as they did to Marx also.
The common ownership and democratic control by us all, of all the means and instruments
for creating and distributing wealth. 'Common' and 'social' mean the same.
Nothing to do with state ownership or corporate or private ownership.
Nothing to do with central control either . It is a post-capitalist system
which utilises the technological advances of capitalism to produce for use to satisfy human
needs, using self feeding loopback informational tools for stock measurements and control
with direct inputs at local regional and global levels to allow calculation in kind, as
opposed to the economic calculation of capitalism, only necessary to satisfy profit
taking.
The reality is that we can all choose to be rich or poor. We are free to do as we wish
(within the law).
Nonsense. If you are born poor you will most likely die poor. Poverty is both absolute
and relative.
All wealth comes from the exploited abour of the working class which creates a surplus value
above its rationed access (wages). A commonly owned society, would not have rich or poor, we
would all have free access to the commonly produced wealth, with no elite classes creaming it
off and storing it.
Other than that, mind your own damn business, if you can't deal with the arguments.
One of the biggest downsides of the rise of Corbyn and Sanders, interesting though it is, is
the oxygen it seems to be giving to several old Marxist hacks who have made a good living for
decades banging on about their discredited and blood soaked ideology, ie Jacques et al.
Recently joined by that newly hatched Marxist harpie on the block, the hipster bearded and
thoroughly poisonous Richard Seymour.
The fact is there is not and never was any such thing as "neoliberalism". What they are
really referring to is globalisation- which will only increase to the benefit of everyone
eventually. The world is shrinking ever faster and that is no bad thing. Progress, evolution,
the future, call it what you want. To try and make out that it is halting or in reverse is
plainly nonsense.
???
What I remember of Reagan,
- spent like a drunken sailor, "defense" spending, til it broke US economy
- unbounded "adjustable rate" and "balloon" mortgages, first bank bailout, bill kicked down
the road to Bush Sr., $125 billion, when it blew up
- "trickle down", wealth transfer, via having taxed public pick up the tab for not just his
defense binge spending, but also corporate welfare programs (patent office, Import/Export
bank, infrastructure, etc.)
- first soup kitchens, adults panhandling/will work for food signs that I'd ever seen
- illegal immigrant amnesty, millions
- "War On Drugs" and right after that black neighborhoods flooded with crack
Reagan and Thatcher kicking off their "gut the public of wealth" agenda.
Their story is "you're a failure". Because a) you don't work hard enough/long enough, b) hold
your household together (if you were at work all waking hours), c) don't know how to raise
decent, independent kids (whilst being at work every waking hour), d) aren't motivated to
improve your lot in life if you need to work every waking hour and e) probably need to take
stress management classes if this gets on your nerves because you personally are driving up
"our" health care costs with your irresponsible neglect of your health.
Or, as the economists tout in the papers, "Productivity is up!" Or as the oligarchical put
it, "we need immigrant work force", who'll do it for cheaper and not complain or
burden us with their need for an actual life outside of work.
Clinton is, was, and still is. despite her recent fake reversal, a staunch supporter of TPP
and other trade agreements that will further impoverish the working class. She is the
furthest thing from a populist. Case closed.
"... Anything that gets Kristol out of public life is good. Sometimes collateral damage is part of the package. ..."
"... I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder. ..."
"... as Tucker Carlson noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing. ..."
"... Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they need to rent a U-Haul and leave town. ..."
"... If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing ..."
"... These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico -- that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their $200k editing job. ..."
McCarthy's analysis is sound but there are some variables he either misses or omits
concerning TWS's demise: See my "8 Thoughts" on the matter, including, for example: " TWS
was a strong voice of neoconservatism–which emerged in the 1970s as a theory, but only
matured into an applied political praxis during a post-Clinton presidency–and even
then–only after September 10, 2001 . but when Clinton lost to Trump, TWS lost a lot of
its original enemies, hence its original purpose ."
http://www.bookbread.com/2018/12/06/8-thoughts-on-the-new-york-times-article-about-the-demise-of-the-weekly-standard/
His wrongness rises almost to the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong
predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"), the Napoleon
of unnecessary wars.
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many
died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible
foreign policy.
Nah, bro. I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did
they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed
little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder.
Bear in mind this, all you liberals looking for "good conservatives", as Tucker Carlson
noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused
Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility
that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing.
Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they
need to rent a U-Haul and leave town.
If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing. I
remember when WS first started publishing during the '96 presidential campaign and it going
all out for Steve Forbes. Flat-taxes, shining city on a hill, come one come all immigration
policy, beacon of light to the rest of the world, blah, blah, blah. While they were obsessing
about taxes and attempting to democratize the rest of the world, our culture was quickly advancing to the bottom.
These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico --
that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their
$200k editing job.
I'm sure there are some good people there, and I feel bad for families, but Kristol,
Podhoretz and Hayes can go to hell.
From comments: "Bill Kristol is possibly the single most delusional figure in our public life. His wrongness rises almost to
the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"),
the Napoleon of unnecessary wars. Why anyone takes him seriously, except as an example of what *not* to do, is a mystery."
Unfortunately, this does nothing to diminish the influence of neoconservative foreign policy – those writers will keep
propagandizing from the Washington Free Beacon, Washington Examiner, Commentary, National Review, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... openly despising your potential customers is never a successful business strategy. ..."
"... Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world, Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy. ..."
"... Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in American history ..."
The Weekly Standard is no more. Its parent company is shutting the magazine down
after 23 years. It is hard to imagine that the magazine that was the home to such greats such
as Andrew Ferguson, Matt Labash, and Christopher Caldwell no longer exists. Those are the times
in which we live.
Good riddance. The Weekly Standard peddles a brand of conservatism that has been largely
repudiated by the Republican Party's rank and fle. Rather than accept reality, self-assess,
take stock, and possibly change the WS doubled down on neoconservatism in a particularly
arrogant and insulting way. Gary (above) is absolutely correct – openly despising your
potential customers is never a successful business strategy.
Oh, yeah – Kristol wants to run for President in 2020. And this guy thinks Trump is
delusional!
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many
died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible
foreign policy.
Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational
policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of
serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world,
Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy.
Why should I mourn this jingoist publication's demise? It's not very often you see justice
apportioned in this world, but here it is, even if too little and too late.
No, this should be celebrated. The only thing that would make this better is seeing them
walked out of the building with boxes full of personal effects in hand, as security makes
sure they don't steal any office supplies.
Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform
senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the
DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who
used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in
American history . They also used their rag to trash any conservatives who disagreed
with their call for endless wars as weak Neville Chamberlins reincarnated or un-American
agents of Putin. I feel nothing but contempt for them all. Their names will live on in infamy
as a scourge to our sadly dying republic.
Polichinello knows how to pile it on: "Let them learn to code." Priceless.
However, RD is right. The loss of any publication is painful. My pain actually began when
the mechanical workers–printers, engravers, stereotypers, etc. were done in by
progress. And now I get to see friends at the former St. Pete Times get the axe.
Besides supporting that nation destroying (US and Iraq war) and being an Israel Firster, Mr.
Dreher, here's a 2010 ad Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney producing, implying that Obama DOJ
lawyers who represented GITMO detainees were terrorists. They called them the "Al Qaeda 7"
It's funny that Bill Kristol is now persona non grata in the conservative movement,
considering he really is just a standard issue Republican. There's no difference between him
and Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers
I read (can't say 100%) that the Kochs opposed the Iraq War. They're not much for overseas
crusading, although they agree with neocons on immigration, trade, and caving to PC.
Walker talked a little about immigration restriction during his brief presidential
campaign, one of the reasons his donor money dried up.
Trump has reoriented the party on its immigration, trade, and foreign policy stances, and
Kristol isn't a God-guns-gays culture warrior, so, yeah, makes sense he would drift away
(aside from his personality).
Noah172
December 14, 2018 at 11:13 pm
This is not the demise I would have wanted for the WS. I would have preferred its writers be
fired and replaced with immigrants of color. That would have been delicious.
******************************************************
Yes! Use H1B visas to replace the WS staff with foreign workers at a far lower salary, and
force the staff to train them before they're let go.
It is extremely hypocritical for guys like Podhoretz to Moanin and complain about the way
the magazine was cancelled. He admits that it never made money but thinks some
multi-billionaire should continue to keep it afloat anyway. Talk about corporate welfare!
These guys advocated an extreme form of globalism that resulted in American jobs being
shipped overseas and economic hardship for millions of Americans, all in the name of
profitability. Why should the WS being any different?
To Kristol, Podhoretz, Hayes, etc: Tough luck – that's the way it goes. The
marketplace decided and you couldn't cut it. Why aren't you cheering cheering that decision?
Don't the rules apply to you too? I guess it's different when the shoe is on the other
foot.
George you nailed it. There's a special place in hell for people like the editors of the
weekly standard – I believe that wholeheartedly and not metaphorically.
What's weird to me is to see everyone decrying Kristol and his Weekly Standard colleagues as
"the Establishment." If that were still the case, the Standard would still be flying and
Kristol would be cruising. But no, Kristol and the neocons are now old news; has-beens; last
month's cold cuts.
Thus must I say to Trump and his fans: Congrats! You are now the GOP Establishment. Have
fun being able to please nobody. Have fun disappointing everybody. Have fun being held
accountable for bad policy decisions and the fate of a major political party. This is the
power, leadership, and influence you wanted, so you got it. We'll soon find out if history
remembers you less fondly than Bill Kristol.
Each passing year just raises the probability that Trump, being a U.S. president, will
launch a foolish war. When he does, and when you have to contort yourselves like circus
freaks to justify it, some of us are going to be quite amused.
Like the term "conspiracy theory "whataboutism" is a nasty and dirty propaganda trick. Truth can be understood only in historical
context.
Notable quotes:
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: ..."
"... "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's
reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be defeated. Successful propaganda both depends
upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate
needs of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection between the documented but forgotten
past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do.
What b points out is something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly rare and
its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined
as follows:
"Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has
asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect
our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past,
present, or future asserted truth.
"... Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back. ..."
"... Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs of the intelligence community and have been for many years. ..."
"... I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount, and must be maintained at all costs. ..."
"... It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal than mere collusion ..."
"... "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw" ..."
"... Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair. ..."
The more important objection is that the fact that a certain behavior is common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed,
as is true for government abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be trained to view corrupt
acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as
commonplace, then it is transformed in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable.
Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing
from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back.
Besides, they don't all do it ... there are honorable reporters out there, some few of whom work for the Times and the Post.
Another great article Glenn. The Guardian will spread your words further and wider. Salon's loss is the world's gain.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs
of the intelligence community and have been for many years. That these email were allowed to get out under FOIA is indicative
of the fact that there are some people on the inside who would like to get the truth out. Either that, or the head of some ES-2's
Assistant Deputy for Secret Shenanigans and Heinous Drone Murders will roll.
Scott Horton quote on closely related Mazzetti reporting (in this case regarding misleading reporting on how important CIA/Bush
torture was in tracking down and getting bin Laden, the focus of this movie):
"I'm quite sure that this is precisely the way the folks who provided this info from the agency [to Mazzetti] wanted them to
be understood, but there is certainly more than a measure of ambiguity in them, planted with care by the NYT writers or their
editors. This episode shows again how easily the Times can be spun by unnamed government sources, the factual premises of whose
statements invariably escape any examination."
I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't
care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount,
and must be maintained at all costs.
If you don't like their paper-thin answers, tough. In their view (imo) this will blow over and business will resume, with the
all-important friends and connections intact. Thus leaving the machinery intact for future uncritical, biased and manipulative
"spin" of NYT by any number of unnamed govt. sources/agencies...
In what conceivable way is Mazzetti's collusion with the CIA an "intelligence matter" that prevents the NYT's managing
editor from explaining what happened here?
That one is easy, as we learned in the Valerie Plame affair. It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal
than mere collusion.
Just another step down the ladder towards despotism. "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment
by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw"
The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these
emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.
Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual
crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair.
The humor seems to go completely out of the issue when 100,000 people are dead and their families and futures changed forever.
"We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few."
Notable quotes:
"... bin laden gave terror a face. how conveeeenient for warmongers everywhere! ..."
"... CIA in collusion with mainstream newspaper NYT. And you call this news ? ..."
"... collusion between the us media and the us government goes back much, much further. Chomsky has plenty of stuff about this... ..."
"... The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees. ..."
"... The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives. ..."
"... World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century, the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes little sense now." ..."
"... just off the top of my head I recall the editor of one of a British major was an MI5 agent; this is in the public domain. ..."
"... We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few. ..."
"... The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman" JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA). ..."
I've often wondered what you think of the journalism of someone like Seymour Hirsch. (sic) He broke some very important
stories by cozying up to moles in the MIC.
You'e confusing apples with oranges. Hersh seeks information on issues that outrage him. These do not usually include propaganda
for the intelligence agencies, but information they would like to suppress. He's given secret information because he appears to
his informers as someone who has a long record of integrity.
It's straight outta that old joke about the husband being caught by his wife in flagrante delicto with the pretty young lady neighbour,
who then tells his wife that he and his bit on the side weren't doing anything: "And who do you believe-- me, or your lying eyes?"
The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the
war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they
didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost
their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees.
Following the pre-Iraq
embellishment, NYT covered up its deeds by sacrificing Journalist Judith Miller. As Miller answered a post-war court case, none
other than Chairman & CEO Arthur Sulzberger jr. locked arms with her as they entered the courtroom.
The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is
to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives.
World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page
law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century,
the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic
historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes
little sense now."
NYT, a liberal icon? In year 2000, when I lived in NYC, New York Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal used to regularly demonize
China in language surpassing even Rush Limbaugh. I told myself nah, that's not the Rosenthal-former-editor of the NYT. Only when
I read his obituary a few years later did I learn that it was indeed the same one.
We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few.
NOAM CHOMSKY _MANUFACTURING CONSENT haven't read it? read it. read it? read it again.
thought totalitarianism and the ruling class died in 1945? think again. thought you wouldn't have to fight like grandpa's generation
to live in a democratic and just society? think again.
Would that we could hold these discussions without reference to personal defamations -- "darkened ignorance" and "educate yourself"
which sounds like "f___ yourself". Why can't we just say "I respectfully disagree"? Alas, when discussing political issues with
leftists, that seems impossible. Why the vitriol?
Greenwald's more lengthy posts make it clear that he believes that people who differ with him are "lying" and basing their
viewpoint upon "a single right wing blogger". He chooses this explanation over the obvious and accurate one -- legal rationales
developed by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. The date of Greenwald's archive is February 19, 2006.
Oddly, he bases all of his contentions upon whatever he could glean up to that date. But the legal rationale for warrantless wiretaps
was based upon memos written by John Yoo at the OLC that Greenwald did not have access to in 2006. The memos were not released
until after Obama took office in 2009.
Obama released them in a highly publicized press conference staged for maximum political impact. Greenwald could not possibly
have understood the legal rationale for the program since he had not been privy to them until March 2009 if, indeed, he has bothered
to acquaint himself with them since then. Either way, nobody was "lying" except those who could have understood the full dimension
and willfully chose to hide or ignore the truth. It's not exactly like I am new to this subject as you seem to imply. I wrote
a 700 page book about Obama administration duplicity in this same vein. An entire chapter is devoted to this very topic.
Warrantless wiretaps were undertaken after a legal ruling from OLC. And after Obama took office, warrantless wiretaps were
continued. Obviously since they were based upon OLC rulings, since no prosecutions have ever been suggested and since they have
continued uninterrupted after Obama took office, the Justice Department under both administrations agrees with me and disagrees
with Greenwald. We arrive at this disagreement respectfully. Despite Obama's voluminous denunciations of the Bush anti-terror
approach on the campaign trail, he resurrected nearly every plank of it once he took office.
But this is a subsidiary point to a far larger point that some observers on this discussion to their credit were able to understand.
Despite all of these pointless considerations, the larger point of my original post was that Greenwald missed the "real" story
here, which was that the collusion between NYT and CIA was not due to institutional considerations as Greenwald seems to allege,
but due to purely partisan considerations. That, to me, is the story he missed.
I find that people who are losing debates try to shift the focus to subsidiary points hoping that, like a courtroom lawyer,
if they can refute a small and inconsequential detail raised in testimony, they will undercut the larger truth offered by the
witness. It won't work. Too much is on the record. And neither point, the ankle-biting non-issue about legality of warrantless
wiretaps or the larger, salient point about the overt partisan political dimension of NYT's collusion with a political appointee
at CIA who serves on the Obama reelection committee, has been refuted.
Joseph Toomey
Author, "Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies"
Conspiracy theorists, have been, of course, telling you this for years (given media's motive is profit and not honesty). I suppose
the exact same conspiracy theorists other guardian authors have been too eager to denounce previously?
The NSA wiretap program revealed by Risen was not illegal as Greenwald wrongly asserts. As long as one end of the intercepted
conservation originated on foreign soil as it did, it was perfectly legal and required no FISA court authorization.
Mr. Toomey, in 2006 Greenwald
published a compendium of legal arguments defending the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping and the (sound) rebuttals of
them. It is exhaustive, and covers your easily dispensed with argument. By way of introduction to his many links to his
aggregated, rigorous analyses of the legal issues, he wrote this:
I didn't just wake up one day and leap to the conclusion that the Administration broke the law deliberately and that there
are no reasonable arguments to defend that law-breaking (as many Bush followers leaped to the conclusion that he did nothing
wrong and then began their hunt to find rationale or advocates to support this conclusion). I arrived at the conclusion that
Bush clearly broke the law only by spending enormous amounts of time researching these issues and reading and responding to
the defenses from the Administration's apologists.
He did spend enormous time dealing with people such as yourself, and all of his work remains available for you to educate
yourself with, at the link provided above.
Maybe you'd like to explain that to Samuel Loring Morison who was convicted and spent years in the federal system for passing
classified information to Janes Defence Weekly. I'm sure he'd be entertained. Larry Franklin would also like to hear it. He's
in prison today for violating the Espionage Act.
Courts have recognized no press privilege exists when publishing classified data. In 1971, the Supreme Court vacated a prior
restraint against NYT and The Washington Post allowing them to publish the Pentagon Papers. But the court also observed that prosecutions
after-the-fact would be permissible and not involve an abridgement of the free speech clause. It was only the prior restraint
that gave the justices heartburn. They had no issue with throwing them in the slammer after the deed was done.
Thomas Drake, a former NSA official, was indicted and convicted after revealing information to reporters in 2010. The statute
covers mere possession which even NYT recognized could cover reporters as well. There have been numerous other instances of arrests,
indictments and prosecutions for disclosure to reporters. It's only been due to political calculations and not constitutional
limitations that have kept Risen and others out of prison.
The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman"
JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT
despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA).
What outrages me the most is the NYT's condescending attitude towards its readers when caught in this obvious breach of journalistic
ethics.
Both Baquet and Abramson, rather than showing some humility or contrition, are acting as if nothing bad has happened, and that
we are stupid to even talk about this.
This article misses the elephant in the room. Namely, that the NYT only plays footsies with Democrats in positions of power.
With the 'Pubs, it's open season.
Not true. There are many examples of the NYT colluding with the Bush administration, some of which Glenn has mentioned in this
article. Take, for example, the fact that the NYT concealed Bush's wire-tapping program for almost a year, at the request of the
White House, and didn't release details until after Bush's re-election.
"... The Government leaks classified material at will for propaganda advantage, but hunts Assange and tortures Private Manning for the same. ..."
"... these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them. ..."
"... The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool. ..."
The New York Crimes. The seamless web of media, government, business: a totalitarian system.
Darkly amusing, perhaps, unless one begins to tally the damage.
USA Inc. Viva Death,
Did you hear the one about the investment banker whose very expensive hooker bite off his
crank?
I'm not sure what's scarier--that the CIA is spending taxpayer dollars spending even a split
second worrying about what a two bit hack like Maureen Dowd writes, or that the NY Times
principals are so institutionally "captured" that they parrot "CIA speak".
Or maybe that our purported public servants in the legislature are bipartisanly
and openly attempting to repeal portions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign
Relations Authorization Act in 1987 banning domestic propaganda.
America is becoming a real sick joke. And the last to know will be about 65% of the
populace I like to call Sheeple.
Very depressing. I thought we would get a smart bunch over here. The major trend I've noticed
instead? Blind support for the empire and the apparatus that keeps it thriving. Unable to be
good little authoritarians and cheer for the now collapsing British Empire, they have to
cheer for it's natural predecessor, the American Empire. This includes attacking all those
who might question the absolute infallible of The Empire. Folks like.. Glenn. It is
fascinating to watch, if not disheartening.
So all cozying up to spooks is not always a bad thing, huh?
Just my point.
I see. I thought your point was that there was some sort of equivalence between Hersh's
development of sources to reveal truths that their agencies fervently wished to keep secret
and Mazzetti's active assistance in protecting an agency's image from sullying by fellow
journalists.
And that ended his career in government service, as it should have...or not:
From Wikipedia: John O. Brennan is chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President
Barack Obama; officially his title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security
and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
Unfortunately this is nothing new for Mazetti or the New York Times, nor is it the first time
Glenn Greenwald has called Mazetti out on his cozy relationship with the CIA:
The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash
The coordinated, successful effort to implant false story lines about John Brennan
illustrates the power the intelligence community wields over political debates.
Glenn Greenwald Dec. 08, 2008 |
...Just marvel at how coordinated (and patently inaccurate) their messaging is, and --
more significantly -- how easily they can implant their message into establishment media
outlets far and wide, which uncritically publish what they're told from their cherished
"intelligence sources" and without even the pretense of verifying whether any of it is true
and/or hearing any divergent views:
Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, New York Times, 12/2/2008:
Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama's likeliest
choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal
critics attacked his alleged role in the agency's detention and interrogation program. Mr.
Brennan protested that he had been a "strong opponent" within the agency of harsh
interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not
worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
Mr. Obama's search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are
complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush
administration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a
central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said
Mr. Obama's decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a
message that "if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted," and
had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency's clandestine service.
...The story, by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, noted that John O. Brennan had withdrawn
his name from consideration for CIA director after liberal critics attacked his role in the
agency's interrogation program, even though Brennan characterized himself as a "strong
opponent" within the agency of harsh interrogation techniques. Brennan's characterization was
not disputed by anyone else in the story, even though most experts on this subject agree that
Brennan acquiesced in everything that the CIA did in this area while he served there.
"these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Glenn - the only objection I have to your column and all your previous columns on this
matter is that I am not sure the establishment media actually claim to be watchdogs, at least
not any more, and certainly not since Sept 11. They really are more like PR reps.
The media is another tool in the [government, in this case] arsenal to help send a
message, as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
Yes. The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an
eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool.
Did everyone forget the Judith Miller article? The usage of Twitter and other social media
during the Iranian election of 2009? The leaks about the Iranian nuclear program in the
Telegraph? ARDA?
The U.S. government, along with every other government in the world, uses the media to
influence public opinion and send geopolitical messages to others that understand the message
(normally not the masses). The media is another tool in the arsenal to help send a message,
as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
We use social media to create social unrest if it aligns with our interests. We use the
media to send political messages and influence public opinion. The vast majority of reporting
in the N.Y. Times, WSJ, Guardian, Telegraph, and etc. do not reflect this, but every now and
then "unnamed sources" help further a geopolitical message.
In this country, it has been that way since before the founding fathers and the Republic.
Remember the Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Sam Adams as Vtndex, and etc.? Newspapers used for
"propaganda" purposes.
Upthread I asked him for his comments on the reporting of Seymour Hirsh. He is someone
who cozied up to all kinds of people - and wound up busting some extremely important
stories in the process.
I think a modest amount of review of Sy Hersh's work will demonstrate that his "cozying
up" hasn't included running interference for the spooks' official PR flacks.
"... Bob Marley got it right.... the human race is becoming a rat race, and it's a disgrace. ..."
"... The biggest problem is the financialisation of the economy... what is the actual value of things? The market is so manipulated that real price discovery is not possible. ..."
"... We have an over-cooked service-sector economy unsustainably reliant on cheap debt, cheap energy, and cheap manufactured goods to fuel our 'high-end levels of consumption, and mobility or living standards, and an over-heated housing market that is unsustainably run according to the needs of investors and landlords rather than residents or tenants. ..."
"... What we need is a coordinated approach between our nations. Undercutting each other on corporate taxes, writing tax avoidance into law, and continuing to allow multinationals to influence our politicians and play our governments against each other is exactly the game we must end. ..."
"... Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments have been obliged to limit their activities yet further.... ..."
"... "Ransom". There is no better word to describe it. This (the ransom mentality) is exactly the reactionary, vindictive, doctrinaire psychology that must be extracted like a cancer from our institutional lives and the human species. A monolithic task. But identifying the cause is the first step to cure. ..."
"... these are the new medieval transnational barons ..."
@Crackerpot - The whole austerity crisis thing appears to have been engineered so that a few blinkered and unpatriotic, vulture
mafia privateers can make a killing, selling off vital state assets, such as infrastructure and ports, to the Chinese. This is
a very suspicious and widespread trend.
Bob Marley got it right.... the human race is becoming a rat race, and it's a disgrace.
I see it every day from the window of my flat, on a main road, in Bethnal Green. There's a 'mentally unstable' Rastafarian
who stands by the overground station, and shouts things out to people like "You're living in babylon".
The biggest problem is the financialisation of the economy... what is the actual value of things? The market is so manipulated
that real price discovery is not possible.
We have an over-cooked service-sector economy unsustainably reliant on cheap debt, cheap energy, and cheap manufactured
goods to fuel our 'high-end levels of consumption, and mobility or living standards, and an over-heated housing market that is
unsustainably run according to the needs of investors and landlords rather than residents or tenants.
The whole thing is going to blow apart. Our 'aspirations' are slowly killing us - they're destroying the social fabric.
What we need is a coordinated approach between our nations. Undercutting each other on corporate taxes, writing tax avoidance
into law, and continuing to allow multinationals to influence our politicians and play our governments against each other is exactly
the game we must end.
Deborah Orr:Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes
its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as
a result, governments have been obliged to limit their activities yet further....
I never thought I would live long enough to see this level of honesty ATL. It should have been published long ago, but at least
the discussion now begins.
"Ransom". There is no better word to describe it. This (the ransom mentality) is exactly the reactionary, vindictive, doctrinaire
psychology that must be extracted like a cancer from our institutional lives and the human species. A monolithic task. But identifying
the cause is the first step to cure.
"... Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far. ..."
"... The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. ..."
"... the UK government did intervene in the economy when it bailed out the banks to the tune of many billions of pounds underwritten by the taxpayer. The markets should always be regulated sufficiently (light touch is absolutely useless) to prevent the problems currently being experienced from ever happening again. ..."
"... Traditional liberalism had died decades before WWII and was replaced by finance capitalism. What happened after WW II was that capitalism had to make various concessions to avoid a socialist revolution: social and political freedoms indeed darted ahead. ..."
"... No chance mate, at least not all the time greasy spiv and shyster outfits like hedge funds are funding Puffin face and the Vermin Party. They are never going to bite the hand that feeds them ..."
"... And in case we get uppity and endeavour to challenge the economic paradigm and the rule of these neoliberal elites, there's the surveillance state panopticon to track our movements and keep us in check. ..."
"... There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice. In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism. ..."
"... She, knowingly, let neo-liberal economic philosophy come trumpeting through the door of No10 and it's been there ever since; it has guided our politicians for the past 30 odd years. Hence, it is Thatcher's fault. She did this and another bad thing: the woman who glorified household economics pissed away billions of pounds of North Sea Oil. ..."
"... Bailouts have been a constant feature of neoliberalism. In fact the role of the state is simply reduced to a merely commissioning agent to private parasitical corporations. History has shown the state playing this role since neoliberalism became embedded in policy since the 1970s - Long Term Capital Management, Savings and Loans, The Brady Plan, numerous PFI bailouts and those of the Western banking system during the 1982 South American, 1997 Asian and 2010 European debt crises. ..."
@EllisWyatt - Here's the funny thing about those who cheer the broken neoliberal model. They
promise we will get to those "sunny uplands" with exactly the same fervor as old Marxists.
Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom
Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to
force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic
Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far.
The same names come up time and time again. One of them being, father of propaganda, Edward Bernays.
Bernays wrote what can be seen as a virtual Mission Statement for anyone wishing to bring about a "counterculture." In the
opening paragraph of his book Propaganda he wrote:
"..The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important
element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government
which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast numbers of human beings must
cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily
lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind..."[28]
Bernays' family background made him well suited to "control the public mind." He was the double nephew of psychoanalysis
pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Freud's sister Anna, and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha
Bernays.
@OneCommentator - the UK government did intervene in the economy when it bailed out the banks
to the tune of many billions of pounds underwritten by the taxpayer. The markets should
always be regulated sufficiently (light touch is absolutely useless) to prevent the problems
currently being experienced from ever happening again.
Those at the bottom of society and
those in the public sector are the ones paying the price for this intervention in the UK. If
you truly believe in the 'free' market then all of these failing organisations (banks, etc)
should have been allowed to fail. The problem is that the wealth created under the current
system is virtually all going to those at the top of the income scale and this needs to
change and is one of the main reasons that neo liberalism should be binned!
Traditional liberalism had died decades before WWII and was replaced by finance
capitalism. What happened after WW II was that capitalism had to make various concessions to
avoid a socialist revolution: social and political freedoms indeed darted ahead.
@brighton2 - No chance mate, at least not all the time greasy spiv and shyster outfits like hedge funds are funding Puffin
face and the Vermin Party. They are never going to bite the hand that feeds them.
And in case we get uppity and endeavour to challenge the economic paradigm and the rule of
these neoliberal elites, there's the surveillance state panopticon to track our movements and
keep us in check.
I know what you are saying it's just sooner or later as those at the bottom continue to be
squeezed the wealthy will sow their own seeds of destruction. I think we are witnessing the
end game which is reflected in the desperation of the coalition to flog everything regardless
of the efficacy of such behavior, they feel time is running out and they would be right.
Call it what you will - "neoliberalism", "neoconservatism", "socialism" or whatever it is...
This debate is not even really solely about money: this is about liberty , about
free choice, about being permitted to engage in voluntary exchange of goods and services with
others, unmolested. About the users of services becoming the ones paying for those
services.
Ultimately the real effect will be to remove power from governments and hand it back to
where it belongs - the free market.
voluntary transactions among free agents. That's called a free market and it is by far
the most efficient way to produce wealth humanity has ever known.
Could you explain how someone bound by a contract of employment, with the alternative,
destitution, is a 'free agent'?
@SpinningHugo - Nothing comes out of nothing and i well remember black Monday in the City.
That was the start of the spivs running the economy as if it were a casino. If you think its only on CiF that Thatcher gets the blame, think on this, Scotland, a
whole nation blames her too.
Unless you are completely confused by what neoliberalism is there is not a shred of
logical sense in this.
There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the
fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely
ignoring what it is in practice. In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but
the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for
the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism.
Savers in a neoliberal society are lambs to the slaughter. Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and died.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not.
Neoliberalist policies have lifted millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South
America.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can
pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else. In Asia and South America it has
been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility down,
just like it does here.
I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from,
massive state intervention in markets (QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where
applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality, and makes
the announcement from a tractor factory.
Neoliberalism is a blight... a cancer on humanity... a massive lie told by rich people and
believed only by peasants happy to be thrown a turnip. In theory it's one thing, the reality
is entirely different. Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves. It's an abhorrent cult
that comes up with purest bilge like expansionary fiscal contraction to keep all the money in
the hands of the rich.
@MickGJ - You are wrong about the first 2 of course.
Banksters get others to do their shit.
But unfortunately the poor sods who went down on D Day were in their way fighting for Wall
Street as much as anything else. It's just that they weren't told about it by the Allies massive propaganda machine. So partly right
The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created
and distributed around the globe
Which would be what? State planning? Communism? Totally free market capitalism? Oh wait, we already have the best of a bad bunch, a mixed capitalist economy with
democracy. That really is the crux of it, our system isn't perfect, never will be, but nobody has come
up with a better solution.
Barclays bank "only" paid out £660m in dividends to the bearers of risk capital,
while its bonus pot for a very select number of its staff was £1.5bn.
Fascinating! Now, one could infer that Barclays represent "beneficial capitalism",
rewarding its hard-working employees, but maybe we won't.
This is not the traditional capitalist style
The Traditional capitalist is not an extinct species but under threat. For the time
being the population is stagnant in some countries and even increasing in some others.
However, due to the foraging capacity of Neoliberal creature , competing in the same
economical niche, the size and life expectation of it are diminishing.
She, knowingly, let neo-liberal economic philosophy come trumpeting through the door of
No10 and it's been there ever since; it has guided our politicians for the past 30 odd years.
Hence, it is Thatcher's fault. She did this and another bad thing: the woman who
glorified household economics pissed away billions of pounds of North Sea Oil.
@MickGJ - No, you're right. Why let yesterdays experience feed into what you expect of the
future? Lets go forwards goldfish like, every minute a brand new one, with no baggage!
And by the way, who saved the hide of the very much private sector banks and financial
institutions? The hated STATE, us tax payers!
I think I agree with everything that you say here? The people at the top these days aren't
really of much use for anything, including capitalism. The only thing that they do excel at
is lining their own pockets and securing their privileged position in society.
They have become quite up front about it. There was a bit of a fuss last year when
Barclays bank "only" paid out £660m in dividends to the bearers of risk capital, while
its bonus pot for a very select number of its staff was £1.5bn. Barclays released a
statement before their AGM explaining:
"Barclays is fully committed to ensuring that a greater proportion of income and profits
flow to shareholders notwithstanding that it operates within the constraints of a
competitive market."
This is not the traditional capitalist style competition that they are talking about where
companies competed as to who can return the biggest profit for their shareholders this now
comes secondary to the real competition which is for which company can return the biggest
bonuses for a small group of employees.
Bailouts have been a constant feature of neoliberalism. In fact the role of the state is
simply reduced to a merely commissioning agent to private parasitical corporations. History
has shown the state playing this role since neoliberalism became embedded in policy since the
1970s - Long Term Capital Management, Savings and Loans, The Brady Plan, numerous PFI
bailouts and those of the Western banking system during the 1982 South American, 1997 Asian
and 2010 European debt crises.
No wonder you're so ignorant of the basics of economic policy if you won't flick through a
book - fear of accepting that you're simply wrong is a sure sign of either pig ignorance or
denial, and is as I said embarrassing so its not really much point in wasting anymore time
engaging with you.
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
Of course it has. And it will continue to "fail", while provide us with all
sorts of goodies, for the foreseeable future. Capitalism's endless "failure" is of no more
concern than human mortality. Ever tried, ever failed, try again, fail better.
"... Now we see moneyed entities with vested interests, carpet bagging and flogging off the NHS and an unelected fossil fuel mandarin, at the heart of government decision making, appointing corporate yea-sayers, to the key government departments, with environmental responsibilities. Corporations capturing the state apparatus for their own ends, is 'corporatism.' ..."
"... "Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the benefits." ..."
"... The bailout is simply actual neoliberalism as opposed to the theory inside tiny right wing minds. The system depends on the wealthy not being allowed to suffer the consequences of their own greed, or it would represent revolution and still not work. ..."
"... Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the benefits. It always amusing to see neoliberal morons shout about the red menace when they're two sides of the same coin. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is nothing if not the opposite extreme of the communist planned economy. Like the communist planned economy, neoliberalism is doomed to failure. I think we've all been sold a lie. ..."
@NotAgainAgain - this is very true, it reminds me of an engineering company I worked for in
Nottingham (since gone under). The production manger was a corrupt thief. He gradually
sub-contracted the production work out to other companies in the area, taking backhanders for
his troubles.
Once all the production was farmed out, he somehow got himself promoted to
director level, where he and a sycophant subbed all the design work out. So all the
production and design was done out of house, standards dropped and the company closed,
leaving him with a nice payoff, just prior to retirement.
Some would say he played a blinder, my interpretation is he ruined a perfectly viable
company, making a very good product, and over the course of about 5 years put over 30 people
out of work.
In a just world he would be spending his retirement in prison.
Income distribution and a happy workforce is actually very good for business as well as
society!
Of course it is, but the capitalists do not know it. In many countries, including Finland,
the "condition of the working classes", ie. working conditions, have been in rapid decline
for the last 20 years.
Permanent salaried jobs have been replaced with temps from agencies, unpaid overtime is
becoming the norm, burnouts are commonplace and so on.
If in your country things are different, no mass lay-outs and outsourcing to China, count
yourself lucky!
But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their
taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments
Noam Chomsky pointed this out aeons ago though-that the American model is to use tax money
to benefit private interests through technological infrastructure.
It was ever thus, if in slightly different forms. Still it is surprising that they have gone
so quickly from their stated position at the start of the republic of a rejection of kings
and emperors to their position now of corruption so ingrained it is impossible to make
distinctions. Proxy emperors are emperors all the same, no matter the rhetoric that promotes
them.
One senses that there is very little 'going back' possible. Besides, the great Neoliberal
scam is predicated upon the qualities of the 'governments' we have and the capacity of those
'rhetoricians' with the capacity to say anything or play any role, to lick any arse, to get
elected. Such apparent strength is weakness. In this world that now exists here, we have now
entered the same world as the USSR in the eighties, where the announcement of bumper harvests
of wheat, made everyone with a brain cell groan and think
'Oh fuck! no bread this winter-quick, run to the shops now, and buy up all the flour
there'.
But there is now no way to declare that without being seen as beyond the pale-a bug eyed
conspiracist.
Still, I am a believer in the connectedness of this world. The economic system and its
mythologies are just weird and distorted canaries in the coalmine of the wider environment.
It is indicating that there is a misalignment between the way we think and what is possible
in this world. Austerity promoters and 'Keynsian' Ballsites are one and the same thing-both
pretenders that the key to the problems is within their narrow gifts
Hubris is followed by nemesis. In a wider sense what we seen now is a complete failure of
the capacity to educate and to learn,and moderate behaviour, and find some way of caring for
our 'others', beyond the core of 'self'. nationalism is essentially an extension of 'self'.
We now shall see the failure of a retraction of thought into nationalism and
scapegoating.
I predict that the population of the world will decline over the next century-quite
markedly.
The only solace is that at the end of the process, the pain will be forgotten. It always
is.
@MickGJ - Cameron said 'We will cut the deficit, not the NHS,' and promised to be the
'greenest government ever,' saying that you could 'go green,' if you voted 'blue.'
Now we see
moneyed entities with vested interests, carpet bagging and flogging off the NHS and an
unelected fossil fuel mandarin, at the heart of government decision making, appointing
corporate yea-sayers, to the key government departments, with environmental responsibilities.
Corporations capturing the state apparatus for their own ends, is 'corporatism.'
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many
aspects of financial services – that Britain enjoyed during the second half of the
20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce.
There was very little 'healthy economic growth' in Britain in the second half of the 20th
century.
Britain was bankrupt after WW2 with its people dependent on Marshall Aid and food
contributions from its former 'colonies'.
Whatever 'growth' occured after Marshall Aid arrived was scuppered by a class system where
company managers were more concerned with walking on the workers than with keeping their
businesses afloat while such discrimination provoked hard left trade union policies which
left british industry uncompetitive and ultimately non-existent.
If that wasn't enough, Thatcherism arrived to re-inforce class discrimination, sell off
national services and assets and replace social policy with neo-liberal consumerism.
Whether the workforce was swollen by women or anyone else is immaterial.
The anti-democratic incestuous class conflict latent in British society continues to ensure
that the UK will remain a mere vassal state of foot-soldiers and consumers for international
neo-liberal capitalism.
@DasInternaut - Completely agree. The performance has been poor to absymal. But this is a
failure of democratic governance because the collective interests of citizens as consumers
and service users are not being represented and enforced by the elected politicians since
they have been suborned by the capitalists elites and their fellow-travellers.
The people, indeed, have been sold a lie, but, unfortunately, it is only UKIP which is
making the political waves by revealing selected aspects of this lie. The three established
parties have been 'bought' to varying extents. But more and more citizens are beginning to
realise the extent to which they have been bought.
There is an upside to all of this, maybe I wont get modded so much from now on for being so
angry at the ideological criminals . Hopefully the middle classes will cotton on to the fact
that all this is not a mad hatters tinfoil hobby, we need more of them to be grumpy.
@MickGJ - We've already seen it. Not great so far. GS4, Winterbourne view, southern cross,
trains...............Welfare to work companies, delivering no better results than people left
to their own devices. Energy companies.
We'll see if the new wave of free schools, academy schools, and all the service outsourced by
the council perform any better.
Doubtful, as to make a profit, they have to employ poorer paid people, less well qualified,
and once they've got a contract, they've got very little competition, as when the second
round of bidding comes around, as the firms having got the first contract are the only one
with relevant experience, they are assured of renewal, the money machine will keep going!
Neoliberalism are policies that are
influenced by neo classical economics. If you are suggesting that the neoliberal school of
thought would advocate any kind of a bailout then you are mistaken. Where else have I
"apparently" embarrassed myself?
@TedSmithAndSon - This is just an inaccurate rant not a reply.
"The system depends on the wealthy not being allowed to suffer the consequences.."
Unless you are completely confused by what neolibralism is there is not a shred of logical
sense in this.
"The debt industry are the lenders who take advantage of a financial system..."
Which is what savers are. They come in the form of individuals businesses and governments.
This encompasses everyone.
"whilst paying the lowest possible rate. Wonga, for instance."
If you are a lender you do not pay anything, you receive.
"Thatchers revolution was to take our citizenship and give it a value, whilst making
everyone else a consumer, all for a handful of magic beans in the shape of British Gas
shares."
...not forgetting that she revitalised the economy and got everyone back to work
again.
"Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the
benefits."
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not.
Neoliberalist policies have lifted millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South
America. Communism has no benefits for society open your eyes!
@ATrueFinn - After they are finished, what do Singaporeans eat?
Next year's harvest (possibly of GM food which makes better use of scarce
resources). I imagine the sun will eventually stop bombarding us with the energy that powers
photosynthesis but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
@MurchuantEacnamai - I think the point is this, Amazon make money by selling books, they
avoid paying taxes, yet expect an educated, literate population to be provided for them, on
the grounds that illiterate people don't buy books, and expect roads to move the books around
on.
@theguardianisrubbish - No! The bailout is simply actual neoliberalism as opposed to
the theory inside tiny right wing minds. The system depends on the wealthy not being
allowed to suffer the consequences of their own greed, or it would represent revolution and
still not work.
The debt industry are the lenders who take advantage of a financial system designed to
push profits upwards (neoliberalism in practice), whilst paying the lowest possible rate.
Wonga, for instance.
Thatchers revolution was to take our citizenship and give it a value, whilst making
everyone else a consumer, all for a handful of magic beans in the shape of British Gas
shares.
Neoliberalism in practice is every bit as bad as Communism in practice, with none of the
benefits. It always amusing to see neoliberal morons shout about the red menace when they're
two sides of the same coin.
.and provides them at a massively inflated cost accompanied by unforgivable waste and
inefficiency, appalling service and life-threatening incompetence.
as opposed to the private sector, who always does what it says it will do, at reasonable
cost, for the benefit of their customers, and with due regards to ethics?
Like the Banks, the financial sector, who will never sell you a product that isn't the best
for you, regardless of their interest? the private companies like Southern Cross, GS4?
The private insurance who refuse to take you on the minute you've got some illness or
disability? Get off it! The state isn't perfect, the services it provides are not perfect,
but replacing them with private provision isn't the answer!
@MurchuantEacnamai - How would you rate how well British government has done in ensuring
markets are genuinely competitive. How well has British government done in ensuring our
energy market is competitive, for example. Does the competitiveness we observe in the energy
market give customers better or worse value than they had before deregulation? How do you
rate the British government's performance in rail and public transport, with respect to
competitiveness?
Personally, and notwithstanding the notable exception of telecoms, I rate the British (and
US) government's performance in deregulating state entities, creating new markets and
ensuring competition, as poor.
Neoliberalism is nothing if not the opposite extreme of the communist planned economy.
Like the communist planned economy, neoliberalism is doomed to failure. I think we've all
been sold a lie.
"... Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom ..."
"... Neoliberal ideology acted as a smokescreen that enabled the financially powerful to rewrite the rules and place themselves beyond the law. ..."
"... So it seems that your suggestion is for a return to western capitalism post-war style - would that be right? (b.t.w. if I bring up the whole Soviet Union thing, it is partly because quite a few commentators in this debate come across as if they wish for something much more leftist than that). ..."
"... What you have missed, is that the lions share of the proceeds of that growth are not going to ordinary people but to a tiny minority of super rich. It is not working for the majority. ..."
"... The taxpayers are left to pick up the tab, nations are divided against immigrants and scroungers and then unfettered evangelists like you can spout as pompously as you like about how much big business would like to remove the state from corporate affairs. ..."
"... Without the state there wouldn't be neo-Liberalism, it took state regulated capitalism to build what unfettered purists insist on tearing apart for short term greed. ..."
"... The trouble is Neo-Liberals do not want to remove the state at all, they want to BE the state and in the process rendering democracy pretty much meaningless. And they've succeeded. ..."
"... The biggest swindle ever pulled was turning the most glaring and crushing failure of unfettered corporatism into the biggest and most crushing power grab implemented in order to suppress the will of the people ..."
"... Nobody hates a market more than a monopoly and capitalism must inevitably end in monopoly as it has. For the profiteering monopolies investment especially via taxation is insane as it can only undermine their monopoly. ..."
"... The bankers have always known that the austerity caused by having to pay off un-payable loans, that increase every year, will eventually produce countries very similar to the "Weimar Days" in pre-Hitler Germany. ..."
"... They also know that drastic conditions such as these often lead to a collapse of democracy and a resurgence of Fascism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism could not exist without massive state support. So the term is meaningless. There is nothing "liberal" about having a huge state funded military industrial complex that acts a Trojan horse for global corporations, invading other countries for resources. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a branch of economic ideology which espouses the value of the free-market, and removing all protective legislation, so that large companies are free to do what they want, where-ever they want, with no impediments from social or environmental considerations, or a nation's democratic preferences. ..."
"... Business-friendly to who exactly: the nation or hostile overseas speculators? ..."
"... The golden age of 1945 - 1975 or so witnessed huge rises in standards of living so your point linking neo-liberalism to rising standards of living is literally meaningless. There was an explosive growth in economic activity during the three or four post war decades ..."
"... The assumption shared by many round here that the young are some untapped resource of revolutionary energy is deeply mistaken ..."
A wonderful article that names the central issue. Neoliberal ideology acted as a smokescreen
that enabled the financially powerful to rewrite the rules and place themselves beyond the
law. The resultant rise of financial capitalism, which now eclipses the productive
manufacturing-based capitalism that was the engine of world growth since the industrial
revolution, has propelled a dangerous self-serving elite to the centre of world power. It's
not just inequality that matters, but the character of the global elite.
The neo-liberal order commenced only in the late 1970s - there was a very different
order prior to this which was not "soviet socialism" as you term it.
So it seems that your suggestion is for a return to western capitalism post-war style -
would that be right? (b.t.w. if I bring up the whole Soviet Union thing, it is partly because
quite a few commentators in this debate come across as if they wish for something much more
leftist than that).
Anyway, my worry with this idea is that I am just not convinced that life in "The West
1945-80" was better on the whole than in "The West 1980-present". It's true that
unemployment is higher these days, but a lot of work in the post-war years was boring and
physically exhausting; in factories and mines where conditions were degrading and bad for
health; and where industrial relations were simply terrible. I think as well that the higher
unemployment is a localized phenomenon that many developing countries are not experiencing
(this is relevant because Deborah Orr proposes change for the whole world, not merely the
West).
There were also frequent recessions and booms - in fact, more frequent (albeit shorter)
than now. What seems to have changed in this respect is that, whereas we used to alternate
regularly between 2-3 years of boom and 1-2 years of bust, we now have 15 years of continuous
boom followed by a (maybe?) 10 year bust (this pattern began around 1980). If you asked me
which of these two patterns I preferred, then I think I'd go for the pre-1980 pattern, but
its not clear to me that the post-1980 pattern is so much worse as to underwrite a savage
indictment of the whole system.
As for Casino banking: they should reform that. Britain's Coalition Government has done
something in that respect, although its not very radical - I am hoping Labour can do more.
There is certainly a lot to be said for banks going back to a pre-"Big Bang" sense of
tradition and prudence.
Buts let's not also forget the plus sides in the ledger for post-1980 capitalism: hundreds
of millions in the former third world lifted out of poverty; unprecedented technological
innovation (e.g. the internet, which makes access to knowledge more equal even as income
inequality grows); and the accomodation (at least in the West) of progressive social change,
such as the empowerment of ethnic minorities, LGBT people and women.
Change, yes - but lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
OK, but both the claim and the link cited in support talk only about a problem in the US.
This can't really answer my point, which was that the rest of the world should not be
expected to support a change to the economic system of the whole world just because of
problems that are mostly localised to North America and Europe. People in developing
countries might like the fact that they are, at last, catching "the West" up, and might well
not care much about widening inequality of incomes in Western societies.
If you are going to propose changes that you want the whole world to adopt, as Deborah Orr
does, then you should be careful to avoid casually assuming that Africa, India, China, et al,
feel the same way about the world's recent history as we do. It seems to me that not enough
care has been demonstrated in this regard.
@MickGJ - Left to their own devices the most extreme neo-liberals would remove the state
almost completely from corporate life.
Except when the State has to step in to prop up an unsustainable ideology. Then it's all
meek murmurings and pleas for forgiveness and a timid "we'll be better from now" concessions
and the Government obliges the public with the farce that they actually intend to do anything
at all but make the public pay for the financial sector's state subsidized profligacy.
Once the begging bowl is re-filled of course then the pretense of "business as usual"
profligacy rises to the fore.
The taxpayers are left to pick up the tab, nations are divided against immigrants and
scroungers and then unfettered evangelists like you can spout as pompously as you like about
how much big business would like to remove the state from corporate affairs.
When you well know that is the last thing big business would like to do. More of the state
owned pie is always the most urgent of priorities. Poorer services at inflated costs equates
as 'efficiency' until the taxpayer is again left to step in and pick up the bill.
Without the state there wouldn't be neo-Liberalism, it took state regulated capitalism to
build what unfettered purists insist on tearing apart for short term greed.
The trouble is Neo-Liberals do not want to remove the state at all, they want to BE the
state and in the process rendering democracy pretty much meaningless. And they've
succeeded.
The biggest swindle ever pulled was turning the most glaring and crushing failure of
unfettered corporatism into the biggest and most crushing power grab implemented in order to
suppress the will of the people.
Just as IMF loans come with 'obligations' the principle of democracy itself was sold as
part of 'the solution'.
The unsustainable, sustained. By slavery to debt, removal of society's safety net and an
economy barely maintained by industries that serve the rich, vultures that prey on the weak
and rising living costs and the drudgery of a life compounded by a relentless bombardment of
everything in life that is unattainable.
Nobody hates a market more than a monopoly and capitalism must inevitably end in monopoly as
it has. For the profiteering monopolies investment especially via taxation is insane as it
can only undermine their monopoly. With the economy now globalised not even a world war could
sweep away the current ossified political economy and give capitalism a new lease on life.
It's socialism or monopoly capitalist barbarism. Make your choice.
Money that the governments don't actually need as they can print their own money and spend it
to use their countries own resources and then raise taxes to offset the extra spending and
thus maintaining monetary value. The reality is that a government should never, ever borrow
money.
The beginning period between the two world wars (1919-33) in Germany called the Weimar
Republic shows us exactly what severe austerity imposed by the Treaty of Versailles caused.
Because the German economy contracted severely due to reparations payments, steady inflation
and severe unemployment ensued. Of course the FED having started the Great Depression in
America had not helped matters much anywhere in the world. The bankers have always known that
the austerity caused by having to pay off un-payable loans, that increase every year, will
eventually produce countries very similar to the "Weimar Days" in pre-Hitler Germany.
They
also know that drastic conditions such as these often lead to a collapse of democracy and a
resurgence of Fascism.
What causes inflation is uncontrolled speculation of the kind we have seen fed by private
banking at various crucial points in history, such as the Weimar Republic. When speculation
is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) such as we are seeing in America and
Europe now, the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues its own "good
faith" commerce-related currency in carefully measured ways as we saw in Roman times or
Colonial America, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices
unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income
taxes.
In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments
imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. It is very similar to the austerity being imposed on
European Nations and America as we speak – regardless of the fact that the IMF is
trying to pose as "the Good Cop" at the moment! The damage has been done to nations like
Greece, and others are soon to follow. The uncontrollable greed of banks and corporations is
leading to an implosion of severe magnitude! It's time to open their books and put a stop to
these private banks right now!
@MysticFish - So the US who has a greater spend on the military than communist China is
neoliberal?
Neoliberalism could not exist without massive state support. So the term is
meaningless. There is nothing "liberal" about having a huge state funded military industrial complex
that acts a Trojan horse for global corporations, invading other countries for resources.
The term neoliberal is not only meaningless but misleading as it implies a connection with
true liberalism, of which it has no meaningful connection.
Do away with deceptive terms like neoliberalism, capitalism, socialism, left wing and right
wing and things become clearer.
At root a lot of the people who get involved in all of the above have very similar
character traits - love of power, greed, deceitful, ruthlessness. Most start out with these
character traits, and others gain them as a result of power.
Anyone high up in politics or business is unhinged. You have to be. The organizational
structures in these things are so synthetic, the beliefs so artificial, rigid, dogmatic and
inhuman that only a unhinged person could prosper in this climate.
Most reasonable people admit doubt, are willing to accept compromise, are willing to make
the occasional sacrifice for the greater good. All these things are what make us human,
however all these things are seen as weaknesses in the inverted world of business and
politics.
Business and politics creates an environment where the must inhuman traits prosper.
"no but the highly placed banking and financial class are along with their venal
political mates"
For sure but are they capitalists? Although they may well own capital does their power
derive from the ownership of capital? You may, or may not be interested in this
lecture on the future of capitalism by John Kay.
@AssistantCook - Neoliberalism is a branch of economic ideology which espouses the value of
the free-market, and removing all protective legislation, so that large companies are free to
do what they want, where-ever they want, with no impediments from social or environmental
considerations, or a nation's democratic preferences. Von Hayek was a major influence and
Thatcher was a loyal disciple, as was the notorious dictator, Pinochet. It is economic
theory, designed for vulture capitalists, and unpopular industries like fossil fuel or
tobacco, and usually the 'freedom' is all one-sided.
@DavidPavett - If states are too big, then what about multinational banks and corporations? I
wonder why Neoliberal ideology does not try to limit the size of these. They are cumbersome
and destructive, predatory dinosaurs and yet our politicians seem mesmerised to the point of
allowing them special favours, tax incentives and the ability to determine our nation's
policies in matters such as energy and health. Why not 'Small is Beautiful,' when it comes to
companies? It doesn't make sense to shrink the state but then let non-transparent and
unaccountable, multinational companies become too powerful. One gets the feeling the country
is being invaded by the interests of hostile nations, using all-too-convenient Neoliberal
ideology and hidden behind a corporate mask.
Is the IMF ever stop evading its responsibility and blaming others for the worldwide
financial tragedy it has provoked? Is it ever stop hurting the working class?
"Neo-liberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom for the rich and powerful
elites is all."
No it is not that is what you want to believe. There is nothing in this statement other
than an opinion based on nothing.
"Many people across the globe were lifted out of poverty between 1945-1980 so what does
your statement about neo-liberalism prove"
Which countries during this period saw massive sustainable reductions in poverty without
some free market model in place?
"It is you who should open your eyes and stop expecting people on here to accept your
ideological beliefs and statements as facts."
I don't expect people to accept my beliefs I am just pointing out why I think their
beliefs are wrong. This is a comment section the whole idea of it is to comment on different
views and articles. How can you ever benefit or make an accurate decision or belief if you do
not try to understand what the opposite belief is? I think nearly everything I have said has
been somewhat backed up by logic or a fact, I have not said wishy washy statements like:
"Neo-liberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom for the rich and powerful
elites is all."
Unless you can expand on this and give evidence or some form of an example why you think
its true then it makes no sense. You are not the only commentor on this article to make a
similar statement and the way people have attempted to justify it is due to bailouts but as I
have said a bailout is not part of the neoliberal school of thought so if you have a problem
with bailouts you don't have a problem with neoliberalism.
@murielbelcher - I don't want to go to far into Thatcherism because it is slightly off topic.
The early 80s recession was a global recession and yes during the first few years
unemployment soared. Why was that because the trade unions were running amok the UK was
losing millions of days of work per month.
Inflation was getting out of control and the only
way to solve it was a self induced recession. You cannot seriously believe that without the
reforms that she implemented we would not have recovered as quick as we did nor can you argue
that it was possible for her or anyone else to turn around such an inefficient industry.
Don't forget the problems of the manufacturing industry go back way before Thatcher's time.
"Here's your problem. You believe that banks lend savings. They don't. Loans create
deposits create reserves."
I am not claiming to be an expert on this if you are then let me know and please do
correct me. I agree banks do not lend deposits but they do lend savings. There is a
difference putting money on deposit is different to say putting money into an ISA. I don't
agree though that deposits create reserves I believe that they come from the central bank
otherwise banks would be constrained by the amount of deposits in the system which is not
true and something you have said is not true.
Nevertheless, the majority of liquidity in the bond markets (like most other markets)
comes from institutional investors, i.e pension funds, unit trusts, insurance companies, etc.
They get their money from savings by consumers as well as sometimes companies. Ok we don't
always give our money to insurance companies when we save but via premiums is another way the
ordinary consumer contributes to this so called "debt industry". I also said that foreign and
local governments buy debt and companies invest directly into the debt market.
"In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed
too high (as they inevitable are). "
Iceland would disagree.
"The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality
of neoliberalism."
Why have only the rich benefited from the bailout? You are not making any sense.
"The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality
of neoliberalism."
Why? You cannot just say a statement like that and not expand, it makes no sense.
"Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and died."
...but also revitalised the economy and got everyone back to work.
"Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for,
otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else."
Again you have to expand on this because it makes no sense.
"In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes
profit upwards and responsibility down, just like it does here."
Don't think that is true in most cases nor would it make sense. Why would a dictator who
wants as much power as possible operate a laissez-faire economy? You cannot have personal
freedom without having economic freedom, it is a necessary not sufficient condition. Tell me
a case where these is a large degree of political freedom but little to no economic freedom.
Moreover look at the countries in Asia and South America that have adopted a neoliberal
agenda and notice their how poverty as reduced significantly.
"I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from,
massive state intervention in markets (QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where
applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality, and makes
the announcement from a tractor factory."
Who has 5 year plans?
"In theory it's one thing, the reality is entirely different."
If the reality is different to the theory then it is not neoliberalism that is being
implemented therefore it makes no sense to dispute the theory. Look at where it has been
implemented, the best case in the world at the moment is Hong Kong look at how well that
country has performed.
"a massive lie told by rich people "
I can assure you I am not rich.
"Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves."
Neoliberalism is based on personal freedom. If you believe this about neoliberalism in your
opinion give me one economic school of thought where this does not apply.
"Bailouts have been a constant feature of neoliberalism."
What you are saying does not make sense. Whatever you say about that there was no where else
to turn the government had to bailout out the banks a neolibralist would disagree.
"In fact the role of the state is simply reduced to a merely commissioning agent to
private parasitical corporations. "
That's corporatism which so far you have described pretty well.
"History has shown the state playing this role since neoliberalism became embedded in
policy since the 1970s - Long Term Capital Management, Savings and Loans, The Brady Plan,
numerous PFI bailouts and those of the Western banking system during the 1982 South American,
1997 Asian and 2010 European debt crises."
What?! Bailouts have been occurring before the industrial revolution. Deregulation in the
UK occurred mainly during the 80s not 70's. Furthermore financial deregulation occurred in
the UK in 1986. In the USA the major piece of financial deregulation was the Gramm Leach
Bliley Act which was passed in 1999. So you have just undercut your own point with the
examples you gave above. You could argue Argentina and we could argue all day about the
causes of that, but I would say that any government that pursues an expansionary monetary
policy under a fixed ER is never going to end well.
"...policy if you won't flick through a book."
My point was that when people quote a source they tend to either quote the page that the
point comes from. To be honest if this book is telling you that neoliberalism and
neoclassical are significantly different (which you seemed to suggest in you earlier post)
then I would suggest put the book down.
"Google, Amazon and Apple... avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more
powerful than governments."
Yes to the first, no to the second. Corporations with revenues exceeding the GDP of a small nation have quite a lot of power:
Exxon's revenue is between the GDP of Norway and Austria. In Finland Nokia generated 3 4 % of the GDP for a decade and the government bent backwards
to accommodate its polite requests, including a specific law reducing the privacy of
employees' emails.
We percieve a problem in (most of) Europe and North America because our economies are
growing more slowly than this, and in some cases not at all. The global growth figure comes
out healthy because of strong growth in the emerging countries, like China, Brazil and
India, who are narrowing the gap between their living standards and ours. So, the world as
a whole isn't broken, even if our bit of it is going through a rough patch.
@Fachan - Except that it isn't capitalism that was being criticized here, but neoliberalism:
a distinction that's often lost on neoliberals themselves, ironically.
I'm sure that Denis Healy and any number of African economists would confirm that the IMF is
quite simply a refuge of absolutely last resort, when investor confidence in your economy is
so shattered that the only way ahead is to open the shark gates and allow big money to
plunder whatever value remains there, without the benefit of any noticeable return for your
people. Greece is but one more victim of a syndrome that encompasses all the science and
forensic analysis of ritual sacrifice.
@OneCommentator - don't confuse economic deregulation which acted as handmaiden to global
finance and multinationals as economic freedoms for population
China's govt was doing what china's govt had decided to do from 1978 BEFORE the election
of Thatcher in 1979 or Reagan in 1980 (office from Jan 1981), so very little correlation
there I think
The GATT rounds whether you agree with their aims or not were the products of the post war
decades, again before Thatcher and Reagan came to power
The golden age of 1945 - 1975 or so witnessed huge rises in standards of living so your
point linking neo-liberalism to rising standards of living is literally meaningless. There
was an explosive growth in economic activity during the three or four post war decades
@theguardianisrubbish - you can't get away with this
She DID not get everyone back to work again. There were two recessions at either end of the 1980s. She TRIPLED unemployment during the first half of the 1980s and introduced the phenomenon
of high structural unemployment and placing people on invalidity benefits to massage the
headline unemployment count. Give us the figures to back up your assertion that she "got
everyone back to work again." I suspect that you cannot and your statement stands for the
utter nonsense that it is in any kind of reality.
A few months after she was forced out Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont in 1991 during yet
another recession declared that "unemployment was a price worth paying"!!!
Neo-liberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom for the rich and powerful
elites is all. Many people across the globe were lifted out of poverty between 1945-1980 so
what does your statement about neo-liberalism prove
It is you who should open your eyes and stop expecting people on here to accept your
ideological beliefs and statements as facts.
"The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached:
adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big
State."
That's glib and inaccurate. A better read about the IMF from an insider:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ Digest: the biggest problem the IMF have to deal with in bailouts is always the politics
of cronyism; free-market oligarchs and government in cahoots.
"Many IMF programs "go off track" (a euphemism) precisely because the government can't
stay tough on erstwhile cronies, and the consequences are massive inflation or other
disasters. A program "goes back on track" once the government prevails or powerful oligarchs
sort out among themselves who will govern -- and thus win or lose -- under the IMF-supported
plan. The real fight in Thailand and Indonesia in 1997 was about which powerful families
would lose their banks. In Thailand, it was handled relatively smoothly. In Indonesia, it led
to the fall of President Suharto and economic chaos."
Generally whoever happens to be in opposition at the time. This made the LibDems
the ideal (sorry) choice for a long time but then they broke a long-standing if unspoken
promise that they would never actually be in government.
Last weekś Economist has some very interesting stuff from the British Social
Attitudes survey which shows the increasing drift away from collectivist ideals towards
liberalism over each succeeding generation.
The assumption shared by many round here that the young are some untapped resource of
revolutionary energy is deeply mistaken
"... The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe ..."
"... The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity", have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask. ..."
"... Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the problem. ..."
"... Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory , did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised. ..."
"... Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. ..."
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is
created and distributed around the globe
Sat 8 Jun 2013 02.59 EDT First published on Sat 8 Jun 2013 02.59 EDT
The IMF's limited admission of guilt over the Greek bailout is a start, but they still can't see the global financial system's
fundamental flaws, writes Deborah Orr. Photograph: Boris Roessler/DPA FILE T he International Monetary Fund has admitted that some
of the decisions it made in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis were wrong, and that the €130bn first bailout of Greece was
"bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived
happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that it went along with its partners in
"the Troika" – the European Commission and the European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF,
put the interests of the eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch their pearls and splutter with
horror that they could be accused of something so petty as self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes
no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity",
have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be
coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge
is that the merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more
quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response from the start should have
been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment",
as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of course,
its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the
Big State. Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and faceless,
to be efficient and responsive. I agree. The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves
– and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial
and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules,
and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments
have been obliged to limit their activities yet further – some setting about the task with greater relish than others. Now the task,
supposedly, is to get the free market up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves, having been brought up believing in material
aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal
idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
But how can the privatisation of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high, working people are turning to
food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up
bargains in the form of busted high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you have
to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon
and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they
avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to encourage private profit and shareholder
value, then lend governments the money they need to create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them
for their profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister,
Anna Soubry
, suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up families were putting the NHS under strain. The
compartmentalised thinking is quite breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while working part-time – thus having the leisure
to consume – the better. No doubt these female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism
is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more important
than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your own. You couldn't make these characters up.
It is certainly true that women with children find it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima
facie example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it is so often presented – evidence
that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many aspects of financial services – that Britain
enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all
else, forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family members. All of those things
have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone
is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who
came up with that theory , did not agree
that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal
allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their
folly become ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering with their allies instead
of waking up, smelling the coffee and realizing that far too much of it is sold through Starbucks.
"... The era of neoliberalism has seen a massive increase in government, not a shrinkage. The biggest change is the role of governments - to protect markets rather than to protect the rights and dignities of its citizens. When viewed by outcome rather than ideological rhetoric, it becomes increasingly clear that neoliberalism has nothing to do with shrinking the state, freeing markets, or freeing the individual, and everything to do with a massive power grab by a global elite. ..."
"... What was the billions of pounds in bank bailout welfare and recession on costs all about? You tell me. All the result of the application of your extremist free market ideology? Let the banks run wild, they mess up and the taxpayer has to step in with bailout welfare and pay to clear up the recession debris ..."
"... Market participants and their venal political friends have during the past 30 years of extremist neo-liberal ideology rigged, abused, distorted and subverted their market and elite power to tilt the economic and social balance massively in their favour ..."
"... Neo liberalism = the favoured ideology of the very rich and powerful elite ..."
"... at last somebody is looking at globalisation and asking whose interests is it designed to serve? It certainly ain't for the people. ..."
"... the highly placed banking and financial class are along with their venal political mates ..."
"... We've had three decades of asset stripping in favor of the rich elites and look at the mess we're in now. ..."
"... I strongly believe that people are not being told the full story. Like the NSA surveillance revelation, the effects will not be pretty when the facts are known. No country needs the IMF. ..."
"... The mythology surrounding deficits and national debt is a religion that the world is in desperate need of debunking. Like religion, the mythology is used as a means of power and entrenchment of privilege for the Ruling Caste, not the plebs (lesser mortals). ..."
This article is a testament to our ignorance. Orr is no intellectual slouch, but somehow,
like many in the mainstream, she still fails to address some fundamental assumptions and thus
ends up with a muddled argument.
"What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the merry days of reckless lending are never
going to return;"
Lending has not stopped - it's just moved out of one market into another. Banks are making
profits, and banks profit are made by expanding credit.
Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and
faceless, to be efficient and responsive.
Yes and no. There is a difference between what is preached and what happens in practice. The
era of neoliberalism has seen a massive increase in government, not a shrinkage. The biggest
change is the role of governments - to protect markets rather than to protect the rights and
dignities of its citizens. When viewed by outcome rather than ideological rhetoric, it
becomes increasingly clear that neoliberalism has nothing to do with shrinking the state,
freeing markets, or freeing the individual, and everything to do with a massive power grab by
a global elite.
@MurchuantEacnamai - well righty ideologues such as yourself and your venal political
acolytes have utterly failed to support the case or institute measures that: "apply effective
democratic governance to ensure market
What was the billions of pounds in bank bailout welfare and recession on costs all about?
You tell me. All the result of the application of your extremist free market ideology? Let
the banks run wild, they mess up and the taxpayer has to step in with bailout welfare and pay
to clear up the recession debris
Market participants and their venal political friends have during the past 30 years of
extremist neo-liberal ideology rigged, abused, distorted and subverted their market and elite
power to tilt the economic and social balance massively in their favour
You the taxpayer are good enough to bail us out when we mess up but then we demand that
your services are cut in return and that your employment is ever more precarious and wages
depressed (at the lower end of the scale - never ever the higher of course!! That's the
neo-liberal deal isn't it
Neo liberalism = the favoured ideology of the very rich and powerful elite and boy don't
they know how to work its levers
Very insightful commentary and at last somebody is looking at globalisation and asking whose
interests is it designed to serve? It certainly ain't for the people. Amazing it's been
approved on a UK liberal newspaper as well!
@Fachan - There was nothing in the article about envy. It was an exposition of the failure of
our present system which allows the rich to get ever richer. That would be fine if it weren't
for the fact that the increasing disparity in wealth is bringing down the economy and making
it less productive while leaving a large part of the population in, or on the verge of,
poverty.
@CaptainGrey - but we're not talking about that form of capitalism are we?
Surely you must realise that there are very very different forms of capitalism. The capitalism that reigns now would not have permitted the creation of the NHS had it not
been devised in the1940s when a very different type of capitalism reigned. Its political acolytes and its cheerleader press would have denounced the NHS as an
extremist commie idea!!
The Chicago boys swarmed into eastern Europe after 1989 to introduce a form of gangster
unbridled capitalism. The very Chicago boys led by Milton Friedman who used the dictator Pinochet's Chile as
test bed for their ideology from September 1973 after the coup that overthrew Allende
The neo-liberal order commenced only in the late 1970s - there was a very different order
prior to this which was not "Soviet Socialism" as you term it.
As such this extremist rich man's ideological experiment has had a long innings and has
failed as the events of 2008 laid bare for all to see - it has been tried out disastrously on
live human beings for 34 years and has now been thoroughly discredited with the huge bank
bailouts and financial crash and ensuing and enduring recession It was scarcely succeeding
prior to this with high entrenched rates of unemployment, frequent recessions/booms and busts
and unsustainable property bubbles and deregulated unstable speculative aka casino banking
activity
1. Neoliberalism cannot be pinned on one party alone. It was accepted by the Thatcher
government, but no Prime Minister since has seriously challenged it.
2. Neoliberalism is logically contrary to conservative values. Either there are certain
moral imperatives so important that it is worth wasting money over them, or there are not. No
wonder that Tories are torn in two, not to mention Labour politicians who also try to combine
neoliberalism and moral principle.
3. Saying "even Adam Smith" is understandable but unfair. His work was rather enlightened
in the context of mercantilism, and of course the Wealth of Nations was not his only book.
Others will know his work better than me, but I think he dwells rather strongly on problems
of persistent poverty.
4. The political and redistributive functions of nations are indeed damaged by neolib, but
I don't think there is any realistic way of getting that power back without applying capital
controls. If we apply capital controls, all hell breaks loose.
5. Ergo, we are stuck with a situation where neolib is killing democracy, distributive
justice and conservative moral values, but there is nothing we can do about it without
pulling the plug altogether and unleashing a sharp drop in wealth and 1930s nationalistic
havoc. A bit of a tragedy, indeed.
Deborah Orr: The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it
wags its finger at governments that run up debt.
I strongly believe that people are not being told the full story. Like the NSA
surveillance revelation, the effects will not be pretty when the facts are known. No country needs the IMF. Any national government with its own national currency
sovereignty can pay its own debts within its own country with its own currency. International
borrowing in foreign markets is the biggest myth since religion. But since neoliberalism and
its inherent myths have been swallowed whole for so long, we are still at the stage where the
child points and laughs at the nude emperor. The fallout from the revelation and remedy is to
follow.
The problem with the Eurozone is not that the Euro is the "national" currency. Control of
the Euro resides with the European Central Bank, not the Troika (European Commission,
European Central Bank, IMF). The European Central Bank, as sole controller of the Euro (the
"national" currency), can issue funds to constituent Eurozone states to the extent necessary.
I challenge anyone to demonstrate how any central bank does not have power over its own
currency!
The mythology surrounding deficits and national debt is a religion that the world is in
desperate need of debunking. Like religion, the mythology is used as a means of power and
entrenchment of privilege for the Ruling Caste, not the plebs (lesser mortals).
@DavidPavett - Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? There are
certainly no leads on this in the link given to "the philosopher" John Gray
Gray wrote this in the Guardian in 2007:
Whether in Africa, Asia, Latin America or post-communist Europe, policies of wholesale
privatisation and structural adjustment have led to declining economic activity and social
dislocation on a massive scale
This doesn't seem to support Orrś assertion that he is calling for a
structural adjustment, rather the opposite. I'ḿ not really familiar with Grayś work
but he seems to be rather against the universal imposition of any system, new or old.
@CaptainGrey - Capitalism is not an undifferentiated mass. Late-stage neoliberal
hypercapitalism as practiced in the US and increasingly in the UK is a very different beast
than the traditional European capitalist social democracy or the Nordic model, which have
been shown to work relatively well over time. In fact, neoliberal capitalism - the sort Orr
is talking about here - is marked by increasing decline both in the state and in the economy,
as inequality in wealth distribution creates a society of beggars and kings instead of
spenders and savers. The gains achieved through carefully regulated capitalism won't stick
around in the free-for-all conditions preferred by those whose ideology demands the sell-off
of the state.
@PeterWoking - For some parts of the world , yes they are more affluent now , but a huge part of the globe is still without
food and water .
I think de regulation of the financial sector has caused a huge amount of damage to the world all round and
to be honest, i expect more of the same as the Bankers are still in control.
Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their
addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form
a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the
Great Seal of the United States.
However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy
National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States
can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.
On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet
that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer
deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's
departure the next day, November 14.
Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who
brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she
served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over
seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to
accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC
News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently,
Ricardel was one of them.
The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their
backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter
of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel
speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born
Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia.
Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist
Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and
her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began
in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample
reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady
and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is
but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties
bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.
Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued
for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft
of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would
represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat.
Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage
evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser.
Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the
terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That
policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized
criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp
Bondsteel.
Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued
administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White
House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko.
She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to
various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends
of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department.
Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and,
thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN,
where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the
case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda
Khalilzad was serving.
After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the
post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage
into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing
former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free
Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a
senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of
divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US
government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of
Lithuania.
One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to
support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help
lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.
From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of
Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World
War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi
German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military
forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an
avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.
Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In
2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser
to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers
from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born
émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on
Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's
birth.
Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place
Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from
principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the
"Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces.
Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a
former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and
Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when
it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government
in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the
appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was
born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago,
Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the
apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid
regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks
embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the
French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt.
So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country
in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who
failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a
metric ton of salt.
Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the
situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the
bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.
"... I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or "liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector. ..."
"... Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this project is "outsourcing". ..."
"... As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next rent-seeking opportunity. ..."
"... In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus". And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!") fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions. ..."
"... And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty - inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs. ..."
"... "Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition that occurs is not for price but for profit. ..."
"... We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists, when the "leader" knows everything? ..."
"... There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress', between wars, it seems. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted') deep in the heart of economics. ..."
"... In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet few social justice advocates have heard of it. ..."
"... George gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living memory, by the modern aristocracy. ..."
"... In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the living world on which s/he depends. ..."
I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or
"liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project
more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an
authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and
inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long
debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the
energy sector.
Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this
project is "outsourcing". If you've had a look at The Canberra Times over the last couple of
weeks there have been quite a few articles about outsourcing parts of Medicare and Centrelink, using labour hire companies and so on – is this part of a current LNP plan
to "sell off" parts of the government before Labour takes the reins in May?
As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and
financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next
rent-seeking opportunity.
Neoliberalism "dead"?
I think not.
It is riveted on the country like a straitjacket.
Which is exactly what it was always intended to be, a system gamed and rigged to ensure the
wage-earning scum obtain progressively less and less of the country's productive wealth,
however much they contributed to it.
The wage theft and exploitation Neoliberalism fosters has become the new norm.
Neoliberal idealogues thickly infest Federal and State Treasuries.
In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic
pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus".
And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!")
fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as
IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions.
The IPA itself has moles in govt at every level--even in your local Council.
Certainly in ours.
Neoliberalism is "dead"?
Correction.
Neoliberalism is alive, thriving---and quick to ensure its glaring deficiencies and
inequities are solely attributable to its opponents. Now THERE'S a surprise.....
Agree! And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology
about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty -
inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts
to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs.
Neoliberalism will not be dead until the underpinning of neoliberalism is abandoned by ALP
and Greens. That underpinning is their mindless attachment to "budget repair" and "return to
surplus". The federal government's "budget" is nothing like a currency user's budget.
Currency users collect in order to spend whereas every dollar spent by the federal government
is a new dollar and every dollar taxed by the federal government is an ex-dollar. A currency
cannot sensibly have "debt" in the currency that it issues and no amount of surplus or
deficit now will enhance or impair its capacity to spend in future. A currency issuer does
not need an electronic piggybank, or a Future Fund, or a Drought Relief Fund. It can't max
out an imaginary credit card. It's "borrowing" is just an exchange of its termless no-coupon
liabilities (currency) for term-limited coupon-bearing liabilities (bonds). The federal
budget balance is no rational indicator of any need for austerity or for stimulus. The
rational indicators are unemployment (too small a "deficit"/too large a surplus) and
inflation (too large a "deficit"/too small a "surplus"). Federal taxation is where dollars go
to die. It doesn't "fund" a currency issuer's spending - it is there to stop the dollars it
issues from piling up and causing inflation and to make room for spending by democratically
elected federal parliament. The name of the game is to balance the economy, not the entirely
notional and fundamentally irrelevant "budget".
"Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do
their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even
where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition
that occurs is not for price but for profit.
And changing the electoral system? Yes indeed. After years of observation it seems to me
that the problem with our politics is not individual politicians (although there are notable
exceptions) but political parties. Rigid control of policies and voting on party instruction
(even by the Greens) makes the proceedings of parliament a complete waste of time. If every
policy had to run the gauntlet of 150 people all voting by their conscience we would have
better policy. The executive functions could be carried out by a cabinet also elected from
those members. But not going to happen - too many vested interests in the parties and their
corporate sponsors.
With the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil (even though nearly 30% of electors refused to vote)
it may be a little presumptuous to dissect the dead corpse of neoliberalism, as Richard
Denniss' hopes that we can.
What is absolutely gob-smacking is that Brazilians voted for him; a man that Glenn Greenwald
describes as "far more dangerous than Trump" , that Bolsonaro envisages military
dictatorships as "being a far more superior form of government" advocating a civil war
in order to dispose of the left.
Furthermore, the election of this far-right neoliberal extremist also threatens the Amazon
forest and its indigenous people; with a global impact that will render combatting climate
change even more difficult.
Locally, recent Liberal Party battles over leadership have included the neolib factor, as the
lunatic right in that party - who I suspect would all love to be a Bolsonaro themselves -
aggressively activate their grumblings and dissension.
Oh, Richard how I wish you were right; but in the Victorian election campaign - currently
underway - I have seen Socialist candidates behaving in a manner that doesn't garner hope in
a different way of doing politics.
The fact that 'our' democracy is based on an adversarial, partisan system leaves me with
little hope.
Alain Badiou wrote that "ours is not a world of democracy but a world of imperial
conservatism using democratic phraseology" ; and until that imposition is discarded 'our'
democracy will remain whatever we are told it is, and neolibs will continue to shove their
bullshit down our throats as much as they can.
We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new
adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to
Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South
Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus
infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists,
when the "leader" knows everything?
Have the people of the world abrogated their democratic responsibility?
Or is it the gerrymandering chicanery of US Republican backers/politicians( so long as you
control the voting machines ) that have sent the ugly message to the world, Power is yours
for the making and taking by any means that ignores the public's rights in the decision
making process. Has the "neo-liberal" world delivered a corrupted system of democracy that
has deliberately alienated the world's population from actively participating fully in the
full awareness that their vote counts and will be counted?
Do we need to take back the controls of democracy to ensure that it is the will of the
people and not a manipulation by vested interest groups/individuals? You're darn
tootin'!!!
A thoughtful piece. Thanks. There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which
have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary
relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress',
between wars, it seems.
Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the
latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual
origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone
wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted')
deep in the heart of economics.
Instead of trying to understand Neo-Classical Economics it is perhaps more instructive to
understand what it was built, layer by layer, to obscure. First the Land system, then the
Wealth system, and finally the Money system (hived off into a compartment - 'macroeconomics').
Importantly, three entirely different categories of "thing" .
In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world
by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only
published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet
few social justice advocates have heard of it.
George set out to discover why the worst poverty always seemed to accompany the most
progress. By chasing down the production process to its ends, and tracing where the proceeds
were going, he succeeded spectacularly. From Progress and Poverty , Chapter 17 - "The Problem Explained"
:
Three things unite in production: land, labor, and capital. Three parties divide the
output: landowner, laborer, and capitalist. If the laborer and capitalist get no more as
production increases, it is a necessary inference that the landowner takes the gain.
George
gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic
history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living
memory, by the modern aristocracy.
In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity
from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical
Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the
living world on which s/he depends.
Einstein was a fan of George, and used his methods of thought-experiment and powerful
inductive reasoning to discover Relativity, twenty years later. Henry Georges brilliant
insights into Land (aka nature), Wealth (what you want, need), and Money
(sharing mechanism) are as relevant as ever, and until they are rediscovered, we are likely
to re-run the 1900's over and over, with fewer and fewer resources.
The "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed
to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth
Yanks.
Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W.
Bush's "poodle" for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into
Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton's dogsbody in the no
less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.
On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South
Korea, and
so many other useless so-called allies . We control their intelligence services, their
military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial
systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's impotent ire at
discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she –
did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you're sorry.
These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar
around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries
answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the
USSR's Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact
refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other
Pact forces to cross its territory.
By contrast, during NATO's 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft
access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most
Romanians' opposition to the campaign.)
But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.
To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to
the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion
in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington
"power couple" – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American
politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA
Victor logo . (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Whether this portends a real shift in
American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionable .
Saudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in
charge.)
Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of
World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and
financially, eclipsing Britannia's declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to
play the leading role. That didn't mean, however, that London trusted the Americans' ability to
manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar , the
British attitude of "
superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex " was "nicely
captured" in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK's postwar loan:
In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
"It's true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains."
Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by
exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond.
It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston
Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies
like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration
(NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their
UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called
"Five Eyes" of the tight Anglosphere spook community, infamous
for spying on each others' citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic
surveillance .
Despite not having two farthings to rub together,
impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn't fully ended until 1954 – had
a prime seat at the table fashioning the world's postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods
conference was largely an Anglo-American affair , of which the
aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter
White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.
American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn't have
much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current ( and hopefully last ) Saudi state – and didn't
assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by
President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much
of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with
France , the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including
taking a decisive
role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely
stepped into Britain's role managing the "East of Suez," the former suzerain was by no means
dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty
Organization (CENTO) in 1955.
CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain,
the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer
roots, going back at least to the
Crimean War in the 1850s . The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia
are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power
is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany,
then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia
warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving
Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by
Andrew
Lambert , professor of naval history at King's College London, the Crimean War still echoes
today :
"In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it's Britain and
Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which
is much larger than modern Turkey -- it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia,
and also Egypt and Arabia -- is a declining empire. But it's the bulwark between Russia,
which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to
open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific.
And it's really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit
like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really
run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the
fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going
to be the fulcrum for that fighting."
Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British
obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for
control of petroleum, the life's blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and
early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar
considerations might even support Jimmy Carter's taking up much the same position, declaring in
1980 that "outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force." The USSR was then a superpower and
we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.
But what's our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet
Union is gone and the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national
interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as
allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK
establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.
In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about
an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances
– without which Britain is a bit player – but
openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow ? To what lengths would they go to stop
him?
Say 'hello' to Russiagate!
One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign's "collusion" with Moscow
was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some "
hands across the water " to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at
Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it's clear that while evidence of
Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK's hand
in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible
rapprochement between the US and Russia .
As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who's actually Russian. The only
basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the
whole operation
originated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele , the British "ex" spy who wrote
it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The
notion that Steele, who hadn't been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts
is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence
with White House staff?)
Andrew Wood , a
former British ambassador to Russia Stefan Halper , a dual US-UK citizen. Ex-MI6 Director
Richard Dearlove . Robert Hannigan , former director of GCHQ; there is
reason to think surveillance of Trump was conducted by GCHQ as well as by US agencies under
FISA warrants. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ soon after the British government denied
the agency had engaged in such spying. Alexander Downer , Australian diplomat (well, not
British but remember the Five Eyes!). Joseph Mifsud , Maltese academic and suspected British
agent.
At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted
FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would
shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by
– no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May . Was she seeking
to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings'?
It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs
with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn't just the UK and
Australia. Also implicated are Estonia,
Israel, and Ukraine .) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in
false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok
poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele's,
one Pablo Miller , Sergei
Skripal's MI6 recruiter . (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the
dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian
government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow
flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.
A similar pattern
can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria : "We have irrefutable evidence
that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had
a hand in the staging" of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador
Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with
al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: "I am naming them because they have done
things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK
money." Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib
that the same ruse was being prepared
again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video
showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.
The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with
the US and the Netherlands,
accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World
Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and
a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone
didn't get the point,
British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared : "This is not the actions of a great
power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to
isolate them."
In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare
conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep
State collaborators in the United States. But it's not only aimed at Russia, it's an attack
on the United States by the government of a foreign country that's supposed to be one of
our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law,
and culture.
But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we've
allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not
conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception
that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion , seeks to embroil us
in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of
control.
This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom
and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.
James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to
the Senate GOP leadership.
"... Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.) ..."
Howard Zinn said, in a speech given shortly after the 2008 Presidential election, "If you don't know history, it's like you were
born yesterday. The government can tell you anything." (Speech was played on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org about Jan. 4, 2009
and is archived, free on the website.)
Being older (18 on my last Leap Year birthday - 72), I recall the NYTimes and CIA have had relationship with, and was caught
having "planted CIA workers" as NYTimes writers. Within my adult lifetime, in fact.
This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that [...] it is an "intelligence matter".
In a sense the CIA is always going to be right on this one - "Central Intelligence Agency" - but only as a matter of nomenclature,
rather than of any other dictionary definition of the word "intelligence".
Actually the collusion between the CIA and big business is far more damaging. The first US company I worked for in Brussels (it
was my first job) was constantly being targeted by the US media for having connections to corrupt South American and Third World
regimes. On what seemed like an almost monthly basis our personnel department would send round memos saying that we were strictly
forbidden to talk to journalists about the latest exposé.
It was great fun - even the telex operators knew who the spies were.
The line "'The optics aren't what they look like,' is truly an instant classic. It reminds me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra
quotes (which, unlike many attributed to him, is real, I think). Yogi once said about a restaurant in New York "Nobody goes there
anymore. It's too crowded." Perhaps Yogi should become an editor for the Times.
British readers will no doubt be shocked -- shocked! -- to learn of cozy relations between a major news organization and a national
intelligence agency.
"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet
said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.'
"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know,
it's much ado about nothing.'"
How can you have a Party if you don't have Party elites?
And how can a self-respecting member of the Party claim their individual status within the Party without secret knowledge designed
to identify one another as members of the Party elite?
[Proles are] natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals ... Life, if you looked about you, bore no resemblance
not only to the lies that streamed out of the telescreens, but even to the ideals the Party was trying to achieve. ... The
ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering -- a world of of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines
and terrifying weapons -- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts
and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting -- 300 million people all with the same
face. The reality was decaying, dingy cities, where underfed people shuffled to and fro in leaky shoes... [
1984 ,pp 73-74]
It makes no difference if an imagined socialist England, a collapsing Roman city-state empire, an actual Soviet Union, or a
modern American oligarchy.
Party members thrive while those wretched proles flail in confused and hungry desperation for something authentic (like a George
Bush) or even simply reassuring (like a Barack Obama.)
Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than
as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes
and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.)
Manzetti has "no bad intent" because he is loyal to the Party.
Like all loyal (and very well compensated) Party members, he would never do anything as subversive as reveal Party secrets.
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... A version of this article first appeared in Boston Review ..."
"... Main illustration by Eleanor Shakespeare ..."
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it denotes a preference for markets over
government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe
a wide range of phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the Clinton Democrats and the UK's
New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity.
Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality,
led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash .
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and disseminators – the neoliberals themselves?
Oddly, you have to go back a long time to find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor
of the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the neoliberalism it describes bears little
resemblance to today's target of derision. The politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher
and Reagan, but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned with unions and big government and
dropped their prejudices against markets and the military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of
which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial
crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle
. The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade
agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant
or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left
politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds
of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our
contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of
homo economicus
, the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the mark. There is nothing wrong with
markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant
economic achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have
and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify
– and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it would help us to develop the institutional
imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic science. To see those tenets without
the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited
and knows nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country is in trouble," they tell
him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us
what we should do to make our economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to make any recommendations. He would need
to study the history of the economy, to analyse the statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism
and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for all that," they tell him. "But isn't
economics a science, and aren't you one of its most distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy,
surely there are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long criticised for peddling their favourite
policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question. Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical determinant of the economy's performance,
he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives
faced by entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic growth. Growth needs a system
of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the
economy must be open to ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in nominal money demand at reasonable inflation.
They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry
out prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds. Economic principles also carry over
to equity and social policy. Economics has little to
say about how much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as broad as possible, and
that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal agenda. A critic in the audience
will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives, property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal
principles that the economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one in which investment
decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising
variety of institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so, and our mistake would consist of associating
each abstract term – incentives, property rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic principles map on to a unique set of
policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An optimal system would distribute property
rights to those who would make the best use of an asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns.
Property rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they protect them from competition.
Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style
regime of private property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal economic success is largely due to its
orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms
produced market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better adapted to the local context.
Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing
legal structures, the country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for entrepreneurs in
practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned
and controlled by local governments. Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did not want to kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order economic principles in unfamiliar institutional
arrangements. For instance, it shielded its large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where
foreign firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such departures from orthodox blueprints,
describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal – as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call
this neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps it will have to converge on western-style
institutions to sustain its economic progress. But this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements
that still prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries varies, from a third of the economy
in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland
is just 16%. In the US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French
labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first. Stock markets have grown to a total value
of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial organisation is inherently superior to the others
is belied by the varying economic fortunes that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly
Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism.
We might even go a step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what might be possible,
and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the principles he has enunciated need to
be filled in with institutional detail before they become operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but
how? It would perhaps be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate
the utility of those principles once they are properly adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven
to ruin courtesy of political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical significance of sound money, fiscal
sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much of the work of economists consists
of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence. Economists tend to think of what they
do as progressively refining their understanding of the world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested
and revised over time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely manmade, highly malleable and operates
according to different rules across time and space. Economics
advances not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our understanding of the diversity
of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really competitive and employers have no
control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic
growth? Yes, if it increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes place; but not otherwise.
Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise.
Does monopoly harm innovation? Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas that have produced growing economic inequality
and precipitated our current populist backlash' Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model dating back to Adam Smith has been
modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric
information, irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful as ever. Understanding
how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are
highly stylised representations
of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction
also implies that we need a different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a map of
bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is constructed, we will need a subway map – but
we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most suited to the task at hand. When
confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour
the
laissez-faire
approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard
Keynes once defined economics as the "science of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for his view on whether free trade is
a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the
professor's advanced graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This time the professor
is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?" The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis
that will ultimately culminate in a heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are satisfied,
and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing."
If he is in an expansive mood, the professor might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not
clear either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On the record, he exudes self-confidence,
not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned,
and there is a single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that he imparts to his
advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public. Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one important motive is the zeal to display
the profession's crown jewels – market efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to shield
them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the other side of the issue – financiers
and multinational corporations whose motives are no purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction, in favour of more trade, more finance
and less government. That is why economists have developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics
is very far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run wild are in fact not being
true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of neoliberal practices? We must begin by
understanding the positive potential of global markets. Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an
important role in virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful reminder of this historical
truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian
countries such as
Mauritius . All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when globalisation comes into question. What they
will fail to say is that almost all of these countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and
Taiwan, for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and the latter through tax incentives.
All of them eventually removed most of their import restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up
to imports. Chile's neoliberal
experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin America. While the details differ across countries,
in all cases governments played an active role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed.
Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a
particularly sad example. Following a series of macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and signed the North American Free Trade
Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment.
But where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth –
the experiment failed
. Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the
undemanding standards of Latin America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet another manifestation of the need for
economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each
country. No single blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably over time as the label has acquired
harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation, financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects
all versions of neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis
on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because growth is essential to all our social and political
ends – community, democracy, prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way (such
as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar neoliberal manifesto were penned today,
it would no doubt make the same point.
ss="rich-link"> Globalisation: the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world Read more
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other important values such as equality, social
inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts
they matter the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic policies; politics must play
a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more likely to be attained when our economy
is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic
performance, to which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the economics right. It must
be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad economics.
A version of this article first appeared in
Boston Review
"... Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to. ..."
"... Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence ..."
Comment section (David Wooten): "According to the crown prince himself, Trump's [Jewish]
son-in-law gave him a secret list of his enemies -- the ones like Al Aweed who were
tortured and shaken down for cash. Khashoggi might even have been on that list.
One or more of the tortured ones likely tipped off Erdogan, which is why Turkey only
needed to enter the consulate, retrieve the recorded audio device they planted, and walk out
with the evidence. Turkey also has evidence that puts MbS' personal doctor and other staff
arriving in Turkey at convenient times to do the job -- and probably more. Khashoggi was
anything but a nice person but Trump cannot say that or he'll likely be accused of
involvement in his murder.
Dissociation is made far more difficult by the fact that Jared is a long time friend of
Netanyahu who, like Jared, hasbefriended MbS .
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
Were it not for the Khashoggi affair, fewer Republican seats would have been lost in the
election."
-- Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse
Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any
evidence .
These people -- Bolton, May, Gavin Williamson and likes -- are a cross of the ever-eager
whores and petty brainless thieves. To expose themselves as the willing participants in the
ZUSA-conducted farce requires a complete lack of integrity.
Of course, there is no way to indict the journalist's murderers since the principal
murderer is a personal friend of Netanyahu and Jared.
Jump, Justice, jump, as high as ordered by the "chosen."
By the way, why do we hear nothing about Seth Rich who was murdered in the most surveilled
city of the US?
@annamaria A 1st
grader can see that MbS was behind the murder of Kashoggi.
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
I've been hoping for this since they moved to Washington with 'big daddy'.
@Anon " crappy
bedtime reading the woolyheadedness "
Hey, Anon[436], is this how your parents have been treating you? My condolences.
If you feel that you succeeded with your "see, a squirrel" tactics of taking attention
from the zionists' dirty and amoral attempts at coverup of the murder of the journalists
Khashoggi, which was accomplished on the orders of the clown prince (the dear friend of Bibi
& Jared), you are for a disappointment.
One more time for you, Anon[436]: the firm evidence of MbS involvement in the murder of
Khashoggi contrasts with no evidence of the alleged poisoning of Skripals by
Russian government.
The zionists have been showing an amazing tolerance towards the clown prince the murderer
because zionists need the clown prince for the implementation of Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz
Israel.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence , as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder
of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the availableevidence . Thanks
to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of
no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence, as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of
Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence. Thanks to the zionists
friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no
importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
"... Yes, its far better than the "first past the post" systems of the UK and the US where the number of votes split between two almost identical candidates can lead to a far different candidate winning with only a little over a third of the total vote. ..."
Proportional representation is definitely the way to go. I am sick to death of the
born-to-rule mentality of the major parties, and how they change the rules to benefit
themselves and to exclude others.
Minority government? There is no such thing - there is only 'government', and it is
supposed to involve all members of parliament in the decision-making process. 'Majority'
governments are an anathema to good governance. Every time I hear the likes of Tony Abbott
claim they have a mandate to implement ALL their policies, even though they only receive
around 35% of the primary vote, I want to throw something at the TV.
Bugger them! Make them work for a living - and make them consider ALL views, not just the
ones from their own party.
Preferences are an extremely good feature of our voting system
Yes, its far better than the "first past the post" systems of the UK and the US where the
number of votes split between two almost identical candidates can lead to a far different
candidate winning with only a little over a third of the total vote.
Preferential voting also makes it more possible for the major party duopoly being
overturned, allowing people to vote for a good independent without taking the risk of helping
a despised major party candidate from winning by default.
"The problem with representative democracy is that it represents the special interest groups
far more than it represents the citizenry." You are spot on.
What a logical and stirring argument you put forward Richard Denniss, and a large majority of
the electorate would have to agree.
However there is also a large number of people in the electorate that cannot appear to rise
from their nightly slumber without wearing their Blue, Red, Green or Orange tinted glasses
before facing the new day.
And because of this, and preferential voting, sneaking in the background is a plethora of the
wild mindless sub creatures called politicians who demand their rights to sit in the big
white building on Canberra;s Capital Hill, just waiting to spoil not only the electorate's
party but also known to prostitute the country's governance to their own advantage.
Richard, we desperately need a follow up stirring article on how to overcome this black
menace to our country, for the sake of our country.
If you think the public has an appetite for more bureaucrats, more rules and regulations to
micromanage people's lives and even more political wheeling and dealing in Canberra, you
should get out more.
That the coalition government is on the slide is of no long term consequence. We'll get a
Labor government next year and in a few years another coalition government and so on.
What is of long term significance is the loss of public trust in pretty much all of the
institutions - including goverment and the various government agencies that would be more
powerful under your scenario.
The problem with representative democracy is that it represents the special interest
groups far more than it represents the citizenry. Perhaps the solution lies in more direct
democracy.
The same sex marriage plebiscite demonstrated that we commoners can deliberate on a
sensitive issue, and in doing so behave far better than our elected representatives in
Parliament. And can make a sensible and progressive decision that our elected representatives
could not - both coalition and Labor MPs had opposed same sex marriage when it was raised in
th e Parliament.
The internet provides a platform for direct decision making by the citizenry. Perhaps we
should try that instead of what you are suggesting.
It's been clear for years that proportional representation has progressively meant death to
effective government, and that it forces major parties policy development further to the
political fringes to appeal to the fruit loops on the periphery of their respective
demographics. Time for a return to simple preferential voting (a-la-house of Reps) in the
senate, and an overhaul of what's considered a valid ballot - if you want to only rank 1, 2,
3 or all candidates it should be entirely your choice.
Hung parliaments, with diametrically opposed clumps of "independents" jointly holding the
balance of power can only ever deliver legislative stasis and constant political turmoil (as
we have experienced since 2010 and Europe and the US have suffered for the last decade).
Oh for the good old days when one or the other of the major parties held a working
majority in both houses, and policy was targeted at the 'sensible centre" of the Australian
electorate. At worst, they only had to deal with a couple of sensible Democrats, and the odd
lunatic fringe-ist like Harradine.
"... I find the Australian electoral system very mediocre. All those people who vote but really don't get represented. All those votes that just get mopped up by the major parties. I really can't understand why Australians have put up with such a poor system for so long. ..."
Having spent many years in a New Zealand under a First Past the Post system
and then Mixed Member Proportional, I am an enthusiastic supporter of proportional systems.
I
find the Australian electoral system very mediocre. All those people who vote but really
don't get represented. All those votes that just get mopped up by the major parties. I really
can't understand why Australians have put up with such a poor system for so long.
Hettie7-> melbournesam 31 Oct 2018 00:45
Proportional representation makes the most sense. Each party gets the same percentage of seats in the parliament as it
received votes in the election. That really is fair.
Nationalisation of essential services is required to put this country back on an even keel.
It was a stupid idea by governments (of all persuasions) to sell off monopoly essential
service assets. The neoliberal experiment has failed.
Beware: Just build a HUGE worker owned, democratically run (by workers) sector to compete
against privately owned concerns. If workers are (democratically) involved in running and
managing their own workplaces that will give plenty of competition for private concerns.
Workers will be involved in the 'politics' and economics of their local area as part of work.
They'll have more control over the technologies they want to use, how much profit they want
to make or not, wages, investment, working conditions and all aspects of their concern.
Workers would 'participate' more and be more involved in thinking about larger concerns. This
would make a nation/region more democratic on the 'ground'. Not just reliant on
'representative' democracy/voting. You'd still need over-arching government(s) but people
would have more direct control over their livelihoods and work conditions. Such a BIG sector
would give (I'm talking about Health, Education, manufacturing etc - not 'bread shop',
basket-weaving coops/social enterprises) private enterprise some REAL competition on prices
and services. It would deliver democracy to masses of people, some control over wealth
generation/economy and on a large enough scale CHANGE society in terms of social justice and
politics.
You don't need to go to State control or Private control of 'the economy'. Just the right
kinds of structures.
Neoliberalism is like a cancer on a health democracy. If we'd treated it in its early
magnifications (when the Librerals and far right old version of Labor), first started selling
off public assets (that are then charged back to citizens to use at increasing price rates
etc), we would have been fine.
But now the cancer is deep in democracy's lymph glads ( in many of our public services)
and so needs radical prolonged treatment and some surgery to assure the country's thriving
democracy survives.
First surgically remove the source: cease (vote out always) all right wing conservative
nutters from ever gaining power, or media mogul influence of government. Most but not all
hide in the Coalition.
Then, begin the reconstruction surgery to re-assert public assets and services. This is a
temporary but life saving cost.
Then, monitor and manage, (educate) the citizens about this scourge on democracy.
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size
and role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build.
Neoliberalism is far from dead Richard - neoliberalism is deeply entrenched in mainstream
thinking its corporate enriching magic works insidiously - mostly subliminally under cover of
'sensible' free market self clearing 'orthodox' economics.
You and many others from 'progressive' TAI almost daily, unwittingly play a role in
reinforcing and entrenching neoliberal ideology in the community by framing macroeconomic
analysis/commentary in neoliberal terms.
Your oft repeated call for 'budget balance' over the business cycle is such an example. Only
fiscal deficits can build a prosperous productive nation in the absence of consistent
external surpluses - no government can ever build and expand a nation without permanently
injecting more funds into the non government sector than (through taxation etc) it
withdraws.
Both our major parties of government espouse neoliberal economic orthodoxy as if there is
no alternative - and no one calls them out - not even the quasi progressive TAI.
DSGE based 'orthodox' economics provides the lifeblood to neoliberalism - the myth of tax
collections funding expenditure provides plausible cover to constrain spending on
citizen/social services - but when it comes to war/corporate subsidy spending, such
constraints are immediately abandoned.
Hetereodox MMT exposes the lie of such DSGE myths - but faithful Ptolemaic 'progressives'
refuse to investigate or debate such Copernican macroeconomic sacrilege.
The recent TAI 'outlook' economic conference (proudly sponsored by 'The Australian'!! )
was a classic progressive 'fail'; loaded with orthodox 'experts' like Bowen and Keating
spouting austerity inducing neoliberal orthodoxy - not one heterodox economist was invited to
present the unwelcome, uncomfortable truth of sovereign nation macroeconomic reality.
Prof Bill Mitchell is Australia's most widely & internationally respected REAL
progressive heterodox academic - yet the TAI ignores him.
Neoliberalism won't die until it extracts the last breath of available wealth from
Australia's citizenry. It will die a savage death with the onset of the impending depression
'to end all depressions' when the collapsing housing bubble leaves citizens with a 'decades
long' bubble of unpayable private debt.
Only then will people realise they have been elaborately 'conned' - too late.
P.S. For all TRUE progressives:
Some brilliant short videos here
and here by Parody Project.
That's really the point, much as you might expect government like the Howard and Abbott ones
to have stuck to their claimed neo-liberal principles, neither substantially altered the
compulsory nature of the scheme, despite the fact that it ran more or less completely
contrary to Chicago School principles. Howard might have been fond of shouting "socialism" or
"nanny state" when he felt the need to criticise something, but deeds speak stronger than
words, and for all his p!ssing and moaning he was never going to do anything that stopped all
those truckloads of money finding their way to his friends in the banking industry.
Yes historically high mass immigration in Australia has been used as a trojan horse by the
adherents of neo-liberalism - to break down the pay and conditions of Australian workers and
their rights and entitlements.
By importing "ready made" skilled workers, neither the Government or the private sector have
had to go to the trouble of training their workforce nor bear any of the costs of educating
and training them.
As to the lower skilled imported workers, in the main, this is a crude device to cut out the
locals so that accepted or legislated pay and conditions can be lowered. Most of those
imported workers don't know their rights and are ripe for exploitation.
The shonks, rip off and quick buck merchants love neo-liberalism for the what it has done to
the Australian labour market.
And the Labor party has been complicit in all this - when it should have been protecting
Australians and Australian workers present and future from the ravaging impacts of
neo-liberalism.
For something that's supposedly dead, it still looks like neoliberalism is in charge to me.
The relentless commodification of every aspect of life continues apace. Money is still the
measure of everything and takes precedence over the environment, ethics, community,
creativity, discovery, and virtually everything else you care to name. When water thiefs, big
bankers, corrupt politicians, environmental despoilers, and those that start pointless wars
are IN GAOL, then I'll start to believe things are changing.
Neoliberalism is not simply an economic agenda. From the beginning it was conceived as and
then constructed to be much more than that - it was in fact as much a pedagogical cum
psychological operation to change minds across generations with regard to free-market
capitalism and thus to orient all thinking to that, than it was a matter of simple monetary
or trade policy. Of course, this had to be done with a good deal of repression and oppression
backing it up, here and there - Chile e.g. Thus electing neoliberalism is an effect of this
pedagogy over time - we are all schooled in its 'normality - and not a reflection of either
some natural desire for it or an educated choice.
I agree that we should be discussing fiscal policy but I suspect that Richard Denniss is
using a false frame for this topic. He probably adheres to the claim made by the
macroeconomic equivalent of pre-Copernican physics that a government that issues its own
currency, enforces taxes in that currency, and allows the currency to float in foreign
exchange markets can run out of its currency.
The fiscal policy of the federal government should be to employ all available labour in
socially useful and environmental sustainable productive activity, maintain price stability,
minimize inequality of income and wealth, and fund public services and infrastructure to the
maximum extent permitted by the resources that are available for sale in the government's
currency.
If you think that the government's fiscal policy should be to reduce a fiscal deficit or
deliver a fiscal surplus, you are a dill.
It makes no sense to target a particular fiscal balance because the outcome is driven
largely by the aggregated spending and saving decisions of the domestic non-government sector
and the external sector. The federal government does not control those variables.
The federal government needs to target economically, socially, and environmentally
desirable goals and allow the fiscal balance to reach whatever level is needed at any given
time to achieve those goals.
'Democracy' needs to be structural as well as a moral idea. Workers have been disempowered
and impoverished and disenfranchished by neoliberalism. An answer to structurally improve the
wealth AND democratic power of the workers is to build a HUGE co operative sector in each
economy: worker owned workplaces/businesses/concerns AND democratically run. THAT will
improve the situation for workers/punters: democracy where they live and work. Democracy
rooted not in fine ideas only about rights but bedded down in economic livelihoods. People
will take an interest in their local 'politics' and also understand more of the politics of
the nation. You don't have to get rid of 'capitalism' just give it a 'good run' for it's
money - some real COMPETITION. Cooperatively run Hospitals, owned by doctors and nurses and
other stakeholders - not for profit - that'll soon see the 'private' for profit' health
providers/rorters wind their prices and necks in. Socially owned, worker-owned,
government/taxpayer supported enterprise, work places, democratically run will boot up the
level of 'democracy' in our societies. We can still have voter style over-arching national
government of course. If you don't root democracy where people actually can participate and
which gives them a lot of control over their workplaces/livelihood, then it can all be
hijacked by the greedy and cunning (see neoliberalism). OH, a large cooperative sector in the
economy democratically run by workers won't deliver 'heaven on earth' - it'll still be run by
people!
It is also a tool of the neoliberals along with the whole neoliberal trend in macroeconomic
policy. The essential thing underlying this, is to try to reduce the power of government and
social forces that might exercise some power within the political economy -- workers and
others -- and put the power primarily in the hands of those dominating in the markets. That's
often the financial system, the banks, but also other elites. The idea of neoliberal
economists and policymakers being that you don't want the government getting too involved in
macroeconomic policy. You don't want them promoting too much employment because that might
lead to a raise in wages and, in turn, to a reduction in the profit share of the national
income.
Austerity fits into the mix very well Keeping wages low, or debt pressure high, means
workers will be less likely to complain or make demands. As workers struggle to provide their
families with all the temptations that a capitalist society offers, they become far less
likely to risk their employment, and less able to improve their situation.
At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They
have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding
ideology which all boils down to the cheap labour they depend on to make their fortunes.
It shows a great sense of inferiority and knowing our "proper"place, that the populace
apparently accepted the colloquial term for neo-liberalism or economic rationalism, as being
"trickle down economics" and that all that the populace deserved and was going to get was a
trickle of the alleged wealth and benefits created.
Why were most people so compliant and accepting of something that as a concept, from the
outset, was clearly signalling it would economically completely discriminate against the 99%
and was intended to provide such a meager share of the wealth and economic benefits
generated?
A quick look around the world provides clear evidence that there really are a lot of
alternatives.
That's the crux: many (western, developed) countries before us have
proven over and over again that the best type of democratic government is one in which
consensus is the basis for long-term decisions to the benefit of all. Is it tedious? Yes.
Frustrating at times? You bet. Slow? Indeed, quite often so. But the point is,
consensus-based decision making works and eventually is in everyone's interest (left,
right and centre), resulting in better long-term outcomes. With the added benefit that new
"majority" Governments won't throw out the children with the bathwater all the time.
I'd add one aspect to the article though, and that is to combine a form of proportional
representation with longer terms of Government. You won't get much meaningful done in
3 years, whatever form of representation you choose. 4 years, 5 years... whatever strikes the
best balance between governments getting some runs on the board and voters feeling empowered
to change government coalitions in the ballot box when they stuff up.
But what economic system worked in the interests of majority of population. There was only
one such system -- USA in 1935-1970th and it was the result of WWII and record profits of the US
corporation after the war, when both Europe and Japan were devastated.
In no way the USSR was social system that worked for the majority of population. It worked
for the Nomenklatura -- a pretty narrow caste, similar to current top 1% under
neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism clearly works for the interests of the minority and against the interests of
the majority. Households are now worse off than they were 6 years ago and large businesses
are enjoying record profits. It feels as if the australian economy is being run for the
benefit of a small percentage of wealthy shareholders.
While a purported devotion to the principles and precepts of neo-liberalism has been claimed
by decades of right-wing politicians, businesses and bankers, drilling down deeper often reveals
that what is really happening in favoring the economic interests of the few at the expense of the
many, and very often involving compulsorily actions like switch to 401K accounts. Which was stoke
of genius for neoliberals to fleeces common people. acquired
Speaking as no fan of neo-liberalism, but there is a risk that the term gets overused. Things
that the right have embraced with open arms, like compulsory retirement savings (which have
enriched the private sector, especially banks and their shareholders), would have caused
sharp intakes of breath from the steely-eyed theorists who came up with the concept. While a
purported devotion to the principles and precepts of neo-liberalism has been claimed by
decades of right-wing politicians, businesses and bankers, drilling down deeper often reveals
that what is really happening in favouring the economic interests of the few at the expense
of the many, and very often involving compulsorily acquired public resources being
re-directed to business, with barely even the thinnest veneer of genuine theoretical
observance to the neo-liberal model. Both neo-liberalism itself, and bogus claims of its
practical use and benefits, need to be dead and buried.
I really would love the rich and powerful who basically prey on the average
person/worker/mums and dads, to be held accountable and penalised properly in relation to
their deeds. These bastards destroy families in their grab for greed, and almost every time
they are excused by their cohorts, and even go on to bigger and better opportunities to keep
feeding their voracious greedy appetites. Basically they steal, so why isn't their proceeds
of crime taken back by government; and why do they not do any jail time?
Natural monopolies like water and power, roads and public transport should be in public
hands. All call centres dealing with government issues should be done by public servants, not
outsourced to foreign corporations.
I'd start with a bank. Give people a non-greed infested alternative.
Under neo-liberalism we have gone from 1 person, 1 vote to $1, one vote. The con job that
is 'small government and little or no regulations' is bad for society and the environment.
Greed over need.
Dr. T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of
several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and the forthcoming
Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia
(both Clairview Books).
The current economic model being used by capitalist countries across the world is failing
most of the people in these countries while enriching tiny elites. Unfortunately, politicians
in these countries are often in the pockets of the elite or are themselves members of the
elite.
We need a new economic narrative which better reconciles the needs of the population with
the directives of the market.
Why not? Profits to the nation, not greedy corporates and their shareholders.
I think you will find there were no profits made that could be put "to the nation." When
the wall came down, the USSR and the entire eastern bloc were completely bankrupt.
As was Mao's China prior to the emergence of Deng and his "to get rich is glorious"
mantra, that set China on its current path. Of course his generally market-oriented approach
has since been bastardised to one of One Party State-capitalism dominated by cronyism,
corruption, and a perverted justice system.
Yes it has generated vast wealth, but it is an empire built on sand. As any analysis of
its shadow banking system will show.
And while the legions of newly minted millionaires of party benevolence celebrate, the
hundreds of millions stuck in poverty are left to fend for themselves.
Neoliberalism is a secular religion, so it doe need to be rational, to remains influential or even dominant, much like
Bolshevism or Trotskyism (actually neoliberalism should be viewed as a perverted mutation of Trotskyism -- Trotskyism for irch) .
It took 70 years for Bolshevism to became discredited and collapse (under the attack from neoliberalism).
In the absence of alternatives neoliberalism might continues to exist in zombie state for a very long time.
Notable quotes:
"... Poverty rate in the USA has been increasing since about the year 2000. ..."
"... Why do you think that all around the world voters are going hard against Neoliberalism and why do you think that Neoliberals are desperately trying to save their bankrupt philosophy by hiding behind Nationalism and Racism? ..."
"... While I would very much like to agree with the notion that neo-liberalism is dead, there's rather too much evidence that its pernicious influence lingers ghost-like and ghastly, having suffused far too many politicians of an ultra-conservative ilk ..."
"... The true believers in the neo-liberal faith, as it was never other than a creed espoused by Thatcher and Pinochet among others, are like those in the catholic church who continued to advocate an earth centric universe long after science proved them wrong. ..."
"... It will be a long wait until these myopic adherents to the gospel of Hayek, Friedman and Buchanan, are consigned to the waste bin of history where they belong. Until then, it will remain a struggle to right the many wrongs of this mis-guided and shallow populism. ..."
"... The neocons have had their day, though it'll no doubt take one hell of an effort to drag them out of their crony-capitalist, snouts-in-the-trough ways. The profit motive in the provision of essential services should be confined to covering costs, maintenance and associated investment. ..."
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size and
role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build.
Unfortunately, I see lots of deaths but none of them is neoliberalism. I can see death of
a decent safety net in Australia. Death of biodiversity. Death of ecosystems. Death of
intelligent debate. Death of science.
Poverty rate in the USA has been increasing since about the year 2000. The international
poverty trend has been decreasing over time only because the definition of poverty is to earn
less than $1.25 per day..... So, if you earn $10/day you are well above the poverty line:
Good luck living on that income in any OECD country!
Standards of living are decreasing in Australia... ever heard of the housing crisis? The
household debt crisis?.... Paying for hospital and medicines, education, electricity and
other services.... should I go on?.... ACOSS found that "there are just over 3 million people
(13.2%) living below the poverty line of 50% of median income – including 739,000
children (17.3%)".
"The evil neo-liberalism" has delivered poverty, massive inequality, dissatisfaction,
unemployment/sub-employment and casualization, collapse of public services, high costs of
living.... and deterioration of the environment...
Why do you think that all around the world
voters are going hard against Neoliberalism and why do you think that Neoliberals are
desperately trying to save their bankrupt philosophy by hiding behind Nationalism and
Racism?
While I would very much like to agree with the notion that neo-liberalism is dead, there's
rather too much evidence that its pernicious influence lingers ghost-like and ghastly, having
suffused far too many politicians of an ultra-conservative ilk.
The true believers in the neo-liberal faith, as it was never other than a creed espoused
by Thatcher and Pinochet among others, are like those in the catholic church who continued to
advocate an earth centric universe long after science proved them wrong.
It will be a long wait until these myopic adherents to the gospel of Hayek, Friedman and
Buchanan, are consigned to the waste bin of history where they belong. Until then, it will
remain a struggle to right the many wrongs of this mis-guided and shallow populism.
Abso-bloody-lutely! The neocons have had their day, though it'll no doubt take one hell of an
effort to drag them out of their crony-capitalist, snouts-in-the-trough ways. The profit
motive in the provision of essential services should be confined to covering costs,
maintenance and associated investment. It's so painfully obvious that the market has not met
the needs of the average citizen without absurd cost. Bring on the revolution!
What made anyone think neo-liberalism was going to work? Why was this even tried or got past
a focus group?
Only the Murdoch press ever dreamed this could have any merit and a few totally selfish and
controlling wealthy people. 2008 and the GFC should have killed this idea instead it gained
traction as the perpetrators not only were not prosecuted but were subsidised to create more
havoc. Find the culprits and jail them ... it is not too late.
"... What about "competition", the God of Neoliberals?.... Competition can have some positive role in society only in an environment of Regulation. That's why the future is neither Neoliberal nor Socialist, but a Mixed Economy Social Democracy. ..."
"... Bring back a Commonwealth Bank! In fact bring back State run Electricity, Gas and Water utilities... ..."
"... The Coalition these days proudly subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their preferred form. ..."
All essential infrastructure should be Nationalised. Water electricity supply and generation,
ports and railways, educational facilities, one major bank, one country wide telco and mail
delivery. Remove the for profit aspect, and they become assets. In at least a few of these
they also provide training opportunities across a wide spectrum of careers
Nationalise the banks and the Mining Industry .
Take back control of outrageous wages in both these sectors and return profits to the
taxpayer .
Nationalise the State Governments in other words get rid of them and appoint federal
controlled administrators same with local councils, sack the lot of them and appoint
administrators.
Just like the AFP is "nationalised", or education is also to a big extent "nationalised",
alongside a big chunk of the health system.... so we can nationalise other things, such as
the modes of production and distribution of energy, major mineral resources, etc.
What about "competition", the God of Neoliberals?.... Competition can have some positive
role in society only in an environment of Regulation. That's why the future is neither
Neoliberal nor Socialist, but a Mixed Economy Social Democracy.
Which party is for a Mixed Economy Social Democracy?.... Labor and to some extent the
Greens. A bunch of independents are also happy with the concept.... Together they are
currently a majority, only waiting for a Federal election.
Neoliberalism, the economic stablemate of big religion's Prosperity Evangelism cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
. Dual streams of bull shit to confuse the citizens while the Country's immense wealth is
stolen.
"... Apologies, but Neoliberalism is far from 'dead'. But of course it should never have given 'life'. However, if it were 'dead' why did Labor vote with the Coalition to ratify the ultra-Neoliberal TPP??? The TPP is the penultimate wet dream of all neoliberal multinational vulture corporations. Why???? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) Under these rules, foreign investors can legally challenge host state regulations outside that country's courts. A wide range of policies can be challenged. ..."
Apologies, but Neoliberalism is far from 'dead'. But of course it should never have given
'life'. However, if it were 'dead' why did Labor vote with the Coalition to ratify the
ultra-Neoliberal TPP??? The TPP is the penultimate wet dream of all neoliberal multinational
vulture corporations. Why???? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) Under these rules,
foreign investors can legally challenge host state regulations outside that country's courts.
A wide range of policies can be challenged.
Yeah! Philip Morris comes to mind. "The cost to taxpayers of the Australian government's
six-year legal battle with the tobacco giant Philip Morris over plain packaging laws can
finally be revealed, despite the government's efforts to keep the cost secret.
The commonwealth government spent nearly $40m defending its world-first plain packaging
laws against Philip Morris Asia, a tobacco multinational, according to freedom of information
documents.
Documents say the total figure is $38,984,942.97."
Neo- liberalism is not dead its only just started. We are not in an era of democracy and
freedom but of Oligarchy and governmental servitude.
Less restrictions doesn't mean freedom it mean free booters, privateers , and plunderers are
given government support and handouts the only thing free is their right to take.
The pirates who plunder the most are given Hero status and those plundered are laughed at
as losers.
Looks around you governments are becoming agents of theft find ways to channel money to
those who don't need it . They say its right wing fascism but its not for all their evil the
fascists were determined to improve the lot of the people, however perversely they went about
it.
What we have today is legalised privateering.
None of the political parties today have the least intention to change a system that works
for them.
Fred, I can't remember who said it, but an observer of human systems and institutions made
the observation that unless the prevalent social, economic or political structures of the day
was not either changed or renewed, then those within the system would 'game' it; corrupting
it from within for personal benefit to the detriment of society as a whole.
This perfectly sums up neo-liberalism.
Whatever positive virtues were extolled when this ideology was adopted wholesale by so many
governments and societies (and please spare me the '-we delivered billions out of poverty!'
line, that was a positive byproduct, never the objective of neo-liberalism), it has since
become thoroughly corrupted, serving an ever shrinking percentage of society - entrenching a
super-wealthy 'ruling class' that makes a mockery of the idea of democracy.
It's time to ditch this 21st Century feudalistic construct, and replace it with something
that serves the whole of society with more justice than this current gravy train for the one
percenters.
Fully agree with the things being said here. The privatisation of essential services has been
a bloody disaster. Telecommunications, health, education energy production/distribution. Look
at what the NSW conservatives are doing the the public transport or the feds have done to our
communications, including Telstra the ABC and SBS.
But the issue is that this will just turn into an ongoing political football with each
successive conservative government trying to sell off the farm again.
These critical public services and infrastructure must be protected in law needing a
referendum to make major changes. Also their funding must be guaranteed and they must be run
at arms length from the government to reduce political interference and ensure they are
delivering the best possible service and are competitive with the huge private sector
operators.
There charter of operation and obligation to the public must be extremely robust and
clearly outline their duties of care to operate in a transparent and open fashion putting the
public interest as a priority.
The opposite of a neoliberal economic agenda isn't a progressive economic agenda, but
democratic re-engagement.
You can have democratic engagement voting for a 'neo-liberal economic agenda'. In fact
we've had it for decades.
But of course not even the Coalition believes that any more. These days they proudly
subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their
preferred form.
They're politicians - they've never applied their ideological views in a pure way. This is
nothing new.
Ironically, one of the major objections to proportional representation in Australia has
been that it tends to deliver minority government, a situation that the major parties
prefer to avoid.
There's a big difference between minority government by a major party + a handful of
votes, versus a minority government by a handful of minority parties, or a major party + a
minor party. They tend to lead to the kind of instability we'd prefer to avoid.
The death of neoliberalism means
I think you've called it a bit prematurely. Both major parties here are still peddling
neo-liberalism, with policies which only differ on the margins.
Authoritarianism has always existed. But it hasn't always been clearly visible. Technology
makes authoritarianism more powerful. Centralization and urbanization have served the
purposes of the elite well.
People need information and communication. The inverted totalitarianism we live in,
doesn't like that. It wants the Internet to implement that inverted totalitarianism (see
China). They want everything (in a corporatist way) to be mandatory, except for what is
forbidden. What has been revealed, and is being revealed, is that the current
political-economic system isn't fit for purpose, human purpose.
So the real answer is like what is happening in France now...
Attempting to blame the internet for the increasingly authoritarian world we live in is
not seeing the forest through the trees. The internet is surely a tool used against
humanity,That doesn't make it "bad". I would say the reason people can be fooled by these
social media propaganda tactics, is precisely because the fourth estate is practicing such in
depth propaganda campaigns, with all propaganda, all the time coverage on every other form of
media as well. People have nowhere to turn.
Why do people think some russians posting on facebook and twitter skewed the electorate in
this country than say nothing about:fox news,npr,cnn,rush limbaugh,hannity,the new york
times, wall st journal,the weekly standard, time magazine,people magazine, etc.All of these
organizations and all the others spout disinformation. every day.
And america's trend towards the authoritarian state has been accelerating since at least the
national security act of 1947.as a national trend, whereas in the beginning of this countries
existence, there have been authoritarian control of local districts by local groups, ie.
whites over blacks, or whites over indians, or rich over poor immigrants, etc.
All the internet age and the "information age is doing, is changing the medium. the message
is still the same. and there has always been resistance. now that resistance seems more
futile, but is it?
Why do people think some russians posting on facebook and twitter skewed the electorate
in this country than say nothing about:fox news,npr,cnn,rush limbaugh,hannity,the new york
times, wall st journal,the weekly standard, time magazine,people magazine, etc.All of these
organizations and all the others spout disinformation. every day.
Exactly. Our society is mainly shaped by its elites. And other than Twitter they are
barely involved with the internet at all but rather get their news and attitudes from the NY
Times or (in Trump's case) cable TV. Therefore rather than enhancing the always existing
authoritarianism of "manufactured consent," the internet works to undermine it. This of
course provokes much fingering of worry beads among the elite who see the mob and their
pitchforks as real threats. The situation in France illustrates this phenomenon nicely and
there have been calls by some to block Facebook in France so those yellow vests can't
communicate with each other.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, not bad, and some of us scan right leaning websites
just to get a different view. The internet is not the problem. Powerful authoritarians are
the problem.
In my own undoubtedly faulty memory of Animal Farm , Orwell characterized the
devolution as "the nature of the beast" through his characters. That is (over and above the
allegory of the Russian revolution/devolution), there are strong traits in human character
that makes this devolution inevitable. We have the pigs; the aggressors, and the followers,
and less savory characters, and the "never quite enough" wise annimal(s) and so on, working
unwittingly together against the welfare of the whole making the end result seem precast. Not
so much that we did nothing, as that we could do nothing.
1984 never really addressed that issue (or at least I don't remember it doing so), but
from the start everything seemed inevitable, there was no discussion of any "might have
been," that could have been an alternative to the dystopia of an engineered rivalry between
two super-powers that worked off each other to maintain a compliant global society in
hopeless mass psychological, never mind physical, irons.
But even assuming this inevitability was Orwell's own belief and intent in his
writings (and not simply my misunderstanding of them), I agree with your point that we had
plenty of warning, and not just Orwell, and that society as a whole too frequently took the
easier road but with a lot of help and insistent guidance (manipulation) from our
increasingly corrupt leaders and captains of industry (our own pigs).
Animal Farm was Orwell's best book IMO because it speaks to universal human tendencies
even though the book was also about Stalin and Trotsky. 1984 was far fetched speculation
based on, as it turned out, the short lived totalitarianism of figures like Hitler and
Stalin. People assume we are living 1984 when it's really Animal Farm.
"... Neoliberal doctrine leads to skyrocketing inequality, a swelling in the desperate and forgotten poor who are vulnerable to populist messaging and the idea of a strongman peddling easy answers to keep people safe as civil unrest increases. Fascism seeks power for power's sake and total control over the populace, and always cruelty to the marginalised, the 'others'. How all the right wingers hand-wringing over the idea of 'socialist communisms!!1!' can't see that, I don't know. ..."
"... All over the world, failed neoliberalism is being replaced by right-wing populist nationalism & I don't think "repairing democratic institutions" is at the top of their to-do list. ..."
"... I'm certainly in favour of greater nationalisation, especially of essential services. But around the world, neo-liberalism has morphed into neo-fascism and this is where the next fight must be. ..."
"... In social systems, natural selection favours cooperation. In addition, we are biased toward ethical behaviours, so cooperation and sharing are valued in human societies. ..."
"... The consequences of four decades of financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely distributed busts. ..."
"... No wonder you get fascist right wing insurgence in this climate! ..."
Never forget that fascism is the natural defence mechanism of capital. After it is accrued,
it must be defended. The current trend in global politics is not an anomaly but an entirely
predictable outcome.
Neoliberal doctrine leads to skyrocketing inequality, a swelling in the
desperate and forgotten poor who are vulnerable to populist messaging and the idea of a
strongman peddling easy answers to keep people safe as civil unrest increases. Fascism seeks
power for power's sake and total control over the populace, and always cruelty to the marginalised, the 'others'. How all the right wingers hand-wringing over the idea of
'socialist communisms!!1!' can't see that, I don't know.
It's too late for the US I fear, and time is rapidly running out for the UK if they don't
pull their finger out and have another referendum before the self immolation of Brexit.
All over the world, failed neoliberalism is being replaced by right-wing populist nationalism
& I don't think "repairing democratic institutions" is at the top of their to-do list.
If
Australia does swing the pendulum to the left, it, along with NZ, will be one of the few
countries to do so. De-privatising will not be easy & will be met with a huge reactionary
backlash. They'll need to tread very carefully if they want to stay in government.
Neoliberalism may be dead but the neoliberals in the government will never admit it as they
seamlessly transition to authoritarian nationalism with populist promises - and failure to
deliver on them.
The neoliberal project was always a philosophical cover for crony capitalism that betrayed
the public interest by rewarding vested interests for their patronage, perverted democracy,
and served as a mechanism for perverting the natural function of an economy - to fairly
distribute goods, resources, and services throughout society - to favor the welfare of the
few over the many.
The self-interested culture of neoliberalism - the cult of the individual that denies the
common good - pervades every aspect of Australia's life as a nation - business, politics,
sport, education, and health - denying and crowding out public spirit, selfless service, and
societal wellbeing.
For meaningful change to occur there must be a rebirth of the conception of the public
good, and the virtue and necessity of acting to realise it.
However at this stage there is not a communal recognition of what the problem is let alone
how to go about repairing it. For that to happen there must be a widely accepted narrative
that naturally leads to the obvious actions that must be take to redress the damage done by
the neoliberal con job: decreasing economic inequality, restoring democracy, and rebuilding a
sense of common cause.
Piecemeal change will not be sufficient to enact the the sweeping transformation that has
to occur in every department of life. It is not enough to tax multinationals, to have a
federal integrity commission, to build a renewable future, or to move to proportional
representation.
Someone, some party, some coherent philosophical perspective has to explain why it must be
done.
It's certainly the case that the Liberal party, in particular, are now using ideas that fall
outside and to the right of neo-liberalism, but it's also obviously the case that
neo-liberalism and current Liberal thinking share the same underlying goal. Namely, the
transfer of wealth and power towards a narrower and narrower group of people and
corporations.
That suggests the death of neo-liberalism is coming about because – having done so
much damage already – it's no longer capable of delivering the required results, and
that we're moving into a new phase of the death spiral. I think that can also be seen in both
the US (where Trump is using the identified problems of neo-liberalism to further the same
basic agenda, but with less decorum and a larger cadre of useful idiots) and the UK (where
there's still a very strong possibility that Brexit will be used as an excuse to roll back
great swathes of social and democratic safeguards).
Perhaps even more worrying – given the latest reports on how we're destroying
habitat as well as the climate, and how much of our biodiversity is in South America,
particularly the Amazon – is that Brazil is how on a similar path.
The likelihood is that the Liberal party won't get away with what they have planned, but
they – and the forces behind them – certainly won't stop trying. And
unfortunately it's far from obvious that the Labor party will repudiate neo-liberalism
anytime soon. That they signed up for the latest iteration of TPP is hardly a good omen.
Democratic re-engagement is the better way forward from neo-liberalism, but unfortunately
I think it's unlikely to be the one that we end up taking.
All of that said, the deepest problem of all is the way in which democracy and government
have been corrupted, often via the media, but typically at the behest of corporations, and if
there is a way forward it has to be found in addressing those interactions
I'm certainly in favour of greater nationalisation, especially of essential services. But
around the world, neo-liberalism has morphed into neo-fascism and this is where the next
fight must be.
In social systems, natural selection favours cooperation. In addition, we are biased
toward ethical behaviours, so cooperation and sharing are valued in human societies.
But what happens when we are forced into an economic system that makes us compete at every
level? The logical outcome is societal decline or collapse.
Perhaps the worst aspect of neoliberalism was its infection of the Labor party. This has
left our social infrastructure alarmingly exposed.
The consequences of four decades of financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no
means equally shared. Internal and external class relations were made evident through
narrowly distributed booms followed by widely distributed busts.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would
suggest the opposite.
No wonder you get fascist right wing insurgence in this climate!
Thank you Richard Denniss we need to highlight this more and more and start educating the
dumbed down population saturated with neoliberal snake oil!
"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and
economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has
gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the
rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main
themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:
US imperial strategy as an outgrowth of British imperialism, and its transformation
following the collapse of the Soviet Union;
the significance of the creation of Israel with respect to the imperial
project;
the repositioning of Russia in world politics after the collapse of the Soviet
Union;
the emerging role of China and Iran in Eurasia;
the emerging opposition to the US and NATO.
This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding
from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great
Games"."
Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.~Thomas Jefferson~
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since
the hand that gives is above the hand that takes Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency;
their sole object is gain." – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815
https://democracynow.org - As the media memorializes George H.W. Bush, we look at the
lasting impact of his 1991 invasion of Iraq and the propaganda campaign that encouraged it.
Although the Gulf War technically ended in February of 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would
continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion
launched by George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq. A largely
forgotten aspect of Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq is the vast domestic propaganda effort before the
invasion began. We look at the way U.S. media facilitated the war on Iraq with journalist John
"Rick" MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper's Magazine and the author of the book
"Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War."
Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and
radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET:
https://democracynow.org
Though I'm no friend of Michael Moore, he at least was candid about American
"Judeo-Christian" adventures within foreign countries. America needs to pull in its horns,
and stop fooling around with other governments.
Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women
being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs, in addition to furthering the campaign by
Globalists to divvy up the world's resources and labor markets .
Our country is blessed with all the necessary raw materials, manufacturing capabilities,
educated and motivated work forces and security to completely support our population, without
the need to obtain staple supplies from foreign countries. Developing alternative energy
sources should be a top priority, to free our people from the yoke of foreign oil cartels --
or the domestic variety, for that matter. Globalism has done little more than implement the
enslavement of populations to mega-corporations, establishing a cabal of non-elected,
inviolable potentates who wield tremendous power over our leaders to do their bidding.
"... Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for
safety, he abhorred capitalism. ..."
@Bill Jones Interesting to read
how these idealists agree with Christian Gerondeau, 'Le CO2 est bon pour la planete, Climat, la grande manipulation', Paris 2017
Gerondeau explains how many deaths reducing CO2 emissions will cause in poor countries, simply as an example how electricity
for cooking will remain too expensive for them, so cooking is done on smoky fires in confined spaces.
" to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." " To intentionally impoverish
the world. To what end, I wonder ?
Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition
of rich and poor.
In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy, as Tibet was.
These idealistic idiots do not understand how they created the problem they now intend to solve with creating an even bigger
problem, their example is the EU, the EU is following this policy for more than twelve years now, since 2005, when the EU grabbed
power through the rejected EU 'consitution'.
Capitalism is no more than deciding between consumption and investment, Robinson Crusoë invested in a fishing net by temporarily
reducing consumption, he did not go fishing, but made a fishing net, expecting that his investment would make it possible to eat
more fish.
Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard
for safety, he abhorred capitalism.
Dutch 17th century capitalistic commerce to the far Indies, east and west, was not benign. Typically a ship left Amsterdam,
near the Schreierstoren, trans 'the tower for the crying', wives, mothers and girl friends, with 300 men aboard, and returned
with 100. Most of those who died were common sailors, captain and officers had a far lower mortality, mainly better food.
Our East Indies commerce also was not much fun for the people in the East, in the Banda Sea Islands massacre some 30.000 people
were killed, for a monopoly on pepper, if I remember correctly.
But, as the earth developed economically, there came room for also poor people getting lives beginning to look as worth living.
Engels in 1844, hope the year is right, described the conditions of working people in GB, this resulted in Das Kapital.
This room for a better life for also the poor was not given by the capitalistic system
In their struggle for a better world for anyone the idealists wanted globalisation, level playing field, anyone should be welcome
anywhere, slogans like this.
Globaliation, however, is the end of the nation state, the very institution in which it was possible to provide a better life.
Anyone following me until here now can see the dilemma, the end of the nation state was also the end of protection by that state
against unbridled capitalism.
As the idealists cannot give up their globalisation religion they must, as those who cannot give up the biblical creation story,
find an ideological way out of their dilemma. My conclusion now is 'in order to save our globalisation religion we try to destroy
economic growth, by making energy very expensive, in the hope of destroying capitalism'.
Alas, better, luckily, capitalism cannot be destroyed, those who invented the first furnaces for more or less mass producing
iron, they were capitalists. They saw clearly how cheap iron would bring economic growth, the plow.
In the country where the CO2 madness has struck most, my country, the Netherlands, the realisation of the poverty that drastically
reducing CO2 emissions will cause, has begun. If there really is madness, I wonder.
I indeed see madness, green leftists unable to make a simple multipiclation calculations about costs, but maybe mainly political
opportunism. Our dictator, Rutte, is now so hated that he needs a job outside the Netherlands, in order to qualify, either at
Brussels or in New York, with the UN, has to howl with the wolves.
At the same time, we have a gas production problem,, earthquakes in the NE, houses damaged, never any decision made to solve
the problem, either stop gas production, or strenghten the houses, both expensive solutions.
So, in my suspicious ideas, Rutte now tries to improve himself, at the same time solving a problem: within, say ten years,
the Netherlands functions without gas, and remains prosperous; the idea he tries to sell to us. In a few years time it will emerge
that we cannot have both, prosperous, and zero emission, but the time horizon for a politician is said to be five years.
Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005. Israel successfully
demanded enormous increases in joint U.S.-Israeli cyber warfare expenditures and benefited
from related U.S. contingency planning. Due to onerous secrecy, Americans remain unable to
engage in informed public debate about whether what amounts to US subjugation to the Israeli
prerogatives driving these massive expenditures should continue.
The US increased spending on the National Intelligence Program by 9 percent in fiscal year
2018 to $59.4 billion. The Military Intelligence Program surged 20 percent to $22.1 billion.
NIP plus MIP beat the year 2005 expenditure record totaling $81.5 billion for fiscal year
2018.
The development of secret offensive cyber warfare programs targeting Iran are included in
MIP and NIP budgets. According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney,
Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for
cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending.
Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in
Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be
to drag the United States into war.
by Grant Smith Posted on November 07, 2018 He is director of the Institute for Research:
Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.
There is very little spoken of the foreign threat of the Chabad network. It must be serious
opposition if even the CFR "globalists" write about it. ( https://www.theglobalist.com/donald-trump-benjamin-netanyahu-democracy-corruption/
) When I say threat, I mean global nuclear war, mass starvation, and disease. Chabad is the
link binding Trump and Putin advisors. Do you think anyone belonging in this protected
"religion" holds any sort of good will for the regular common folk inhabiting the world?
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina
Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?
Doesn't look good does it!
West Point says NO to Peace!
The warmongering bastard and West Point grad (first in class) -- Pompeo -- says NO peace
for Yemeni! Trump says wars are for Israel.
West Point is Jew occupied territory. All US Army generals are pro Israel.
US to keep aiding Saudis in Yemen despite furor: Pompeo
Buenos Aires (AFP) -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Saturday that the United
States would continue suppor ting Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen, despite
rising outrage over the kingdom.
Speaking from a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Pompeo acknowledged that the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen -- where millions are at risk of starvation -- had reached
"epic proportions" but said Washington and Riyadh were offering aid.
"The program that we're involved in today we intend to continue," Pompeo told CNN when
asked about military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.
I suspect not, but they answer to politicians. Ditto the CIA.
I suspect not also -- but only privately and in secret, would they be anti-Israel. If they
keep their mouth shut, they will have a six figure job waiting for them in the J-MIC. Hmm --
so much for the flag. Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art
"The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina
Haspel on the Kashoggi murder."
Could it not be more clear that Mossad runs our government? Didn't the military swear
oaths to protect the US from enemies foreign AND domestic? Oh, and I've given up on Trump.
He's an Israel-worshiping ineffective
What foreign threats indeed. Out biggest threats come from our own government:
"The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a
boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial
penalties."
But yet these clowns will do next to nothing to stop illegal seizures of white farms in
South Africa. Our treasonous government busy working to strip away our freedoms. Don't think
they won't use this precedent to outlaw other types of "hate speech." And brought to you by
the republican party.
@anon As AIPAC and
WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart
Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey's
Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective
by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety
generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish
Defense League.
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/08/29/treasury-sanctions-foreigners-for-israel
A few years ago, I had the temerity to write to David McCullough, the biographer of Harry
Truman, to tell him I thought he was wrong about an aspect of Truman's character.
McCullough was nice enough to write back. He said he thought Truman had not been malicious
but had simply lacked understanding, and in a revealing remark, he acknowledged that Truman
"just didn't know enough about [the Palestinians] and their situation" -- which he said,
quite accurately, is still true of most Americans. "The great shame," he wrote, "is that a
reasonable discussion of the subject remains so difficult to achieve in any public way."
Which brings me to my point: Reasonable discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
and particularly of the Palestinian perspective, has always been "so difficult to achieve in
any public way," and since the days of Woodrow Wilson .
From the article: Tuesday's briefing on Khashoggi's killing was limited to a
small group of lawmakers, including those of the Senate's Armed Services Committee,
Intelligence Committee, and Foreign Relations Committee.
Chuck,
These oversite committees are a joke!
Those committees are cheer leaders for those agencies. Those senators are hand picked to
support the Jew Security State.
We can be sure that they work to hide what those agencies are doing from We the
People.
"... The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). ..."
"... Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it. ..."
Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way
down, that's for sure.
1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer
operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).
If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls
through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that
would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the
"declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the
definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco
important.
2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or
wanted.
a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security conference
covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in
chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the
opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."
b.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1
In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can
get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then
Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the
West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will
and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian
and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety
and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's
time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.
c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/
'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN --
Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a
senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one.
That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed
pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
put it, "de-escalation on both sides."
d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/
Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back
against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By
Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.
f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important
-- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even
a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with
China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the
United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to
demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the
seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO,
at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian
sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This
is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."
And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a
fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get
stuck.
Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
Is corruption a social thing? When we discuss the ontology of various aspects of the
social world, we are often thinking of such things as institutions, organizations, social
networks, value systems, and the like. These examples pick out features of the world that are
relatively stable and functional. Where does an imperfection or dysfunction of social life like
corruption fit into our social ontology?
We might say that "corruption" is a descriptive category that is aimed at capturing a
particular range of behavior, like stealing, gossiping, or asceticism. This makes corruption a
kind of individual behavior, or even a characteristic of some individuals. "Mayor X is
corrupt."
This initial effort does not seem satisfactory, however. The idea of corruption is tied to
institutions, roles, and rules in a very direct way, and therefore we cannot really present the
concept accurately without articulating these institutional features of the concept of
corruption. Corruption might be paraphrased in these terms:
Individual X plays a role Y in institution Z; role Y prescribes honest and impersonal
performance of duties; individual X accepts private benefits to take actions that are
contrary to the prescriptions of Y. In virtue of these facts X behaves corruptly.
Corruption, then, involves actions taken by officials that deviate from the rules
governing their role, in order to receive private benefits from the subjects of those actions.
Absent the rules and role, corruption cannot exist. So corruption is a feature that presupposes
certain social facts about institutions. (Perhaps there is a link to Searle's social ontology
here;
link .)
We might consider that corruption is analogous to friction in physical systems. Friction is
a factor that affects the performance of virtually all mechanical systems, but that is a
second-order factor within classical mechanics. And it is possible to give mechanical
explanations of the ubiquity of friction, in terms of the geometry of adjoining physical
surfaces, the strength of inter-molecular attractions, and the like. Analogously, we can offer
theories of the frequency with which corruption occurs in organizations, public and private, in
terms of the interests and decision-making frameworks of variously situated actors (e.g. real
estate developers, land value assessors, tax assessors, zoning authorities ). Developers have a
business interest in favorable rulings from assessors and zoning authorities; some officials
have an interest in accepting gifts and favors to increase personal income and wealth; each
makes an estimate of the likelihood of detection and punishment; and a certain rate of corrupt
exchanges is the result.
This line of thought once again makes corruption a feature of the actors and their
calculations. But it is important to note that organizations themselves have features that make
corrupt exchanges either more likely or less likely (
link , link
). Some organizations are corruption-resistant in ways in which others are corruption-neutral
or corruption-enhancing. These features include internal accounting and auditing procedures;
whistle-blowing practices; executive and supervisor vigilance; and other organizational
features. Further, governments and systems of law can make arrangements that discourage
corruption; the incidence of corruption is influenced by public policy. For example, legal
requirements on transparency in financial practices by firms, investment in investigatory
resources in oversight agencies, and weighty penalties to companies found guilty of corrupt
practices can affect the incidence of corruption. (Robert Klitgaard's treatment of corruption
is relevant here; he provides careful analysis of some of the institutional and governmental
measures that can be taken that discourage corrupt practices;
link ,
link . And there are cross-country indices of corruption (e.g.
Transparency International ) that demonstrate the causal effectiveness of anti-corruption
measures at the state level. Finland, Norway, and Switzerland rank well on the Transparency
International index.)
So -- is corruption a thing? Does corruption need to be included in a social ontology? Does
a realist ontology of government and business organization have a place for corruption? Yes,
yes, and yes. Corruption is a real property of individual actors' behavior, observable in
social life. It is a consequence of strategic rationality by various actors. Corruption is a
social practice with its own supporting or inhibiting culture. Some organizations effectively
espouse a core set of values of honesty and correct performance that make corruption less
frequent. And corruption is a feature of the design of an organization or bureau, analogous to
"mean-time-between-failure" as a feature of a mechanical design. Organizations can adopt
institutional protections and cultural commitments that minimize corrupt behavior, while other
organizations fail to do so and thereby encourage corrupt behavior. So
"corruption-vulnerability" is a real feature of organizations and corruption has a social
reality.
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the
deep state, that addresses the question of
"Who Are The Neoconservatives."
If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners
of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put
on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or
a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture
and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the
KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became
convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different
from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating
from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most
rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power.
Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political
strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious
tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian
means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It
is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement
to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable
label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives
do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together
either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet
level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private
writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's
war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical
Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative")
Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of
the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee,
which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest
American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism
is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find
horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants'
grandchildren".
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest
on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great
admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely
effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his
thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved
for superior minds.
nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for
government and governance.
national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality:
they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between
good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World
of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" –
the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its
finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world
of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful,
but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant
us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God
bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the
Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
the second coming of Christ myth
the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for
the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem
temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world
order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative
circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant
King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around
a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations",
replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third
World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it
with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe
that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make
it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace
and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet
Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied
against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception
of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is
a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States
must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will
lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and
the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist
clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month
after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists
"that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".
Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of
the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself
[ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
My summary:
We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
Among them are brilliant strategists
They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is
founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
Operation Gladio – Full 1992 documentary BBC Originally aired on BBC2 in 1992, 'Operation Gladio' reveals 'Gladio', the secret
state-sponsored terror network operating in Europe. https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGHXjO8wHsAAlso read
Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles,
thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is
a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke
Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency
feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with
Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to
conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking
allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well,
absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists
pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood
rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended
like they had never published it.
By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and
disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on
social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the
above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of
critical thinking), Politico posted this
ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story
was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted
by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative
fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and
"leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion
of Assange.
At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing
"truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got
caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking
the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.
Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one),
there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it
is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to
appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest
difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain
whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.
Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the
"official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept
of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other
"truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the
masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly
want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened,
JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or
whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.
The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell,
unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The
powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.
They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or
another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard
their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of
the powerless is always heresy.
For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we
know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our
knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on
Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet
bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is
merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.
Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a
journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on
television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But
they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because
of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful
when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state
that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't
afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream
Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such
heretics.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the
corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do
(albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that
"the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off
their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the
revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there
is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it
is safer and more rewarding to do so.
And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly
fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be
rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally
serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be
instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this
story.
As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice
but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they
are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running
around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff
unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.
#
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.
The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be
determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/
politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be
comprehensible, let alone useful.
We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some
kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy
media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt
their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that
narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.
This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data
loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world
are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably
false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this
process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be
self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of
major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in
their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.
Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and
maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors
that prevent this.
One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support --
and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be
constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion
involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with
obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly.
It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to
reevaluate one's worldview based on these.
And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social
acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,
Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because
it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social
consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of
this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong"
one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're
"supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal
of loyalty to the establishment.
It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items,
unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing
this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish
here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"
It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what
he thinks it does.
The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to
believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.
There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out
properly.
Take this excerpt:
The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that
that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are
blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will
make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say
it is say it is.
With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world
works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a
specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half
the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state
coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of
X .
If X is objectively false, too bad.
Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political
class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.
This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really
obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).
Obvious Example: Drug Dogs
Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60%
and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual
physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than
a coin toss.
Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a
target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug
dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).
However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a
signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable
cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.
Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted
based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a
coin?
Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence
admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about
drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their
possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.
In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior
probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not
suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).
More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy
In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary
sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or
otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a
representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).
The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an
ordinal voting mechanism.
What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before
any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that
ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify
the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').
Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever
been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1
of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems
– for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for
by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate
results).
So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers)
promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional
Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are
pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and
wishing will make it so.
Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four
centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex
– which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).
The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law is changed .
What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the
[extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".
American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex "
(the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United
States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –
This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are
overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force,
the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to
some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new
circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws
promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century
jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."
See how far you get.
So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights
or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side.
He should have made the point better.
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of
peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth'
was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it
Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and
power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says
Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are
deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless
creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:
The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third
alternative.
The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears
repeating
It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their
slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake
up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."
Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true.
(Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to
live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).
Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free
exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place
because they will fail to conform to ground truth.
Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent'
because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences
and expectations).
In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of
powerful enemies.
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11
or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we
have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.
But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own
families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the
blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and
suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia,
and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves
France.
@FB Scientific truth
is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example,
we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make
the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware
of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.
So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all
hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation
in someone elses computer!
Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on.
Here is where the trouble starts .
@The scalpel LOL and
then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end
scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
@Kratoklastes Strength
is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical
phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you
believe it or not.
Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and
marketing.
The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is
crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down
and vanquished.
The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a
will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there
will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which
means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related
striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain
the mental life of mankind.
Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration,
they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is
the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our
reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self
preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a
passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and
those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream
when they should have been preparing.
After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that
the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and
notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that
the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word,
per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used
over the years and centuries.
I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or
oscillating-contradictions .
Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation
The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in
practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical
counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean
either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.
Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word
person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally
a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can
mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought
and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").
By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone
had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just
before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got
instead:
[MORE]
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as
an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over
you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the
masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and
traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to
receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you
one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question
from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game
is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same
concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X
(an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights,
powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next
time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .
Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually
exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined
financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and
we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.
So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to
influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in
the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by
its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then
how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure
that that question is never presented in that way.
After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo
-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most
important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal
front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in
advance).
Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and
received by the debtor for their own use and control?
Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount
received?
Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of
parties ?
[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]
Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20%
per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or
otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an
undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or
loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."
In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it
$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the
debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is
required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is
it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000
cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?
Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a
noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question
that theoretically cannot exist.
Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense
word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense,
while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the
Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against
meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in
more specialized financial dictionaries.
So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or
regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the
debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every
financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent
alternative/contrary meaning.
This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual
definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended
reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.
Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it
doesn't .
With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive
answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is
never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.
With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a
financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play .
With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling
levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .
And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous
in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little
people of the product of their labour.
As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay
back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged)
interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates
between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective
– according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in
time.
It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated
simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything
.
A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit,
discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution,
etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the
entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic
arbitrage .
Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate
reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two
are from the American and English Courts, respectively.
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a
function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes
and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it.
The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you
have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think
it .
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely
believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the
entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty
mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics
who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who
communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a
cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of
perceiving reality beyond labels .
3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion
:
"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process
of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other
aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.
(West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
4.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the
means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.
I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the
best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the
physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .
@Tulip " which will
always ultimately be resolved by force."
Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot
be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.
" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to
daydream when they should have been preparing."
Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her
dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never
arrives.
In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11
truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to
a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade
Centers.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal
government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive
evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).
After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that
they will comply with the law.
Some good documentary films here to watch for free:
My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish
probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious
if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of
which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.
Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative
predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.
"... The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big State. ..."
"... Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralized and faceless, to be efficient and responsive ..."
"... The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about ..."
"... Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory , did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised. ..."
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe
he IMF's limited admission of guilt over the Greek bailout is a start, but they still can't see the global financial system's
fundamental flaws, writes Deborah Orr.
The International Monetary Fund has admitted that some of the decisions it made in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis
were wrong, and that the €130bn first bailout of Greece was "bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have
been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that it went along with its partners in
"the Troika" – the European Commission and the European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF,
put the interests of the Eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch their pearls and splutter with
horror that they could be accused of something so petty as self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes
no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity",
have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be
coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge
is that the merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more
quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response from the start should have
been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment",
as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of
course, its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye
to the Big State.
Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralized and faceless,
to be efficient and responsive. I agree.
The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen
– that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places
the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's
what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments have been obliged to limit their
activities yet further – some setting about the task with greater relish than others. Now the task, supposedly, is to get the free
market up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves, having been brought up believing in material
aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal
idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
But how can the privatization of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high, working people are turning to
food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up
bargains in the form of busted high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you have
to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer un-sustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon
and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they
avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to encourage private profit and shareholder
value, then lend governments the money they need to create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them
for their profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister,
Anna Soubry
, suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up families were putting the NHS under strain. The
compartmentalised thinking is quite breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while working part-time – thus having the leisure
to consume – the better. No doubt these female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism
is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more important
than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your own. You couldn't make these characters up.
It is certainly true that women with children find it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima
facie example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it is so often presented – evidence
that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many aspects of financial services – that Britain
enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all
else, forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family members. All of those things
have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone
is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who
came up with that theory , did not agree
that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal
allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their
folly become ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering with their allies instead
of waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that far too much of it is sold through Starbucks.
The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been
pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man "of the highest character,"
said his
eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. "He loved America and served with
character, class, and integrity," tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet
Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama , Bush's life was "a
testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous
good along the journey." Apple boss Tim Cook said : "We have lost a great
American."
In the age of Donald Trump, it isn't difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to
paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with "class"
and "integrity." It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016,
calling him a " blowhard ," and that he eschewed the
white nationalist, "alt-right," conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern
Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said , "firing a shot." He spent
his life serving his country -- from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA
to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and
great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids
.
Nevertheless, he was a public,
not a private, figure -- one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United
States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a
brazen way. "When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that
only praise be permitted but not criticisms," as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued
, because it leads to "false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts."
The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in
common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came
after him - his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent - than much of the
political and media classes might have you believe.
Consider:
... ... ...
He made a dishonest case for war . Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons
of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set
of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as
an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland
concluded , "was sold on a mountain of war propaganda."
For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait " without provocation or warning
." What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an
effective
green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before
his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement
with Kuwait."
Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in
August 1990 and claimed that he was doing
so in order "to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland." As Scott
Peterson wrote in the Christian Science
Monitor in 2002, "Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated that up to
250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil
supplier."
Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial
satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert.
"It was a pretty serious fib," Heller told Peterson, adding: "That [Iraqi
buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't
exist."
President George H. W. Bush talks with Secretary of State James Baker III and Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney during a meeting of the cabinet in the White House on Jan. 17, 1991 to
discuss the Persian Gulf War. Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP
He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500
tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific
civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in
the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least
408 Iraqi civilians . According to Human Rights Watch , the Pentagon knew
the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet
had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, "a serious violation of the laws of
war."
U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian
infrastructure -- from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing
plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post
reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to
create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners
now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair
without foreign assistance. Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and
interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as 'collateral' and unintended, was
sometimes neither."
Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for
"leverage" over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team
concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of
Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and "epidemic" levels of cholera and
typhoid.
By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau,
was estimating that Bush's Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including
13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and
sewage treatment plants. Daponte's numbers contradicted the Bush administration's, and she was
threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing " false information. " (Sound
familiar?)
He refused to cooperate with a special counsel . The Iran-Contra affair , in which the
United States traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and used the proceeds of those
arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, did much to undermine the presidency of Ronald
Reagan. Yet his vice president's involvement in that controversial affair has garnered far less
attention. "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete," wrote Special
Counsel Lawrence Walsh, a former deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower administration, in
his final report on the
Iran-Contra affair in August 1993.
Why? Because Bush, who was "fully aware of the Iran arms sale," according to the special
counsel, failed to hand over a diary "containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra"
and refused to be interviewed in the later stages of the investigation. In the final days of
his presidency, Bush even issued
pardons to six defendants in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger -- on the eve of Weinberger's trial for perjury and obstruction of
justice. "The Weinberger pardon," Walsh pointedly noted, "marked the first time a president
ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the
president was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case." An angry Walsh accused
Bush of "misconduct" and helping to complete "the Iran-contra cover-up."
I knew there was something wrong with Donald Trump's presidency the day he bombed the
airbase at Al-Shairat in Syria. It was a turning point. I knew it was a mistake the moment he
did it and argued as such at the time.
No act by him was more contentious.
It cost me hundreds of followers gained throughout the campaign who wanted to believe Trump
was playing 4-D chess. My Periscopes went from being events to afterthoughts.
Those that left needed to believe this because they had invested so much in him.
They had to believe he was playing some deep game with Putin to bring peace to the
region.
He wasn't.
I was right and truth is painful. The need for him to be Orange Jesus was so strong they
created Qanon and the 'science' of political horoscope as slowly but surely Trump was stripped
of all of his power except that of complaining about how unfair it all is.
That day he did something in the moment, with bad intelligence and let fly with tomahawks
which Russian and Syrian air defenses misdirected and/or shot down.
Empty President
His goal was to show everyone there was a new, strong sheriff in town.
All it did was weaken him.
The neocons praised him as presidential. They began to get their hooks in him then. But
truly, Trump was destroyed before he took office, giving up Michael Flynn, expelling Russian
diplomats and compromising his cabinet picks.
Because making war is the only true test of a President to the laptop bombardiers who
control foreign policy. With that one act Trump's days as an independent agent in D.C. were
numbered.
And since then the hope has been that given the enormity of the opposition to his Presidency
he was still fighting for what he campaigned on -- no nation building, bring the empire home,
protect the borders, and clean up the corruption.
He's made a few minor changes but not enough to change the course of this country and, by
extension, the world.
The people want this change. Those with the power don't.
G-20 Ghost
So here we are with a pathetic Trump outclassed at the G-20, a meeting he should dominate
but instead is ushered around like a child, given poor earpieces and looking a little lost.
He's only allowed to have one meeting of note by his handlers, with China's Xi Jinping.
Because that meeting wasn't going to end with anything damaging to the long-term plan.
Trump's tariff game is tired and all it will do is hasten the demise of U.S. competitiveness in
the very industries he wants us to be competitive in.
Because tariffs are a band-aid on the real problems of bureaucracy, corruption, waste and
sloth within an economy. They are not a product of China stealing our technology (though they
have).
And that $1 trillion deficit Trump is running? Music to the ears of the globalists who want
the U.S. brought low. More military spending. More boondoggles the banks can cut a nice big
check to themselves for with funny money printed without risk. This can go on for a few more
years until it doesn't matter anymore.
Trump's folding on meeting Putin is the final nail in his presidency's coffin. He's not even
allowed to make statements on this issue anymore. That's for Sarah Sanders, Mike Pomposity and
John Bolt-head to do.
You know, the grown-ups in the room.
No. Putin and Trump met once when they weren't supposed to and since then Trump has been
getting smaller and smaller. Sure, he held some rallies for the mid-terms to shore up his base
for a few weeks while the Democrats stole more than a dozen House seats, three governorships
and a couple of Senate seats, but hey he's still working hard for no pay.
Please.
Trump needed to show some real moral courage and speak with Putin about the Kerch Strait
incident like men, not sulk in the corner over a couple of ships. And yet his still throws his
full support behind a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman because arms sales and Iran.
Putin, for his part, makes no bones about doing business with the Saudis. He knows that bin
Salman is creating a quagmire for Trump while driving the U.S. and European Deep State mad.
For this Secretary of Defense James Mattis calls Putin, " A slow learner." This is a
flat-out threat that Mattis has more coming Putin's way. But in fact, it is Mattis who is the
slow learner since he still thinks Putin isn't three steps ahead of him.
Which he is. The game is all about time and money. And thanks to Mattis and, yes, Trump,
Putin will win the war of attrition he is playing.
Because that is what has been going on here from the beginning. Iran, China and Russia know
what the U.S. power brokers want and they knew Trump would always cave to them. So, they knew
exactly how to get Trump to over-commit to a strategy that cannot and will not ever come to
fruition.
I warned that Trump's blind-spot when it comes to Iran was his weakness. I warned that he
would eventually justify breaking every foreign policy promise to fulfill his plan to unite the
Sunni world behind him and Israel by giving them Iran.
The End of the Beginning
Welcome to today. And welcome to the end of Trump's presidency because now he is
pot-committed to regime change while the vultures circle him domestically. He has become Bush
the Lesser with arguably better hair.
He has alienated everyone the world over with sanctions and tariffs, hence his desire to "
Get me out of here " as the G-20 wound down. No one believes he matters anymore. By tying
himself to the Saudis and the Israelis the way he has he, the master negotiator, has left
himself no room to negotiate.
And that is leading to everyone defying him versus cutting deals to carve up the world, end
the empire and come home.
Trump is not leading here. He is being led. And change requires leaders. He has been led
down the path so many presidents have, more militarism, more empire. Because when you're the
Emperor everyone is your enemy. This is the paranoia of a late-stage imperial mindset.
It certainly is the mindset of Trump's closest advisors - Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo.
So Trump's "America First' instincts, no matter how genuine, have been twisted into
something worse than evil, they are now ineffectual keepers of the status quo fueling ruinous
neoconservative dreams of central Asian dominance.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 230 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.
His nose is wedged right up Adelson's & Bibi's ring-hole.
Even as we speak now, 100 drones crossed over from Turkey into Syria with French experts
modifying them to accept warheads of a chemical nature. Simultaneously the innovative British
military are providing miscellaneous WMD's/support to Jabhat-Al -Nusra in Idlib.
Time for Putin/Russia to take these cockroaches/vermin out in quick time, for their own
good.
Trump's grasshopper mind could be construed for severe Alzheimer's.
Trump boasted of how HE would "Make the US Military Great again" (as if it wasn't too big
to begin with..) and spent $16 billion EXTRA on 'defence,' yet now he suddenly flip-flopped
and calls defence spending "crazy."
Spot on, I completely agree with Luongo, and #metoo have been saying this for a long
time.
Trump's unstable and unhinged waffling, lying and flip-flopping (i.e. "4D chess") is
finally beginning to catch up with him and his presidency will not be marked with him being
the one who drained the swamp, but a presidency marked with a trail of destruction.
He has talked himself into so many corners, that it will be impossible to back out of
those corners....unless of course he turns the volume of his bullshitting, lying and waffling
up to 11.
"You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the
time."
It's easy to fool dumb American Trumptards, but it's not easy fooling the Russians, the
Europeans and the Chinese. They see right through his fake bravado and ********.
"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with
President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a
major and uncontrollable Arms Race," Trump wrote. "The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this
year. Crazy!"
Another classic Tweet from Captain Bonespurs. No wall, no change to healthcare, no
immigration policy, no amazing trade agreements, no slavery, no mandatory mullets, no
mandatory bible study at school, no burning of witches. And now he is talking about reducing
the largest military budget in history.
Trump is finished. He had two years to replace Sessions and Rosenstein and have someone at
the DOJ appoint a Special Councils for each item to look into:
The Clinton Foundation
Uranium One Deal
Hillary's Email Server
The murder of Seth Rich
The Benghazi Consulate Disaster
The Democrats computer scandal with the Iwan brothers.
Bill Clinton giving China classified missile and sub technology
The unelected Deep State actors controlling the country.
Q is a total ******* fraud. Trump has 3 weeks before he is assraped and left bleeding on
the floor by the Democrats and the RHINO's in the senate. If he gets impeached, Pence will be
impeached and Nitwit Nancy becomes POTUS. And within 2 months of that happening, we will have
full balls out, open Civil War II.
"... Neoliberalism is a set of practices that favors entrepreneurs and corporations, supports--often below the radar--massive state subsidies for the corporate estate, presses for radical deregulation of private markets, treats labor as an abstract factor of production, celebrates the authority of courts governed by a neoliberal jurisprudence, hates collective social movements on the left, protects imperial drives, strives to render democracy minimal, and moves to dismantle or weaken unions, social security, public schools and universal voting if and when the opportunities arise. Fascism is a form of capitalism that dismantles democracy, pushes intense nationalism, pursues racism, deploys big lies systematically, attacks vulnerable minorities to energize its base, corrupts courts, drives to make the media its mouthpiece, places police and intelligence agencies under its wing, colludes with foreign dictatorships, welcomes vigilante groups beneath a veneer of deniability, and jacks up the intensity of cultural ruthlessness. ..."
"... Democracy in Chains ..."
"... MacLean's book, through a close review of an archive not studied before, reveals how the public neoliberal pronouncements by Buchanan between the 1970s and 2000s were soon matched by a set of covert plans and financial funding designed to bring neoliberalism to power by "stealth" strategies. Buchanan had come to see, as had others, that the neoliberal agenda was not apt to be enacted by democratic means. So he adopted a two-track model. ..."
"... MacLean's review of the ruthlessness and narcissism that marked the private and public persona of Buchanan, a review that invites attention to character affinities between him and Trump. Neither Buchanan, Trump, nor Charles Koch -- the latter another key figure in the Buchanan story -- thought highly of compromise. They play a hardball game. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, its critics know so well, periodically spawns the economic crises its hubristic devotees promise will not happen. It also works to foster voter suppression, unlimited dark campaign contributions, extreme gerrymandered districts, take away worker benefits, appoint judges at state and national levels governed by neoliberal jurisprudence, treat voter suppression tactics to be needed to eliminate phantom voter fraud, oppose affirmative action, to weaken labor unions, and attack universal health care. ..."
"... The old, all so familiar, Hayek story of how socialism and social democracy are always on the "road to serfdom" is a fairy tale that has not in fact occurred. The transition, however, from neoliberalism to virulent fascist movements has occurred before and could do so again. ..."
Neoliberalism is not fascism. But the fact that many famous neoliberals have been moved to
support fascism to protect a regime from social democracy or socialism does give one pause.
Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, among others, took such a turn under duress. They also had highly
expansive views of what counted as a "socialist" threat.
Neoliberalism is a set of practices that favors entrepreneurs and corporations,
supports--often below the radar--massive state subsidies for the corporate estate, presses for
radical deregulation of private markets, treats labor as an abstract factor of production,
celebrates the authority of courts governed by a neoliberal jurisprudence, hates collective
social movements on the left, protects imperial drives, strives to render democracy minimal,
and moves to dismantle or weaken unions, social security, public schools and universal voting
if and when the opportunities arise. Fascism is a form of capitalism that dismantles democracy,
pushes intense nationalism, pursues racism, deploys big lies systematically, attacks vulnerable
minorities to energize its base, corrupts courts, drives to make the media its mouthpiece,
places police and intelligence agencies under its wing, colludes with foreign dictatorships,
welcomes vigilante groups beneath a veneer of deniability, and jacks up the intensity of
cultural ruthlessness.
So the two are different. Are there, however, enough affinities between them to help explain
how the former -- both in its leadership and its base of support--can migrate rapidly toward
the latter during periods of stress? Stress that it often enough creates by its own hubristic
market practices? Bearing in mind those noble neoliberals who today call out and hold out
against Trumpism -- they are on welcome public display on the Nicole Wallace show on
MSNBC--recent experience in the United States suggests that many other neoliberals, in a
situation of public stress, too easily slide toward the latter. A whole bunch of neoliberal
Republicans in the American Congress, after all, now support or tolerate policies and
belligerent practices they did not before the era of Trump. Many do not merely do so because
they are cowed by the danger of threats to them in Republican primaries -- they could, for
instance, quit politics, or join the Democratic Party to stop aspirational fascism, or
staunchly support the principles they embrace in those very Republican primaries and
elections.
The recent book, Democracy in Chains , by Nancy MacLean, allows us to discern more
closely how such slides and gallops can occur. It is focused on the life of a Nobel Prize
winning neoliberal -- who often called himself a libertarian -- loved by the Mt Pelerin Society
by the name of James Buchanan. I used to teach critically his book The Calculus of Consent in
the 1980s. But MacLean's book, through a close review of an archive not studied before,
reveals how the public neoliberal pronouncements by Buchanan between the 1970s and 2000s were
soon matched by a set of covert plans and financial funding designed to bring neoliberalism to
power by "stealth" strategies. Buchanan had come to see, as had others, that the neoliberal
agenda was not apt to be enacted by democratic means. So he adopted a two-track model.
That two-track model is revealing. So is the fact that this refugee from Tennessee -- a
former slave state and one that then imprisoned Blacks systematically to replace lost slave
labor -- seldom mentioned the specific conditions of Blacks or women as he articulated his
abstract defense of liberty. So, too, is MacLean's review of the ruthlessness and
narcissism that marked the private and public persona of Buchanan, a review that invites
attention to character affinities between him and Trump. Neither Buchanan, Trump, nor Charles
Koch -- the latter another key figure in the Buchanan story -- thought highly of compromise.
They play a hardball game.
The story starts, really, in Pinochet's Chile, where Buchanan helped that repressive regime
impose economic reforms backed by constitutional changes that would make it next to impossible
to reverse them. They were called them constitutional "locks and bolts". Buchanan never
publicized the extensive role he played with Pinochet in Chile. Nor did he ever express public
regret over its fascism, replete with prohibitions of free speech, practices of torture, and
decrees making it illegal to organize dissident social movements.
Another key epiphany occurred in the 1980s in the States. Reagan's massive tax cuts, which
were promised to spur rapid growth to pay for them, instead created deficits three times larger
than those Jimmy Carter had bequeathed. A public reaction set in as the regime proposed to make
radical cuts in Social Security and Medicare to make up the shortfall. But those plans failed.
After that failure, Buchanan concluded, consonant with advice by Milton Friedman, that such
entrenched programs could only be weakened and dismantled through disinformation campaigns.
Democracy had to be squeezed. Why? The majority of "takers" will never accept open plans to
curtail their benefits to reduce taxes on a minority of "producers". The takers, let's call
them for starters workers, the poor and the elderly, don't even believe in "liberty"--meaning
above all the freedom of entrepreneurs to roam freely in the market. So, you must pretend you
are trying to save the very system you seek to unravel. Talk incessantly about its "crisis".
Divide its supporters into older, retired members, who will retain benefits, and younger ones
who will have them cut. Celebrate the virtues of private retirement accounts. Propose to have
the wealthy be removed from the system, doing all these things until general support for the
social security system weakens and you are free to enact the next steps -- steps not to be
publicized in advance. Once you finally eliminate the system, people's general confidence in
the state will wane more. And new initiatives can be taken -- again in a stealth manner -- with
respect to Medicare, pollution regulations, climate change, unemployment insurance, and
democratic accountability.
Buchanan, to make a long story short, first increasingly bought into disinformation
campaigns and later joined the main financier of his Center at George Mason University, Charles
Koch, to support a series of voter suppression programs, neoliberal court appointees,
anti-labor laws, and intensely funded political campaigns to shift the priorities of the state.
The guiding idea was not only to change the rulers but to change the rules which govern
districting, court jurisprudence, voter access and the like. Liberty is for producers, not
takers, as Milt Romney also said later when he thought he was speaking only to a closeted room
full of producers.
Buchanan's abstract concern for market liberties, and the slanted liberties of association
and speech they carried with them, never brought him to speak of the subjugated conditions of
Blacks, women and other minorities in this society. The reason seems clear: their living
grievances threaten abstract claims about a market system of impersonal rational coordination.
The danger, to him, is mass democracy, which enlarges the power of "the state". When Buchanan
worried about the state he didn't seem to mean Pinochet. He meant democratic processes through
which the state is moved to support a collection of minorities who have been closed out of
equality, participation, and representation. Buchanan, as did his hero Hayek, loved to think in
abstractions, the kind of abstractions that cover up specific modes of suffering, grievance,
and care under shiny terms. As MacLean also notes, Buchanan came to see that neoliberal (and
libertarian) propaganda must aim at men more than women, because, on average, the latter are
less predisposed to such messages.
The Koch/Buchanan alliance, consolidated through an Institute at George Mason University,
soon became a Center to fund movements and generic models of reform on the Right as it informed
American movers and shakers how to create constitutional "locks and bolts" in states and the
federal government to secure desired reforms from dissident majorities once they were pushed
through and their real effects became apparent. A stealth campaign, followed by opposition to
"mob rule". Wisconsin, for instance, became a key laboratory under the regime of Scott Walker,
both enacting draconian policies and pursuing constitutional changes to secure them from future
majorities. To discern the severity of the stealth activities, consider how one of Buchanan's
lieutenants, Charles Rowley, eventually turned against them. He became upset when a new Chair
of the economics department summarily fired all untenured economists to replace them with a
single breed of libertarians. As summarized by MacLean, two things above all dismayed Rowley,
who retained his neoliberal outlook but opposed the stealth practices. "First the sheer scale
of the riches the wealthy individuals brought to bear turned out to have subtle, even seductive
power. And second, under the influence of one wealthy individual, in particular, the movement
was turning to an equally troubling form of coercion: achieving its ends essentially through
trickery, through deceiving people about its real intentions to go to a place which, on their
own given complete information, they would not go." (p. 208) It's like saying "repeal and
replace Obamacare" while planning only to make the first move. And then turn the same trick
again in several other domains. Eventually, Buchanan himself grew wary of Koch, in a setting
where two narcissistic, authoritarian men struggled to control the same Center. The money man
won out. In Rowley's own words Koch, the billionaire donor, "had no scruples concerning the
manipulation of scholarship."
Neoliberalism, its critics know so well, periodically spawns the economic crises its
hubristic devotees promise will not happen. It also works to foster voter suppression,
unlimited dark campaign contributions, extreme gerrymandered districts, take away worker
benefits, appoint judges at state and national levels governed by neoliberal jurisprudence,
treat voter suppression tactics to be needed to eliminate phantom voter fraud, oppose
affirmative action, to weaken labor unions, and attack universal health care.
How many neoliberal Republicans called out Donald Trump, for instance, when he launched his
presidential campaign by pretending insistently for six long years (with absolutely no
evidence) that the first African American President held office illegally. Obama was guilty
until proven innocent, according to that Donald Trump. How many stepped to the plate to
acknowledge galloping climate change in the face of those who have called it a hoax against all
the available evidence? What about the appointment of a judge who lied about his previous
record, had trouble with his drinking and temper, and probably tried to rape a young girl when
they were in high school? What about Trump's constant suggestions that minorities are guilty
until found innocent, punctuated by assertions that men applying for high government positions
and accused of harassment must be treated as innocent unless a court of law finds them guilty.
Quiet whispers from neoliberals of regret and suspicion against Trumpism on these issues, by
the way, do not cut the mustard. Neoliberal stealth tactics and neofascist Big Lies have moved
too close together for comfort.
One thing that emerged out of the long-term two track campaigns of neoliberalism is a
powerful wealth/income concentration machine joined to a series of precarious and suffering
minorities, including so many urban Blacks and poor whites. With labor unions, too, caught in a
squeeze. Donald Trump could then play on the prejudices and insecurities created; he thus found
himself in a position to incite large segments of the white labor and lower middle classes to
return to the old days, while retaining the support of a huge segment of the wealthy, donor
class. The disinformation campaigns of the old neoliberal vanguard can too easily slide into
the Big Lie campaigns Trump pursues in the service of White Triumphalism, intense nationalism,
misogyny, the reduction of critical social movements to mob rule, and militant anti-immigration
campaigns. The long time con man and money launderer has not, then, merely cowed a neoliberal
elite that had pointed in a different direction. He has pulled its stealth campaigns into
channels that most find more palatable than other social visions in circulation.
The memories of Hayek and Friedman in this respect return to haunt us. It need not surprise
us, given MacLean's archival history, that the latest Trump Supreme Court appointee supports
neoliberal policies in the domains of corporate deregulation, medical care, restrictive voter
laws, limits on civil rights, gerrymandering and like while also trumpeting notions of a
sovereign president so dear to the dark heart of Donald Trump -- the aspirational fascist who
conspired with Russia to win an electoral college majority in 2016. We must light a candle for
those noble neoliberals who resist the slide we are witnessing before our very eyes, as we also
keep both eyes open with respect to the wider crossing between neoliberalism and
neofascism.
The old, all so familiar, Hayek story of how socialism and social democracy are always
on the "road to serfdom" is a fairy tale that has not in fact occurred. The transition,
however, from neoliberalism to virulent fascist movements has occurred before and could do so
again. The current fascist electoral campaign rallies by Donald Trump are designed to up
the ante of charges against liberals and the Left by several decibel levels so that people will
temporarily forget all the horrible things he has done and will do if Republicans keep both
houses. They include halting or weakening the Mueller investigation, eliminating transgender
rights, consolidating Trump control over intelligence agencies and the courts, reversing the
remaining shreds of ObamaCare, upscaling attacks on universal voting, weakening the media,
creating horrendous immigration laws, encouraging vigilante drives, and many other things yet.
Drive someone to a voting precinct on election day and give them a copy of the MacLean book a
week before you do. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
"... What sticks in the neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses, and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow! ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
"... when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s, that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs with a veneer of democracy ..."
"... The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior. ..."
"... If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares about them. ..."
"... Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy, but I digress... ..."
"... There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years. ..."
"... I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy. Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove ..."
"... 97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries. ..."
"... The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's Income. ..."
"... To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around 250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with debt. ..."
This private good, public bad is a stupid idea, and a totally artificial divide. After all,
what are "public spends"? It is the money from private individuals, and companies,
clubbing together to get services they can't individually afford.
What sticks in the
neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses,
and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow!
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
"Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won and countless people have gained as a result."
I agree with you and it was this beneficial version of capitalism that brought down the
Iron Curtain. Working people in the former Communist countries were comparing themselves with
working people in the west and wanted a piece of that action. Cuba has hung on because people
there compare themselves with their nearest capitalist neighbor Haiti and they don't want a
piece of that action. North Korea well North Korea is North Korea.
Isn't it this beneficial capitalism that is being threatened now though? When the wall
came down it was assumed that Eastern European countries would become more like us. Some have
but who would have thought that British working people would now be told, by the likes of
Kwasi Kwarteng and his Britannia Unchained chums, that we have to learn to accept working
conditions that are more like those in the Eastern European countries that got left behind
and that we are now told that our version of Capitalism is inferior to the version adopted by
the Communist Party of China?
@bullwinkle - No , when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s,
that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008.
Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs
with a veneer of democracy.
This type of government began in America about 150 years ago with the Rockefellers,
Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Ford etc who took advantage of new inventions, cheap immigrant labour
and financial deregulation in finance and social mores to amass wealth for themselves and
chaos and austerity for workers.
All this looks familiar again today with new and old oligarchs hiding behind large
corporations taking advantage of the invention of the €uro, mass immigration into
western Europe and deregulation of the financial "markets" and social mores to amass wealth
for a super-wealthy elite and chaos and austerity for workers.
So if we want to see where things went wrong we need only go back 150 years to what happened
to America. There we can also see our future?
The beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won
Free education and the NHS are state institutions. As Debbie said, Amazon never taught
anyone to read. Beneficial capitalism is an oxymoron resulting from your lack of
understanding.
especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won and
countless people have gained as a result.
At one and the same time being privatized and having their funding squeezed, a direct
result of the neoliberal dogma capitalism of austerity. Free access is being eroded by the
likes of ever larger student loans and prescription costs for a start.
they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than
governments
Let's not get carried away here. Let's consider some of the things governments can do,
subject only to a 5 yearly check and challenge:
force people upon pain of imprisonment to pay taxes to them
pay out that tax money to whomever they like
spend money they don't have by borrowing against obligations imposed on future taxpayers
without their agreement
kill people in wars, often from the comfort of a computer screen thousands of miles
away
print money and give it to whomever they like,
get rid of nation state currencies and replace them with a single, centrally controlled
currency
make laws and punish people who break them, including the ability to track them down in
most places in the world if they try and run away.
use laws to create monopolies and favour special interests
Let's now consider what power apple have...
- they can make iPhones and try to sell them for a profit by responding to the demands of
the mass consumer market. That's it. In fact, they are forced to do this by their owners who
only want them to do this, and nothing else. If they don't do this they will cease to
exist.
The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good
for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more
shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior.
If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The
government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to
spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster
lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares
about them. Remember, that Green Energy is big business, just like Big Pharma and Big Oil.
Most government shills have personally invested in Green Energy not because they care about
the environment, only because they know that it is a safe investment protected by government
for government. The same goes for large corporations who befriend government and visa
versa.
@NeilThompson - It's all very well for Deborah to recommend that the well paid share work.
Journalists, consultants and other assorted professionals can afford to do so. As a
self-employed tradesman, I'd be homeless within a month.
@SpinningHugo - Interesting that those who are apparently concerned with prosperity for all
and international solidarity are happy to ignore the rest of the world when it's going well,
preferring to prophesy apocalypse when faced with government spending being slightly reduced
at home.
@1nn1t - That is a point which just isn't made enough. This is the first group of politicians
for whom a global conflict seems like a distant event.
As a result we have people like Blair who see nothing wrong with invading countries at a
whim, or conservatives and UKIP who fail to understand the whole point of the European Court
of Human Rights.
They seem to act without thought of our true place in the world, without regard for the
truly terrible capacity humanity has for self destruction.
Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is
somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy,
but I digress...
The main problem with replacing neoliberalism with a more rational, and fairer system,
entails that people like Deborah accept that they will be less wealthy. And that my friends is the main problem. People like Deborah, while they are more than
happy to point the fingers at others, are less than happy to accept that they are also part
of the problem.
(Generalisation Caveat: I don't know in actuality if Deborah would be unhappy to be less
wealthy in exchange for a fairer system, she doesn't say)
Good critique of conservative-neoliberalism, unless you subscribe to it and subordinate any
morals or other values to it.
She mentions an internal tension and I think that's because conservatism and neoliberal
market ideology are different beasts.
There are different models of capitalism quite clearly the social democratic version in
Scandinavia or the "Bismarkian" German version have worked a lot better than the UKs.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign
that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the
problem.
How is it a sign of that? We are offered no clues.
What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the merry days of reckless lending are never
going to return;
Try reading a history of financial crashes to dislodge this idea.
... even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more quickly and more
savagely.
This may or may not be true but here it is mere assertion.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
At this point I start to have real doubts as to whether Deborah Orr has actually read even
the Executive Summary of the Report this article is ostensibly a response to.
All the comments that follow about the need for public infrastructure, education,
regulated markets and so on are made as if they were a criticism of the IMF and yet the IMF
says many of those same things itself. The IMF position may, of course, be contradictory -
but then that is something that would need to be demonstrated. It seems that Deborah has not
got beyond reading a couple of Guardian articles on the issues she discusses and therefore is
in no position to do this.
Efforts are being made to narrow the skills gap with other countries in the region, as
the authorities look to take full advantage of Bangladesh's favorable demographics and help
create conditions for more labor-intensive led growth. The government is also scaling up
spending on education, science and technology, and information and communication
technology.
Which seems to be the sort of thing Deborah Orr is calling for. She should spend a little
time on the IMF website before criticising the institution. It is certainly one that merits
much criticism - but it needs to be informed.
And the solution to the problems? For Deborah Orr the response
... from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? There are certainly no leads on
this in the link given to "the philosopher" John Gray. And what a strange reference that is.
John Gray, in his usual cynical mode, dismisses the idea of progress being achieved by the
EU. But then I suppose that is consistent from a man who dismisses the idea of progress
itself.
... Conservative neoliberalism is entirely without logic.
The first step in serious political analysis is to understand that the people one opposes
are not crazy and are not devoid of logic. If that is not clearly understood then all that is
left is the confrontation of assertion and contrary assertion. Of course Conservative
neoliberalism has a logic. It is one I do not agree with but it is a logic all the same.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this [the need
for public investment and a recognition of the multiple roles that individuals have].
Wrong again.
It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a
market.
And again.
This stuff can't be made up as you go along on the basis of reading a couple of newspaper
articles. You actually have to do some hard reading to get to grip with the issues. I can see
no signs of that in this piece.
@NotAgainAgain - We are going off topic and that is in no small part down to my own fault, so
apologies. Just to pick up the point, I guess my unease with the likes of Buffet, Cooper-Hohn
or even the wealthy Guardian columnists is that they are criticizing the system from a
position of power and wealth.
So its easy to advocate change if you feel that you are in the vanguard of defining that
change i.e. the reforms you advocate may leave you worse off, but at a level you feel
comfortable with (the prime example always being Polly's deeply relaxed attitude to swingeing
income tax increases when her own lifestyle will be protected through wealth).
I guess I am a little skeptical because I either see it as managed decline, a smokescreen
or at worst mean spiritedness of people prepared to accept a reasonable degree of personal
pain if it means other people whom dislike suffer much greater pain.
"There is a clear legal basis in Germany for the workplace representation of employees in
all but the very smallest companies. Under the Works Constitution Act, first passed in 1952
and subsequently amended, most recently in 2001, a works council can be set up in all private
sector workplaces with at least five employees."
The UK needs to wake up to the fact that managers are sometimes inept or corrupt and will
destroy the companies they work for, unless their are adequate mechanisms to hold poor
management to account.
Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won
There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are
socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic
capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years.
I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy
of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain
infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy.
Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove, y'see.
@JamesValencia - Actually on reflection you are correct and I was wrong in my attack on the
author above. Having re-read the article its a critique of institutions rather than people so
my points were wide of the mark.
I still think that well heeled Guardian writers aren't really in a position to attack the
wealthy and politically connected, but I'll save that for a thread when they explicitly do
so, rather than the catch all genie of neoliberalism.
@CaptainGrey - deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20
years. The pure market is a fantasy just as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure
capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed the false
value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed.
If the pure market is a fantasy, how can deregulated capitalism have failed? Does one not
require the other? Surely it is regulated capitalism that has failed?
97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the
banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let
the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries.
The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than
the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's
Income.
@1nn1t - Some good points, there is a whole swathe of low earners that should not be in the
tax system at all, simply letting them keep the money in their pocket would be a start.
Second the minimum wage (especially in the SE) is too low and should be increased.
Obviously the devil is in the detail as to the precise rate, the other issue is non
compliance as there will be any number of businesses that try and get around this, through
employing people too ignorant or scared to know any better or for family businesses - do we
have the stomach to enforce this?
Thirdly there is a widespread reluctance to separate people from the largesse of the
state, even at absurd levels of income such as higher rate payers (witness child tax
credits). On the right they see themselves as having paid in and so are "entitled" to have
something back and on the left it ensures that everyone has a vested interest in a big state
dipping it hands into your pockets one day and giving you something back the next.
@Uncertainty - Which is why the people of the planet need to join hands.
The only group of people in he UK to see that need were the generation that faced WW2
together.
It's no accident that, joining up at 18 in 1939, they had almost all retired by 1984.
To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around
250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to
the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with
debt.
It is entrapment which impoverishes nations into the surrender of sovereignty,
democracy and national pride. In no way should we contribute to such economic immorality and
the entire economic system based on perpetual growth fuelled by consumerism and debt needs
top be denounced and dismantled. The adverse social and environmental consequence of
perpetual growth defies all sensible logic and in time, in a more responsible and enlightened
era, growth will be condemned.
"... 'Neoliberalism' is just a sanitised-sounding expression, to cover-up the fact that what we are really seeing here is re-branded, far-right, corporatist ideology. ..."
"... There is a major dividing line. There are those who recognise the abuses of the system and lobby for changes and there are those who lobby for further exploitation. ..."
"... The West became over-indebted when it embraced globalisation which necessarily impoverishes the Middle and Working Classes of the developed nations. A chap called Jimmy Goldsmith warned of this and was widely condemned for it. There is another issue Guardianistas would rather not confront : you can a welfare state or you can have open borders. But you can't have both. ..."
"... Private enterprise is inefficient because at it's heart it rules out cooperation. Being happiest if it's a monopoly, there's nothing a business would like better than wipe out all competition. ..."
"... Right now, the neoliberals think that those in the Far East are the workers and those in the West are the consumers, until the Far East becomes the market and wages so low in the West that they become the workers, unless of course some kind souls decide to invest money in Education, Health and infrastructure in Africa on a huge scale, so we then have Africa as the workers and the far East as the market, and the West, apart from those who own large numbers of shares or business outright, presumably either starve to death or pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and start all over again, inventing and setting up completely new industries, providing the newly universally educated and healthy Chinese and Africans and South Americans haven't done it first. ..."
"... The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes ..."
"... Except it's not. It is still very much alive and growing. ..."
"... deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20 years. The pure market is a fantasy just as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed the false value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed. ..."
"... "Multinationals need to recognise that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will slowly evaporate." However, the gains for the transnational rich are immediate and enormous, while the failure of their markets is slow and, so far, almost entirely painless. ..."
"... Accountants now hold the whip hand in government and business. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. They advocate selling off industries, outsourcing to low wage economies, zero hours contracts and deregulation (under the bogus campaign line of cutting red tape). ..."
"... Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can , because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... If you invent a set of rules that says a country that deficit spends above an arbitrary percentage of its GDP is horribly inefficient and far too high then it should not be a surprise that when that happens, it is described as such. ..."
"... But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured, law-abiding and financially secure people ..."
"... The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes is gobbling up the last scintilla of surplus that can be extracted from the poor ( anyone not independently wealthy). ..."
'Neoliberalism' is just a sanitised-sounding expression, to cover-up the fact that what we are really seeing here is re-branded,
far-right, corporatist ideology.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini
There is a major dividing line. There are those who recognise the abuses of the system and lobby for changes and there
are those who lobby for further exploitation.
So on the one hand there are relatively rich philanthropists who are quietly supporting campaigns to redistribute wealth and
our abstaining, and on the other you have people arguing for repealing employment legislation.Worst of the lot are people who
pretend to care about the poor but then proceed to fill their own boots.
As consequence people like Warren Buffet should perhaps be among the good guys, whilst people like Tony Blair are the worst
of lot.
All very true. The failures of markets are well documented in economics: the tendency towards monopoly, the failure to value social
goods etc.
In addition, it is ironic that the arch advocates of the 'free market' came begging ( read lobbying) to their governments insisting
upon public financial bailouts for themselves or their counter parties. It was the 'free markets' failure to correctly price 'risk'
that was the route of the economic collapse.
As regards access to 'free markets' it seems patently obvious that if you extract the most money from that market (Amazon et
al), you should contribute a fair share towards the infrastructure of that market: roads, educations, health care etc.
@EllisWyatt - ... we have a real problem with corporations that have a default setting of minimize taxes through ever more
complex structures. It can't be beyond the wit of HMRC to reduce the complexity of the tax legislation and make it harder to
avoid? The prize is continued access to the UK market
We also have the problem that for half the households in the land the level of welfare and benfits rather than wages is the
major determinant of their disposable income and general prosperity.
The welfare code is now comparable in size to the tax code. The tax-benefit affairs of the working poor in the UK are now becoming
as complex as those of the companies that employ them.
The welfare rights industry, which is essentially tax-benefit-lawyering for claimants, is now as large and complex as the tax-lawyering
industry for companies.
It really is insane that we set the minimum wage so low that it attracts income tax, and then attempt to collect tax from the
employing company to fund a tax credit to top up the same low wages that the same company is paying.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is
enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market
Does it? where does it say that? An article which as usual blanket condemns "financial institutions" but actually means banks.
The West became over-indebted when it embraced globalisation which necessarily impoverishes the Middle and Working Classes of
the developed nations. A chap called Jimmy Goldsmith warned of this and was widely condemned for it. There is another issue Guardianistas
would rather not confront : you can a welfare state or you can have open borders. But you can't have both.
Though I'd say private enterprise is capable of building markets - but not of sustaining them. Take books: If few people
know how to read, someone will start a fee paying school to teach those who can pay for it. Then books will take off. And that
will generate money for some, who'll send their kids to school.
However it will always, inevitably, crash at some point: Business can build up, but will always do it in destructuve cycles
- exactly like the brush fires that destroy and regenerate the savannas. As somebright spark once said: Capitalism contains the
seeds of it's own destruction, or something along those lines.
And we don't want to live like that - so we have regulation, and the state.And the state fertilises, and safeguards, by cutting
the grass, making mulch, and spreading the rich gooey muck all over the nice, green, verdant, state controlled pampa.
The cowboys, now, they prefer no cutting of grass, and letting their cattle chomp away undistrurbed. And now my analogy is
starting to wear thin.
The bottom line: Private enterprise is inefficient because at it's heart it rules out cooperation. Being happiest if it's
a monopoly, there's nothing a business would like better than wipe out all competition.
Hence, the necessity for state spending, and state regulation, which the private sector is blind to, because it can't look
ahead.
People are members of families, and are employers and workers, who are customers or clients, and part of
their local communities and professions and trades and hobbyists/clubs who are large scale wholesale consumers who create the
markets that provides employment and income to individuals who are workers. And, and, one big circle.
Right now, the neoliberals think that those in the Far East are the workers and those in the West are the consumers, until
the Far East becomes the market and wages so low in the West that they become the workers, unless of course some kind souls decide
to invest money in Education, Health and infrastructure in Africa on a huge scale, so we then have Africa as the workers and the
far East as the market, and the West, apart from those who own large numbers of shares or business outright, presumably either
starve to death or pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and start all over again, inventing and setting up completely new industries,
providing the newly universally educated and healthy Chinese and Africans and South Americans haven't done it first.
OK. I was against it for a long time, but go ahead. There's no way of avoiding it. Eat the Rich. Apart from the fact that ultra
thin is fashionable, and with all that dieting and exercising, they are the only people who actually get the time for lots of
exercise these days, and they'll taste incredibly tough and stringy.
@CaptainGrey - Ssshhh not on CiF, we all know that capitalism has failed its just that we can't point to a successful alternative
model because such a thing has never existed, its just that this time its different and the model I advocate will lead us all
to the sunny uplands of utopia.
Obviously there will be a little bit of coercion and oppression to get us to those sunny uplands, but you can't make an omlette
etc. plus don't worry that stuff will only happen to "bad people"
The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes
Except it's not. It is still very much alive and growing. The "alternatives" have crashed and burned save Cuba and North
Korea. Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won and countless people have gained
as a result.
@CaptainGrey - deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20 years. The pure market is a fantasy just
as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed
the false value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed.
In the 19th century based on experience the public services became part of the public sector to avoid corruption and corporate
blackmail. The neoclassical revolution of the late 20th century has pushed us back to days when elites regarded the state as their
property. Democracy was a threat which won out either through the British model or violent revolution. A small elite cannot endure
if the majority feel exploited.
The Bilderberg Conference should look to the past and learn from the mistakes committed. Neoclassicism will eventually impoverish
them
@UnevenSurface - Multinationals need to recognise that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will
slowly evaporate.
"Multinationals need to recognise that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will slowly evaporate."
However, the gains for the transnational rich are immediate and enormous, while the failure of their markets is slow and, so far,
almost entirely painless.
@UnevenSurface - I think corporation tax is becoming obsolete given globalization and the increasing dominance of online / global
distribution.
Amazon, Starbucks (and to a lesser extent Google) need to have people on the ground in their market, for customer service,
distribution, warehouse staff, baristas etc. So they'll pay employer taxes etc.
The question is is that enough? I think we are missing a trick with the UK market due to outdated tax legislation that hasn't
really changed in 30 years.
After the US the UK is arguably the most attractive market in the world. Large, homogenous, wealthy with a low propensity to
save and a rapid rate of adoption of new technology / products. We need to think about how we can exploit this in relation to
corporate taxes because even though I am far from left wing, we have a real problem with corporations that have a default setting
of minimise taxes through ever more complex structures.
It can't be beyond the wit of HMRC to reduce the complexity of the tax legislation and make it harder to avoid? The prize is
continued access to the UK market
Accountants now hold the whip hand in government and business. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
They advocate selling off industries, outsourcing to low wage economies, zero hours contracts and deregulation (under the bogus
campaign line of cutting red tape).
All of these policies will ultimately end up with capitalism destroying itself. Low wage stagnation will result in penniless
consumers which results in no growth which results in cuttin wages to maintain shareholder returns which results in penniless
consumers etc etc etc. All our institutions are gradually eroded and life for the average citizen will become more and more unpleasant.
Profit share may be a way forward, it's not perfect, companies can effectively use it to freeze wages and benefit from unpaid
overtime, that creates unemployment as four people working a couple of hours extra ever day are denying someone else a job, but
used in the right way it could ensure people get a share in the wealth they help create.
At the sharp end it's tough, at the
company I worked at, all the managers were summoned to a meeting in September and told they had until Christmas to increase turnover
and profits, or they would be out of a job.
At the same company, one of my managers complained that a successful manager at another branch was a crook. The CEO replied
'Yes, but he's a crook that makes a million pounds in profit every year'. I wonder how Deborah's article would have gone down
with him?
Everything was easier when the U S and Europe ran the world's economies with Bank regulations, currency controls and only the
establishment could avoid income, capital gains and IHT taxes and grow wealthy generation after generation. Today there are simply
too many players in the global arena and the rules have been torn up. We are in a jungle where greed is rife and only the powerful
and corrupt survive, shipping and burying their loot in offshore havens.
We need a new global order with a change of mentality
and more morality among the world's politicians, banking and corporate leaders. Unless we end corruption and exploitation of natural
resources in the poor nations and a fairer distribution of the economic wealth the world faces economic and social collapse
Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't
be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can , because they are more powerful than governments.
Is it beyond the wit of government to close these (perfectly legal) loopholes? Otherwise, what you are asking for is for these
companies to make charitible donations to government - nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not hide behind the misleading
term 'tax avoidance' - companies are obliged to minimise taxes within the law, face it.
It is perfectly clear that in much of the EU public expenditure has been horribly inefficient and far too high
If you invent a set of rules that says a country that deficit spends above an arbitrary percentage of its GDP is horribly
inefficient and far too high then it should not be a surprise that when that happens, it is described as such.
Whether that has any basis in reality or, as I suspect, is only relevant within its own ridiculous framework, is surely the
question.
Deborah Orr is established writer for the Guardian and Married to a Will Self whose is almost certainly a millionaire. She
is one of the rich. The idea that envy is driving her politics is just utterly absurd, and suggests a total lack of reflection.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy,
cultured, law-abiding and financially secure people
Not really; Amazon is just as happy to sell us trashy films, multipacks of chocolate, obesity drugs and baseball bats to stove
our neighbour's head in. There's certainly an argument to be made that companies should have a duty to invest in the infrastructure
that enables their product to be transported, stored etc...but they shouldn't be expected to give a toss if their customers are
unhealthy ignoramuses. A market's a market.
But some countries manage to do this much more efficiently and effectively than others.
In Europe it would appear to be the Social Democratic Nordic countries and Germany which has very strong employment rights.
Korea's economic growth was based on government investment and a degree of protectionism. These are precisely the ideas that neoliberalism
opposes.
If they had adopted The Keynes Plan at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference then the IMF and the World Bank would never have been
set up. We most likely would not have had the euro crisis and the problem of trade imbalances between counties would most likely
have gone away.
Now that is what I call 'Keynesian'. Feel free to continue to make up your own definitions though.
Socialism for the 1% with the rest scraping around for the crumbs in an ever more divided world run by The Bilderbergers who play
the politicians like puppets.
@emkayoh - I am not sure its in its death throes, I think what we are seeing is capitalism attempting to transform itself again.
The success of that transformation will depend on how willing people across the western world to put up with reduced welfare,
poverty pay and almost no employment rights. If we say no and make things too hot for the ruling class we have a chance to take
control of the future direction of our world, if not then what's the point.
This is a strange rant. Everyone agrees that free markets need to be nurtured by appropriate state institutions. But some countries
manage to do this much more efficiently and effectively than others. It is perfectly clear that in much of the EU public expenditure
has been horribly inefficient and far too high.
There is no contradiction between being in favour of free markets and believing that markets and societies should be nurtured
appropriately. We think people should be free and all accept that they should be nurtured.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"?
Corporate taxation is best explained as the license that business pays to access the market -- which is in turn created through
the schools, hospitals, roads, etc. that the tax pays for. Unfortunately the new Corporate Social Irresponsibility being acted
out by multinationals today neatly avoids paying that license, and sooner or later will damage them. Multinationals need to recognize
that paying tax is an investment. Without that tax, their markets will slowly evaporate.
The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes is gobbling up the last scintilla of surplus that can be extracted
from the poor ( anyone not independently wealthy).
"... Socialism for the 1% with the rest scraping around for the crumbs ..."
"... Don't you think a global recession and massive banking collapse should be classified as 'crash and burn'? ..."
"... It's one of the major contradictions of modern conservatism that the raw, winner-takes-all version of capitalism it champions actually undermines the sort of law abiding, settled communities it sees as the societal ideal. ..."
"... Rich people have benefited from this more than most: they need workers trained by a state-funded education system and kept healthy by a state-funded healthcare system; they depend on lending from banks rescued by the taxpayer; they rely on state-funded infrastructure and research, and – like all of us – on a society that does not collapse. Whether they like it or not, they would not have made their fortunes without the state spending billions of pounds ..."
"... You have to be careful when you take on the banksters. Abe Lincoln John Kennedy and Hitler all tried or (in Kennedy's case planned) on the issuance of money via the state circumventing the banks. All came to a sticky end. No wonder politicians run scared of them. ..."
"... Now, that's a novel interpretation! The working people in "Communist" countries had free healthcare and education, guaranteed employment and heavily subsidized housing. The reason we have healtcare and free education is that working people in Capitalist countries would otherwise have revolted to have Socialism. In the absence of competition, there is no benefit for the Capitalist to be "beneficial". ..."
"... The banks could plainly see that they were stoking a bubble, but chose not to pass on the increased risk of lending to consumers by raising their interest rates and coolling the market. Why? Because they were making a handsome short-term profit. The banks put their own short-term interests above their long-term interests of financial stability. When the house of cards came tumbling down - we bailed them out. It was idiotic banks who failed to properly control their risk of lending that caused the crash, not interventionist politicians. ..."
Virtually everyone knows what went wrong, with the exception only of uncontrollable
ultra-right neoliberal buffs who try and put the blame on everyone else with various out and
out lies and deceptions, and they are thankfully petering and dying out by the day, including
deluded contributors to CiF, who seem to be positively and cruelly reveling in the suffering
their beloved thesis has and is causing.
So, now that we know the symptoms, what about the cure? The coalition want to make the poor
and vulnerable suffer even more than they have done over the last three decades or so while
still refusing to clamp down and wholly regulate the bankers, corporates and free markets, who
still hold too much power like the unions in the 70's,while Ed Miliband and 'One Nation
Labour' merely suggest in mild, diffident terms about financial regulation and a more balanced
economy, while still not wanting to upset those nice bankers too much.
It's time they were
upset though, and made to pay for their errors and recklessness; while they still award
themselves bonuses and take advantage of Gideon's recent tax cut, the poor and vulnerable who
were never responsible for the long recession now have money taken off them and struggle to
feed, pay bills and clothe themselves and their families, supported by the Daily Fail and co.
who look on them as scrounging, lazy, criminal, violent, drunken, drug addicted and promiscuous
sub-humans, who deserve their fate.
There's quite a few in the middle/professional classes
(many bankers) if they didn't know, but they don't bother with such, do they?
The economic model we have is bankrupt and in its death throes
I am not sure if this is true. We have the same economic system (broadly speaking,
capitalism) as nearly every country in the world, and the world economy is growing at a
reasonable rate, at around 3-4% for 2013-14 (see http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/c1.pdf
for more details).
We perceive a problem in (most of) Europe and North America because our economies are
growing more slowly than this, and in some cases not at all. The global growth figure comes
out healthy because of strong growth in the emerging countries, like China, Brazil and India,
who are narrowing the gap between their living standards and ours. So, the world as a whole
isn't broken, even if our bit of it is going through a rough patch.
This is pertinant to a discussion of Deborah Orr's article, because in it she calls for
global changes:
The response from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in
which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as the
philosopher John Gray has said all along.
My point is: I don't think this argument will work, because I don't see why the emerging
countries would want wholesale change to what, for them, is quite a successful recipe, just
because it going down badly in Europe. Instead, European countries need to do whatever it
takes to fix their banking systems; but also learn to live within their means, and show some
more of the discipline and enterprise that made them wealthy in the first place.
@Uncertainty - I`m not defending philanthropy, i am saying in answer to some personal attacks
on Miss Orr below the line, that her status as either rich or poor is irrelevant, it is her
politics that count .
Tony Benn and Polly Toynbee both receive much abuse in this manner on Cif.
@kingcreosote - Socialism for the 1% with the rest scraping around for the crumbs
And yet the rest have more crumbs than under any other conceivable system. Look
at the difference that even limited market liberalisation has made to poverty in China. No loaf, no crumbs. You can always throw the loaf out of the window if you don't like the
inequality and then no-one can have anything.
@jazzdrum - I don't have much time for those rich who feel guilty about their greed and do
'charity' to salve their souls. Oh and get a Knighthood as a result.
The more honest giver is the person who gives of what little they have in their purse and
go without as a result. Not a tax dodge re-branded as philanthropy.
Also, such giving from the rich often has strings and may be tailored to what they think
are the 'deserving poor'. I don't like that either.
@Herbolzheim - It's one of the major contradictions of modern conservatism that the raw,
winner-takes-all version of capitalism it champions actually undermines the sort of law
abiding, settled communities it sees as the societal ideal.
More and more people are beginning to understand this as a fundamentally political problem (
ref. @XerXes1369). The 'left' prefers to concentrate on the role of a financial elite (which
is supposed to be exerting some kind of malign supernatural force on the state), to divert
attention from what mainstream 'left' poltics in this society has turned out to be.
When the state is taking over 60% of the income of even those on minimum wages we se
how, from the very top to the very bottom, that the state is the problem.
It's become a monster that will destroy us all.
I would query where you get these figures from, but where it not for the state, do you really
think that somebody on the minimum wage, keeping 100% of their wages, would be able to
afford, out of these wages, health care, schooling for their children, infrastructure
maintenance, their own police force and army, their own legal system?
This from an article in the Independent:
Rich people have benefited from this more than most: they need workers trained by a
state-funded education system and kept healthy by a state-funded healthcare system; they
depend on lending from banks rescued by the taxpayer; they rely on state-funded
infrastructure and research, and – like all of us – on a society that does not
collapse. Whether they like it or not, they would not have made their fortunes without the
state spending billions of pounds.
So the state, although not perfect benefit all of us, get over it!
You have to be careful when you take on the banksters.
Abe Lincoln John Kennedy and Hitler all tried or (in Kennedy's case planned) on the
issuance of money via the state circumventing the banks. All came to a sticky end. No wonder politicians run scared of them.
Free education and the NHS are state institutions. As Debbie said, Amazon never taught
anyone to read. Beneficial capitalism is an oxymoron resulting from your lack of
understanding.
Yes they are state institutions and the tax system should be changed to prevent
Amazon et al from avoiding paying their fair share. But beneficial capitalism is not an
oxymoron, it is alive and present in virtually every corner of the world. Rather than accuse
me of not understanding, I think you would do well to take the beam out of your eye.
I agree with you and it was this beneficial version of capitalism that brought down the
Iron Curtain. Working people in the former Communist countries were comparing themselves
with working people in the west and wanted a piece of that action.
Now, that's a novel interpretation! The working people in "Communist" countries had free
healthcare and education, guaranteed employment and heavily subsidized housing. The reason we have healtcare and free education is that working people in Capitalist
countries would otherwise have revolted to have Socialism. In the absence of competition, there is no benefit for the Capitalist to be
"beneficial".
The banks couldn't stop property hyperinflation, at 20% a year for well over a
decade.
The banks could plainly see that they were stoking a bubble, but chose not to pass on the
increased risk of lending to consumers by raising their interest rates and coolling the
market. Why? Because they were making a handsome short-term profit. The banks put their own
short-term interests above their long-term interests of financial stability. When the house
of cards came tumbling down - we bailed them out. It was idiotic banks who failed to properly
control their risk of lending that caused the crash, not interventionist politicians.
Last week there was a story where HSBC have taken on a senior ex-MI5 person to shore up
their money laundering 'problems'. They're being fined over a billion dollars by the fed
for taking blood money from murderers, drug dealers and corrupt politicians.
Not the Security Services' Director General by any chance?
-- In a filing to the Bermuda Stock Exchange ("BSX"), HSBC Holdings plc (Ticker:
HSBC.BH), announced the appointment of Sir Jonathan Evans to the Board of Directors.
The filing stated:
Sir Jonathan Evans (55) has been appointed a Director of HSBC Holdings plc with effect
from 6 August 2013. He will be an independent non-executive Director and a member of the
Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee.
Sir Jonathan's career in the Security Service spanned 33 years, the last six of which as
Director General. During his career Sir Jonathan's experience included counter-espionage,
protection of classified information and the security of critical national infrastructure.
His main focus was, however, counter-terrorism, both international and domestic including,
increasingly, initiatives against cyber threats. As Director General he was a senior
advisor to the UK government on national security policy and attended the National Security
Council.
He was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2013 New Year's
Honours List and retired from the Service in April 2013.
I think there's some really good points in the article.
Last week there was a story where HSBC have taken on a senior ex-MI5 person to shore up
their money laundering 'problems'. They're being fined over a billion dollars by the fed for
taking blood money from murderers, drug dealers and corrupt politicians.
Their annual fee for this guy with 20 years experience to tackle a billion dollar fine and
the disfunction in their organisation? A lousy 100 k. Fee to UK for training him? 0.
Ridiculous! It should have been 10 times that for him and a finders fee of perhaps 10
million to the state.
Realistically, the state has NO clue about it's real value, or the real value of the UK
population. And the example above, I think, demonstrates banks' attitude to the global demand
that they clean up their act. We neef to take this lot to the cleaners before the stench gets
any worse.
One month to the day after President Kennedy's assassination, the Washington Post published
an article by former president Harry Truman.
I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our
Central Intelligence Agency -- CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason
why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected
it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
Truman had envisioned the CIA as an impartial information and intelligence collector from
"every available source."
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting
conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to
established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such
intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all
intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as
President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a
volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about
this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead
the President into unwise decisions -- and I thought it was necessary that the President do
his own thinking and evaluating.
Truman found, to his dismay, that the CIA had ranged far afield.
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive
areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into
peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we
have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the
President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol
of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue -- and a subject for cold war enemy
propaganda.
The article appeared in the Washington Post's morning edition, but not the evening
edition.
Truman reveals two naive assumptions. He thought a government agency could be apolitical and
objective. Further, he believed the CIA's role could be limited to information gathering and
analysis, eschewing "cloak and dagger operations." The timing and tone of the letter may have
been hints that Truman thought the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. If he did, he
also realized an ex-president couldn't state his suspicions without troublesome
consequences.
Even the man who signed the CIA into law had to stay in the shadows, the CIA's preferred
operating venue. The CIA had become the exact opposite of what Truman envisioned and what its
enabling legislation specified. Within a few years after its inauguration in 1947, it was
neck-deep in global cloak and dagger and pushing agenda-driven, slanted information and
outright disinformation not just within the government, but through the media to the American
people.
The CIA lies with astonishing proficiency. It has made an art form of "plausible
deniability." Like glimpsing an octopus in murky waters, you know it's there, but it shoots
enough black ink to obscure its movements. Murk and black ink make it impossible for anyone on
the outside to determine exactly what it does or has done. Insiders, even the director, are
often kept in the dark.
For those on the trail of CIA and the other intelligence agencies' lies and skullduggery,
the agencies give ground glacially and only when they have to. What concessions they make often
embody multiple layers of back-up lies. It can take years for an official admission -- the CIA
didn't officially confess its involvement in the 1953 coup that deposed Iranian leader Mohammad
Mosaddeq until 2013 -- and even then details are usually not forthcoming. Many of the so-called
exposés of the intelligence agencies are in effect spook-written for propaganda or
damage control.
The intelligence agencies monitor virtually everything we do. They have tentacles reaching
into every aspect of contemporary society, exercising control in pervasive but mostly unknown
ways. Yet, every so often some idiot writes an op-ed or bloviates on TV, bemoaning the lack of
trust the majority of Americans have in "their" government and wondering why. The wonder is
that anyone still trusts the government.
The intelligence agency fog both obscures and corrodes. An ever increasing number of
Americans believe that a shadowy Deep State pulls the strings. Most major stories since World
War II -- Korea, Vietnam, Kennedy's assassination, foreign coups, the 1960s student unrest,
civil rights agitation, and civic disorder, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 9/11, domestic
surveillance, and many more -- have intelligence angles. However, determining what those angles
are plunges you into the miasma perpetuated by the agencies and their media accomplices.
The intelligence agencies and captive media's secrecy, disinformation, and lies make it
futile to mount a straightforward attack against them. It's like attacking a citadel surrounded
by swamps and bogs that afford no footing, making advance impossible. Their deadliest operation
has been against the truth. In a political forum, how does one challenge an adversary who
controls most of the information necessary to discredit, and ultimately reform or eliminate
that adversary?
You don't fight where your opponent wants you to fight. What the intelligence apparatus
fears most is a battle of ideas. Intelligence, the military, and the reserve currency are
essential component of the US's confederated global empire. During the 2016 campaign, Donald
Trump questioned a few empire totems and incurred the intelligence leadership's wrath,
demonstrating how sensitive and vulnerable they are on this front. The transparent flimsiness
of their Russiagate concoction further illustrates the befuddlement. Questions are out in the
open and are usually based on facts within the public domain. They move the battle from the
murk to the light, unfamiliar and unwelcome terrain.
The US government, like Oceania, switches enemies as necessary. That validates military and
intelligence; lasting peace would be intolerable. After World War II the enemy was the USSR and
communism, which persisted until the Soviet collapse in 1991. The 9/11 tragedy offered up a new
enemy, Islamic terrorism.
Seventeen years later, after a disastrous run of US interventions in the Middle East and
Northern Africa and the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian
government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear that Islamic terrorism is no longer a
threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets . For
all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating
terrorist strikes or defeating them in counterinsurgency warfare
So switch the enemy again, now it's Russia and China. The best insight the intelligence
community could offer about those two is that they've grown stronger by doing the opposite of
the US. For the most part they've stayed in their own neighborhoods. They accept that they're
constituents, albeit important ones, of a multipolar global order. Although they'll use big
sticks to protect their interests, carrots like the Belt and Road Initiative further their
influence much better than the US's bullets and bombs.
If the intelligence complex truly cared about the country, they might go public with the
observation that the empire is going broke. However, raising awareness of this dire threat --
as opposed to standard intelligence bogeymen -- might prompt reexamination of intelligence and
military budgets and the foreign policy that supports them. Insolvency will strangle the US's
exorbitantly expensive interventionism. It will be the first real curb on the intelligence
complex since World War II, but don't except any proactive measures beforehand from those
charged with foreseeing the future.
Conspiracy theories, a term popularized by the CIA to denigrate Warren Commission skeptics,
are often proved correct. However, trying to determine the truth behind intelligence agency
conspiracies is a time and energy-consuming task, usually producing much frustration and little
illumination. Instead,
as Caitlin Johnstone recently observed , we're better off fighting on moral and
philosophical grounds the intelligence complex and the rest of the government's depredations
that are in plain sight.
Attack the intellectual foundations of empire and you attack the whole rickety edifice,
including intelligence, that supports it. Tell the truth and you threaten those who deal in
lies . Champion sanity and logic and you challenge the insane irrationality of the powers that
be. They are daunting tasks, but less daunting than trying to excavate and clean the
intelligence sewer.
I sometimes wonder whether the Bond films are a psy-op.
I mean, the 'hero' is a psycho-killer ... the premise of the films is 'any means to an
end' ... they promote the ridiculous idea that you can be 'licensed to kill', and it's no
longer murder ... and they build a strong association between the State and glamour.
Bond makes a virtue out of 'following orders', when in reality, it's a Sin.
Can't remember which Section of MI6 Ian Fleming (novelist 007.5) worked but he came into
contact with my Hero, the best double-agent Cambridge, maybe World, has Ever produced, Kim
Philby. Fleming was a lightweight compared to him and was most likely provided the Funds, by
MI6 to titillate the Masses, spread the Word of Deep State.
The article makes many good points but still falls into use of distorting bs language.
For example, "after a disastrous run of US interventions" - well, they stole Libya's
wealth and destroyed the country: mission accomplished; that's what they were trying to do.
It was not an ""intervention", it was a f***ing war of aggression based on lies.
Well the good news is that folks now know there is deep State, shadow govt, puppet
masters, fake news MSM mockingbird programming, satanic "musik/ pop" promoters, etc.
Not everyone knows but more know, and some are now questioning the Matrix sensations they
have. That they have not been told the Truth.
Eventually humanity will awaken and get on track, how long it will take is unknown.
The CIA is a symptom of the problem but not the whole problem. Primarily it is the
deception that it sows, the confusion and false conclusions that the easily led fill their
heads with.
Now that you know there are bad guys out there...
Find someone to love, even if it is a puppy or a guppy. Simplify your needs, and commit
small acts of kindness on a regular basis. The World will heal, it may be a rocky
convalescence, yet Good triumphs in the end.
Like bolshevism this secular regions is to a large extent is a denial of Christianity. While Bolshevism is closer to the Islam,
Neoliberalism is closer to Judaism.
The idea of " Homo economicus " -- a person who in all
his decisions is governed by self-interest and greed is bunk.
Notable quotes:
"... There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice. ..."
"... In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility down, just like it does here. ..."
"... We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good at it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. ..."
"... It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
Unless you are completely confused by what neoliberalism is there is not a shred of logical sense in this.
There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism
is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice.
In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable
are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism.
Savers in a neoliberal society are lambs to the slaughter. Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and
died.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not. Neoliberalist policies have lifted
millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South America.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like
everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility
down, just like it does here.
I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from, massive state intervention in markets
(QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality,
and makes the announcement from a tractor factory.
Neoliberalism is a blight... a cancer on humanity... a massive lie told by rich people and believed only by peasants happy
to be thrown a turnip. In theory it's one thing, the reality is entirely different. Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves.
It's an abhorrent cult that comes up with purest bilge like expansionary fiscal contraction to keep all the money in the hands
of the rich.
Why, you have to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests
the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good
at it.
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers.
It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
"... Have you been watching the news over the past few weeks where the clowns who supposedly represent us at Westminster were offering to take cash in brown envelopes for privileged access to the political system? ..."
"... Now we have the Prime Minister attending the Bilderberg Group meeting without any officials or Civil Servants to record what is going on. I suppose he needs to attend to get instructions from his bosses on how he must run his 'democracy'! ..."
Democracy = a political system in which citizens have an equal say in the decisions that
affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally -- either
directly or through elected representatives -- in the proposal, development, and creation
of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and
equal practice of political self-determination. Do we have this in the UK at the moment
bearing in mind recent events (brown envelopes and Bilderberg Group to name but two)?
Does any country have this? With all due respect it is just words and sentiment. In my
previous comment I said that No i didnt think we had true democracy and I dont think it (if
there is such a thing) is achievable, not everyone would be satisfied it would be true
democracy thus its legitimacy would be called into question.
In my mind its a bit like saying the best thing would be a "benevolent, incorruptible,
sensible dictator", its a fantasy.
Politicians who are found to be on the take or are fiddling the public purse should be
dismissed immediately and a by election called. Would stop it happening as much as I am
sure we are only seeing the 'tip of the iceberg'.
Agreed and they should always be innocent until proven guilty and if found guilty of abuse
of office they should be barred from public office indefinitely in my mind, as long as they
break the law, not fudge the rules or whatever, which is also part of the problem. Hazel
Blears and countless others was re-elected despite being reviled in the media as an expenses
cheat.
So I assume you are happy for our PM to attend a secret meeting where nothing is ever
released to the media or press about what is going on or discussed?
I am neither happy nor unhappy, it is a private event that the PM is invited to by a
steering committee, I imagine the idea being they can discuss candidly without official airs,
graces, platitudes and politician speak for a while, it doesnt particularly concern me.
@LetsGetCynical - Democracy = a political system in which citizens have an equal say in the
decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally
-- either directly or through elected representatives -- in the proposal, development, and
creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the
free and equal practice of political self-determination. Do we have this in the UK at the
moment bearing in mind recent events (brown envelopes and Bilderberg Group to name but two)?
Politicians who are found to be on the take or are fiddling the public purse should be
dismissed immediately and a by election called. Would stop it happening as much as I am sure
we are only seeing the 'tip of the iceberg'.
So I assume you are happy for our PM to attend a secret meeting where nothing is ever
released to the media or press about what is going on or discussed?
No, but then again what is a "true democracy"? Agreed they are bunch of clowns but then
again who are the clowns that repeatedly vote for the same party regardless of what they say
or do?
where the clowns who supposedly represent us at Westminster were offering to take cash
in brown envelopes
Corruption is about as old as humanity itself, no "true democracy" will ever remove the
human element and all the pros and cons that entails.
Now we have the Prime Minister attending the Bilderberg Group meeting without any
officials or Civil Servants to record what is going on. I suppose he needs to attend to get
instructions from his bosses on how he must run his 'democracy'!
Whether or not you argee or disagree with the conference, it is by invite only, they don't
have to invite civil servants or journalists if they don't want to. And it does contain very
powerful people, why would the PM not attend?
attend to get instructions from his bosses
I take it the waiters are under permanent surveillance in order to ensure they don't
reveal the dastardly secrets about what Eric Schmidt "tells" Cameron to do? A bit fanciful in
my opinion.
@LetsGetCynical - Do you really believe that we live in a true democracy? Have you been
watching the news over the past few weeks where the clowns who supposedly represent us at
Westminster were offering to take cash in brown envelopes for privileged access to the
political system?
Now we have the Prime Minister attending the Bilderberg Group meeting
without any officials or Civil Servants to record what is going on. I suppose he needs to
attend to get instructions from his bosses on how he must run his 'democracy'!
How many alternative economic systems would you say have been given a fair trial under
reasonably favorable circumstances?
A good question. Answer: admittedly, not a huge number - but not none either. Feudalism
held sway in the middle ages and mercantilism in the 18th century, before both fell out of
fashion. In the 20th century Russia stuck with communism for 74 years, and many other
countries tried it for a while. At one time (around 1949-89) there were enough countries in
the communist block for us to be able to say that they at least had a fair chance to make it
work - that is, if it didn't work, they can't really blame it on the rest of the world
ganging up on them.
Lately, serious challengers to the global economic order have been more isolated
(Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea?) - so maybe you could argue that, if they are struggling, it is
because they have been unfairly ganged up on. But then again, aren't they pursuing a
version of socialism that has close affinities to that tried in the Soviet Union?
The problem with giving any novel political idea a really extended trial is that you have
to try it out on live human beings. This means that, once a critical mass of data has built
up that indicates a political idea doesn't work out as hoped, then people inevitably lose the
will to try that idea again.
So my question is: are critics of the current world economic order able to spell out
exactly how their proposed alternative would differ from Soviet-style socialism?
I'd tend to agree with you but in that case it's not an ideology, merely
pragmatism. The convergence of the parties merely reflects the wider consensus in society.
The alternative is simple but people have become so wedded to the libertarian parts of
liberal democracy that it will be some time before they are ready to contemplate the
alternative, a return to the Judaeo/Christian version of human rights - an absolute right to
God who made us, to the truth, to life, to a natural family, and to own the means of earning
a living - to which all should be entitled and all should be held to account.
These are rights that any sensible person will tell you that we should be entitled to but
believe it or not they are anathema to liberal democracy which is based on exploiting the
selfishness of the individual to the detriment of the common good and the good of society at
large.
This post is a variant of "fake prosperity" -- yet another neoliberal myth. Also known as
"rising tidelift all boats"
The improvement of the standard of living in 90th was mainly due to economic plunder of xUSSR
and Eastern Europe as well as well as communication revolution happening simultaneously. The
period from 1990 to 2000 is known as "Triumphal March of Neoliberalism". Aftger year 200
neoliberalism went into recession and in 2008 in deep crisis. The neoliberal ideology was dead by
2008.
Indeed. That was in the time of feudalism and mercantilism.
No, it was as recently as WW2 more or less. After that it followed a confusing
period where social and political freedoms darted ahead up to the '80s when the economic
freedoms started being championed by the right: Thatcher, Reagan, etc.
That saw a liberalisation of trade and an explosive growth in international trade with
huge benefits for the whole world: developing countries like the Asian dragons have seen
their standards of living skyrocket and practically they can't get up with the developed
countries in one generation. China, and India to an extent, is following on that path with
pretty good results.
As the same time the developed countries saw a huge improvement in their standard of
living with products and services available at incredible prices. Even the countries that did
not get on this yet are benefiting and the fact that starvation in the world is less of a
problem is the proof of that for example.
The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created
and distributed around the globe
But we know already how that is done: voluntary transactions among free agents.
That's called a free market and it is by far the most efficient way to produce wealth
humanity has ever known. Sure, we tried other methods (slavery, forced labour, communal
entities, government controlled economies, tribal economies, etc.) but nothing worked as well
as free markets.
The calls for governments' intervention in the economy is misguided and counterproductive.
They already extract about 50% of all wealth created in this country. That's way too much
since most of the money taken by governments is money diverted from productive use.
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That included
support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and free
investments.
Indeed. That was in the time of feudalism and mercantilism.
I take this opportunity to draw everyone's attention to a Finnish theorist and proponent
of liberal economical and political thinking, whose treatise on liberal national economy
preceded Adam Smith by 11 years: Anders Chydenius (1729-1803).
Margaret Thatcher left office 23 years ago. The de-regulation of the City occurred in
1986, 27 years ago. Since then UK GDP has more than doubled, inflation and unemployment are
far lower, and the numbers living in extreme poverty have fallen dramatically.
This is an attractive but idealistinc notion, because the person destiny often is shaped by
forces beyond his control. Like Great Depression or WWII. The proper idea is that the society as
a whole serves as a "social security" mechanism to prevent worst outcomes. At the same time
neoliberalism accept bailout for financial sector and even demand them for goverment.
@dmckm - Nobody is owed a good living in this world. That's what freedom means: one is free
to chose the best way to make a living. Are you saying that by forcing people to pay you
something they don't want to is freedom?
No market is 'Free'. Free markets do not exist. Markets are there for those with a vested
interest. i.e. the banksters. Note the growth of Hedge funds or slush funds for the rich.
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism is based on brainwashing and propaganda. In this case by
bought by financial elite and controlled by intelligence agencies MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far. ..."
"... The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. ..."
"... A free market larger than a boot fair has never existed. A market can never have power, it's just a market after all. It's the people in the market that have power... or some of them... the few... have it disproportionately compared to others, and straight away the market isn't free. ..."
"... It's only even approximately free when properly regulated, but that's anathema to market fundamentalists so they end up with a market run for the benefit of vested interests that they will claim is "free" until their dying breath. ..."
"... Power belongs with democratically elected governments, not people in markets responsible only to themselves. Amazing that people still think as you do after all that's happened. ..."
@taxhaven - I love this "free markets" expression, but can we really have free markets please
then? This means that no taxpayer money is to be spent to bail out the capitalist bankers
when things so sour.
It also means that there is completely free movement of labor so I as an employer should
be able to hire anyone I like for your job and pay the wage that the replacement is willing
to take i.e. tough luck to you if the person is more qualified and is willing to work for
less but does not have the work visa because in free markets there will be no such things as
work permits.
Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom
Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi
armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections]
into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and
me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that
far.
The same names come up time and time again. One of them being, father of propaganda,
Edward Bernays.
Bernays wrote what can be seen as a virtual Mission Statement for anyone wishing to bring
about a "counterculture." In the opening paragraph of his book Propaganda he wrote:
".. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions
of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a
smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere
of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social
patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind..."[28]
Bernays' family background made him well suited to "control the public mind." He was the
double nephew of psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Freud's sister Anna,
and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha Bernays.
about being permitted to engage in voluntary exchange of goods and services with others,
unmolested.
And if we ever had that, would it make the ideal society?
A free market larger than a boot fair has never existed. A market can never have power,
it's just a market after all. It's the people in the market that have power... or some of
them... the few... have it disproportionately compared to others, and straight away the
market isn't free.
It's only even approximately free when properly regulated, but that's
anathema to market fundamentalists so they end up with a market run for the benefit of vested
interests that they will claim is "free" until their dying breath.
Power belongs with democratically elected governments, not people in markets responsible
only to themselves. Amazing that people still think as you do after all that's happened.
@MysticFish - If these are completely different things, why has the austerity-stricken
tax-payer been co-opted into paying for events like Thatcher's funeral
How is that corporatism?
Bilderberg policing,
How is that corporatism?
corporate funded think-tanks are having their non-mandated corporatist policies
prioritized over government election pledges on policy?
Neo-liberalism and fascist corporatism are completely different things.
If these are completely different things, why has the austerity-stricken tax-payer been
co-opted into paying for events like Thatcher's funeral and Bilderberg policing, and why is
it that corporate funded think-tanks are having their non-mandated corporatist policies
prioritised over government election pledges on policy?
In reality this is mostly neocolonial way of dealing with countries. Allowing local oligarchy
to steal as much loaned by foreign states money as they can and converting the country into the
debt slave. Look at Greece and Ukraine for two prominent examples.
The position of OneCommentator is a typical position of defenders and propagandists
of neoliberalism
IMF is part of "Washington Consensus" with the direct goal of converting countries into debt slaves of industrialized
West. It did not work well with Acia counties, but it is great success in some countries in Europe and most of Africa and Latin
America (with Argentina as the most recent example)
Notable quotes:
"... As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well! ..."
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom..
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That
included support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and
free investments. It used to be that liberals were practically unpopular with right wing
(traditional conservative for example) parties but more or less on the same side as left wing
parties, mainly because of their social positions. More recently the left wing parties became
more and more unhappy with the economic freedoms promoted by liberals while the right wing
parties embraced both the economic and social freedoms to a certain degree.
So, the leftists
found themselves in a bind practically having reversed roles which the the conservatives as
far as support for liberalism goes. So, typically, they're using propaganda to cover their
current reactionary tendencies and coins a new name for liberals: neoliberals which, they
say, are not the same as liberals (who are their friends since liberal means freedom lover
and they like to use that word a lot).
"austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it.
Austerity is caused by incompetent governments unable to balance their budgets.
They had 60 years to do it properly after ww2 and the reconstruction that followed but many
of them never did it. So now it is very simple: governments ran out of money and nobody wants
to lend them more. That's it, they hit the wall and there is nothing left on the bottom if
the purse.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Developed countries like Greece are supposed to run
more or less balanced budgets over longer periods. Sure, they need to borrow money on a
regular basis and may that is supposed to be done by issuing bonds or other forms of
government debt that investors buy on the open market. For such governments the IMF is
supposed to just fill in in a minor way not to provide the bulk of all the loans needed on a
temporary basis. Because of incompetent governments Greece is practically bankrupt hence it
is not going to be able to pay back most of the existing debts and definitely not newer
debts. So practically the IMF is not, ending money to them, it is giving them the money. So,
I would say that they have a good reason to wag its finger.
If private, stockholder-held central banks such as the FED and the FED-backed ECB were not
orchestrating this depression, and anybody who believed they were was a "wacko-nutcase
conspiracy theorist", then why do they keep repeating the same mistakes of forcing un-payable
bailout loans, collapsing banks, wiping out people's savings and then imposing austerity on
those nations year after year – when it is clearly a failed policy?
Possible Answers :
1. Bank presidents are all ex-hippies who got hooked on LSD in the 70's and have not yet
recovered fully as their brains are still fried!
2. Central bankers have been recruited from insane asylums in both Europe and America in
government-sponsored programs to see whether blithering idiots are capable of running large,
international financial institutions.
3. All catastrophic events in the banking/business world, such as the derivative and
housing crash of 2008, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression of 1929-40
were totally random events that just occurred out of nowhere and central banks were caught
off guard – leaving them no option but to play with their willies for years on end
until a major war suddenly happened to pull the whole world out of "bad times"!
4. As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot
be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters
having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so
as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums
and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while
possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well!
Please choose one of the possible answers from above and write a short 500 word essay on
whether it may or may not true – using well-defined logical arguments. I expect your
answers in by Friday of this week as I would like to get pissed out of my mind at the pub on
Saturday night!
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
@outragedofacton - You have to be careful when you take on the banksters.
Abe Lincoln, John Kennedy and Hitler all tried or (in Kennedy's case planned) on the
issuance of money via the state circumventing the banks.
I hadn't realised the John WIlkes Booth and Lee Harey Oswald were bankers.
But I do always enjoy the scenes in Saving Private Ryan when thousands of
heavily-armed Goldman Sachs employees land on Omaha beach.
Still it is surprising that they have gone so quickly from their stated position at the
start of the republic of a rejection of kings and emperors to their position now of
corruption so ingrained it is impossible to make distinctions.
Too right, I've spat my tea every time I hear some non-Brit brag of their
freedom from royal tyranny. They are blissfully unaware they have created/inherited such in
all but name. Fat Cat Bastard or Henry the Eighth, try to spot the difference in style or
attitude.
"What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific
example of a story he broke after doing that?"
Our Men in Iran?
"We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the
D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada," a former senior American intelligence
official told me. ... In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised
the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been
privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in
Nevada
His conversations with Lieutenant Calley are apparently what allowed him to break the My
Lai massacre story as well, even though members of the military had already spoken out about
it, and there had been already been charges brought. It just revealed the story to the
general public, which prompted a fuller investigation and courts martial. I'm sure there are
others.
So, obviously Hersh's "cozying up" (surely not the right term for it, though) is in the
interests of raising public awareness of nefarious deeds, and is not scared of painting these
organizations in a bad light, whereas Mazzetti's goal here seems to be to maintain his
privileged access by providing favors - totally different motivations. It's rather easy to
contrast the two, which "smartypants54" has even stated here.
Whatever the case, it's true that elements of the NYT have been mouthpieces more or less
for government and corporate power for a long time. While I agree with Glenn about the faux
cynicism perpetuating this kind of activity - "don't be naive, this is done all the time" - I
can understand that it exists.
Such cynicism on the part of the public, rather than being an acknowledgment of
acceptance and approval of such practices, can also be seen as part of a more radical
critique of the corporate media in general, and the NYT particularly, in that such
organizations - not that I totally agree with this - , by their very nature, can't be
reformed and can never be totally effective checks on power because of the way they're
structured, and who they answer to.
That's definitely not a reason to stop pointing it out, though.
"... I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. ..."
Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies
The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its
production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6
mouthpiece
Luke Harding of the Guardian.
Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian,
this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified "Russians" to
the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that
Manafort's plea deal was over.
The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor
logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these "Russians" are in the visitor logs.
This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict
Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure
was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was
accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log.
Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained
until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.
There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the "Russians" would
have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so
exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed
Ecuadorean "intelligence report" of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean
government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is
impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security –
would not know the identity of these alleged "Russians".
Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government
regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they
follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller's
pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the
Presidency.
My friend William Binney, probably the world's greatest expert on electronic surveillance,
former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that
it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a
download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting
a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at
the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC "security consultants"
Crowdstrike.
I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be
established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive "Big
Lie" will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack
of the DNC servers.
Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even
considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a
personal assurance of them.
I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York
Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security
services.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a
particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to
create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the
US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the
security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange's support prior to expelling
him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of
espionage.
Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and
has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever
be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York
Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are
seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the
"liberal media" no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of
the people, they are an instrument of elite control.
My opinions are conflicted, but I'd rather give Assange a Nobel Peace Prize than a criminal
conviction. He definitely deserves a Nobel Prize more than Obama. I was in an eatery in
Cambridge, MA, when I heard Obama's prize announced, and even there people where aghast and
astounded.
The Guardian was bought by Soros, a few years ago.
Washpost, NYT and CNN, Deep State mouthpieces.
That the USA, as long as Deep State has not been eradicated completely from USA society, will
continue to try to get Assange, and of course also Snowdon, in it claws, is more than
obvious.
So what are we talking about ?
Assange just uses the freedom of information act, or how the the USA euphemism for telling
them nothing, is called.
How Assange survives, mentally and bodily, being locked up in a small room without a
bathroom, for several years now, is beyond my comprehension.
But of course, for 'traitors' like him human rights do not exist.
"I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times
have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services."
These outfits are largely state-run at this point. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff
Bezos, a man with deep ties to the CIA through his Amazon company (which depends upon federal
subsidies and has received security agency "support") and the Guardian is clandestinely
funded through UK government purchases, among other things. MI6 has also effectively
compromised the former integrity and objectivity of that outlet by threatening them with
prosecutions for revealing MI6 spy practices. And the NYT has always been state-run. See
their coverage of the Iraq War. The Israelis have bragged about having an asset at the Times.
The American government has several.
It's amazing to see the obvious progression of the lies as they take hold in an anti-Trump
elite who seem completely impervious to understanding his victory over Clinton. All these
people who claim to be so cosmopolitan and educated seem to think Assange or Manafort would
have any interest in meeting each other. (Let alone in the company of unspecified
'Russians'.)
At first it was that Assange was wrong to publish the DNC leaks because it hurt Clinton
and thus helped Trump.
Then it was that Assange was actively trying to help Trump.
Now it's that Assange is in collusion with Trump and the 'Russians'.
The same thing happened with the Trump-Russian nonsense which goes ever more absurd as
time goes on. Slowly boiling the frog in the public's mind. The allegations are so
nonsensical, yet there are plenty of educated, supposedly cosmopolitan people who don't
understand the backgrounds or motives of their 'liberal' heroes in the NYT or Guardian who
believe this on faith.
None of these people will ever question how if any of this is true how the security
services of the West didn't know it and if they supposedly know it, how come they aren't
acting like it's true. They are acting like they're attempting to smear politicians they
don't like, however.
Luke Harding is particularly despicable. He made his name as a journalist off privileged
access to Wilkileaks docs, and has been persistently attacking Assange ever since the Swedish
fan-girl farce.
Assange did make a mistake (of which I am sure he is all too aware now) in the choice to,
rather than leave the info. open on-line, collaborate with the filthy Guardian, the sleazy
NYT, and I forget dirty name of the third publication.
@anon Since you
are posting as Anon coward, I am not expecting a reply, but would be interested in (and would
not doubt) state funding of the 'Guardian'?
As for the NYT, they are plainly in some sense state-funded, but the state in question is
neither New York nor the U.S.A., but the state of Israel.
@Che Guava
Perhaps he is referring to the sheer volume of ads the British government places for public
sector appointments. As for the paper edition, most of it seems to be bought by the BBC!
So he screamed in the cafeteria and spilled his morning coffee. We all wondered what
happened to him and so we looked at his friend, and he told us that he must have read the
NYT, as that was his common reaction, a cry of pain and anguish and screams of "all lies, all
lies, all lies" whenever he reads the newspaper or watches the TV, esp. NYT.
Your article and the previous news about Manfort visiting Assange and the funny timing of
the same reminded me of this story.
The Western MSM is a lying scamming neoliberal propaganda machine.
"... You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a clandestine operation run by intelligence units. ..."
"... Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence Act of 1917. ..."
"... Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917 unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ( US. Constitution, Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them. ..."
"... It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers. ..."
"... This story only scratches the surface on the extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic. Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to both sides of the aisle. ..."
"... It's no secret that the CIA and State Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations, well, consider this your wake-up call. ..."
"... "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby - Former CIA Director ..."
"... "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director 1981 ..."
"... While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the "virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), ..."
"... the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for everyone ..."
...this is the norm not the exception. It's also representative of a very significant cross
section of the State Department/CIA/Pentagon/DC Beaurcratic Machine, made up of various
Leftists, Statists, academia, and privileged youth with political science degrees from east
coast/DC/Ivy League schools.
I am having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around this story.....we have an alleged
CIA spokesperson purportedly attempting to engage in damage control with a prominent national
newspaper regarding the flow of information between the CIA and film-makers doing a story on
the Bin Laden raid. Ostensibly, the information provided, regarding the raid, was to help
secure the President's reelection bid?
I note that the logo on the phone of the published photo of CIA spokesperson Marie Harf
looks remarkably similar, if not identical, to the Obama campaign logo. A "Twitter" account
profile for M's. Harf references that she is a "National Security Wonk at OFA...." . Could
the "OFA" she makes reference to possibly be "Obama for America"? Her recent tweet history
includes commentaries critical of Romney and his supporters, which appear to be in response
to her observations while watching Republican Convention coverage.
My understanding heretofore was that those engaged in the Intelligence Community,
particularly spokespersons, preferred to keep a low profile and at least appear apolitical.
Based upon the facts as presented, one must reexamine whether a US intelligence agency is
engaging in the most blatant form political partisanship to unduly influence a US
Presidential election.
You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for
spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty
four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such
information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news
groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a
clandestine operation run by intelligence units.
I'm surprised by the pettiness of it all. And it's this pettiness that makes me think that
such data exchange is not only routine, but an accepted way to enhance a career. After all, who really cares what Dowd writes? I
believe Chomsky called her 'kinda a gossip columnist'. And, that's what she is.
That anyone
would bother passing her column to the CIA is, on the face of it, a little absurd. I don't
say she is a bad columnist, she's probably quite good, but hardly of interest to the CIA,
even when she is writing about the CIA. So basically, someone passed her column along,
because this is normal, and the more ambitious understand that this is how you 'get along'.
This kind of careerism is something I see, on some level, every day: the ambitious see the
rules of the game, and follow them, and the rationale comes later. For most of us, this
doesn't involve the security services. However, the principle that the MSM is, at the least,
heavily influenced by state power is fairly well understood by now in more critical circles:
all forms of media are subject to unusual and particular state pressures, due to their
central import in propaganda and mass-persuasion. The NYT is, in short, an obvious target for
this kind of influencing. And as such should really know much much better.
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that most of what I read, or see on the nightly
broadcasts, is essentially bullshit. I could switch to RT, and in a way its counter-point
would be useful in stimulating my own critical thinking, but much of what RT broadcasts is
also likely to be bullshit. We have a world of competing propaganda memes where nobody knows
the truth. It's like we are all spooks now, each and every one of us. An excellent article,
again.
Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence
Act of 1917.
Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917
unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press" ( US. Constitution,
Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the
Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than
having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its
constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them.
Excellent article, but it's not necessarily a surprise to see a reporter who has developed a
relationship with his source do that source a favor in hopes that the favor will some day be
returned with greater access.
It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in
how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the
flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers.
This story only scratches the surface on the
extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The
loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media
outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has
become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic.
Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to
both sides of the aisle.
What the commoners fail to understand is that the Public Relations (PR) industry controls 75%
of the information that you are fed from major media outlets. It's an industry that has
artfully masked everything you thought you knew. It's no secret that the CIA and State
Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than
propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of
employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations,
well, consider this your wake-up call.
Glenn, thanks for illuminating the insidious, dangerous cynicism pervading American media
& culture, which have become so inured to hypocrisy, corruption & desecration of
sacrosanct democratic values & institutions that has been crucial to the normalization of
formerly intolerable practices, laws & policies eating away at the foundations of our
constitutional democracy. The collective moral, principled "lines in the sand" protecting us
from authoritarian pressures are steadily being washed away, compromised, thanks to media
obsequious complicity.
While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government
and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the
"virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), and all
the "checks & balances" enshrined in our constitution after 9/11 (e.g. deferential
judiciary, bi-partisan Congressional consensus on increasingly authoritarian, secretive US
executive, propagandistic media, etc.). At least that's my thinking, and I see no significant
countervailing pressure capable of slowing- let alone reversing- this authoritarian
re-ordering of our constitutional order & political culture, though a few exceptions
exist (e.g. Judge Forrest's suprising courage to suspend NDAA provision 1021), and rare
journalists like yourself.
One astounding example of this widespread cynicism facilitating this authoritarian trend,
was the media's rather restrained response to the revelation that elements in the massive
Terrorist/Military Industrial Complex (HBGary) had been plotting military-style
social-engineering operations to discredit & silence progressive journalists,
specifically naming YOU, who I see as one of the rare defenders of the
constitutional/democratic "lines in the sand" under relentless attack. Where was the
overwhelming collective shock & outrage, or media demanding criminal investigations into
US taxpayer-funded attacks on our so-called "free press?"
My question for Glenn, is whether he thinks it would be possible for him to get legal
standing to sue the private (& US??) entities, which proposed the covert
discrediting/repression operations targeting you specifically?
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the documents published by Anonymous, reveal actions
constituting criminal conspiracy. Given the proposed methods included forms of
politically-motivated military warfare & coercion, the guilty parties would likely be
aggressively investigated and charged with some terrorist crimes, if they had been busted
planning attacks on people/entities that trumpeted Obama administration policies or its
corporate backers (i.e. if they were Anonymous). The HBGary proposal to discredit/silence
Wikileaks defenders strongly indicated they had experience with- & confidence in- such
covert operations. Requiring a journalist/academic to be covertly
discredited/destroyed/silenced before they get legal standing would be as absurd as the Obama
administration's argument that Chris Hedges & Co. plaintiffs lack standing because they
hadn't yet been stripped of their rights & secretly indefinitately detained without
charges or trial.
I thought you might be in the unique position to use the US courts to pry open & shine
some light upon the clearly anti-democratic, authoritarian abuses of power, & virtual
fusion of corporate & state powers, which you so eloquently write about.
I glad that foreign journalism is available for me to read our the internet, it's the only
way i can find truthful information about what's going on in my own country (USA). I've known the liberal media bias was a problem for a long time, but articles like this
continually remind me that things are far worse than they appear.
All the actions surrounding the NY Times and the CIA on this issue are atrocious. With this
type of "journalistic independence", why am I paying for a Times account??
As a favor to all readers, following is a summation of all past, present, and future ideas as
articulated by the Fortune Cookie Thinker, John Andersson:
A certain amount of genocide is good because the world is overpopulated.
You should never question authority; after all, you are not an expert on authority.
Everyone wins when we kill terrorists; the more we kill, the more we generate, thus the
more we kill again, which makes us win more.
It is not possible to have absolute power; therefore, power does not corrupt.
Drones kill bad people. Only bad people are killed by drones. Thus, drones are good. We
should have more drones. That is all.
I secretly think he's the real "Jack Handy" from the Deep Thoughts series on SNL.
In my high school history class in 1968 I learned all about how newspapers printed propaganda
stories before WWI and Spanish American war in order to influence the public so they would
want to go to war and it was called "yellow journalism". I also had an English teacher that
taught us about "marketing" and how they use visuals and printed words and film to make us
want to buy a product. My father taught me to NOT BELEIVE everything you read. Now it is
called "critical thinking" and has been added as a general education class in college that
you have to take for a college degree. Critical thinking about what you read and see and hear
should be taught as early as 10 year olds so people can think for themselves. I do not read
main stream newspapers in America but read news sites all over the world.
THANK GOD FOR THE
INTERNET THAT YOU CAN READ WHAT OTHER NEWSPAPERS. I discovered Glenn on Democracy Now and
they are my go to place to read about what is really happening.
the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA
is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for
everyone
"... We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers. ..."
"... In what is turning out to be the CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard operating procedures. ..."
"... Or Afghanistan. Many of the cruise missile libs supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. ..."
"... The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy. ..."
"... And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets. ..."
If we thought the public trust in journalism is low, then this news only pushes it down further. Do people in journalism care?
Some do very much but for the most the media and the power-holders are in collusion.
We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking
scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy
and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers.
The critical articles are nothing more than smokescreens. We are led to believe how hard-hitting the newspapers are and how
they hold the politicians and other power-brokers to fire. All hogwash. It is better we recognize that the citizens are merely
props they need to claim legitimacy.
Not till this moment did I realize that we are under siege. I thought Julian Assange was the one under siege but he was just trying
to offer us a path to freedom. With Assange neutralized and The New York Times and its brethren by all appearances thoroughly
compromised, how can any one of us stand for all of us against government malfeasance let alone tyranny?
Where would you go if you had dispositive proof of devastating government malfeasance? In what is turning out to be the
CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard
operating procedures.
It would actually be foolish to take evidence of horrific government behavior to the titular head of the government {who'd
likely persecute you as a whistleblower} or the major news organizations supposedly reporting to us about it {they'd bring it
right back to the government for guidance on what to do}.
Without safe and reliable ways to stand and speak for and to each other on a large scale about the foul deeds of our government,
we are damned to live very lonely vulnerable lives at the mercy of an unrestrained government.
Excerpt from script of Three Days of the Condor --
Higgins: I can't let you stay out, Turner.
Turner slowly stops, leans back against a building, shakes his head sadly.
Turner: Go home, Higgins. They have it all.
Higgins: What are you talking about?
Turner: Don't you know where we are?
Higgins looks around. The huge newspaper trucks are moving out.
Turner: It's where they ship from.
Higgins' head darts upward and he reads the legend above Turner's head. THE NEW YORK TIMES. He is stunned.
Higgins: You dumb son of a bitch.
Turner: It's been done. They have it.
Higgins: You've done more damage than you know.
Turner: I hope so.
Higgins: You want to rip us to pieces, but you damn fool you rely on us. {then} You're about to be a very lonely man,
Turner.
***
Higgins: It didn't have to turn out like this.
Turner: Of course it did.
Higgins: {calling out as they depart separate ways} Turner! How do you know they'll print it?
Turner stops. Stares at Higgins. Higgins smiles.
Higgins: You can take a walk. But how far? If they don't print it.
Several commenters have pointed out that the NYT does do "good" journalism. That is true. It is also true that they tell
absolute lies. See Judith Miller. The best way to sell a lie is to wrap it in the truth.
I know it's late in the comments thread by the time anyone bothers to read THIS minor contribution, but I think it worth mentioning
how this article from Glenn proves just how important are outlets like Democracy Now, RT, Cenk Uyger, Dylan Ratigan, et al. You
really have to turn away from the mainstream media as a source of anything. Far too compromised, by both their embeddedness with
the government, and their for-profit coroporate owners.
Note CNN's terrible ratings problems as of late, and the recent news that they are considering turning to more reality-type
shows to get the eyeballs back. If that isn't proof positive of the current value of corporate news, I don't know what is.
DemocracyNow.org. I think I'm going to donate to them today....
i'm do not understand why so many people are against authority in general, even when the legal & enforcement system is there
to protect your property, life and rights. i understand when corruption exists, it should be seriously addressed, but why throw
out a whole system that is "somewhat working"? why blindly call for revolution?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness."
This is a political officer acting as editor of a major newspaper. I agree this has been going on for some time. Here is my analysis
of that. The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine
agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with
some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy.
Romney and Obama are functionaries. They do as they're told. Obama is the more useful of the two as fewer people seem able
to look honestly at his policies. They will not oppose Obama for doing the same things and worse as Bush. It is why all stops
are being pulled out to get him, rather than Romney elected. The policies will be the same but the reaction of our population
to each man is vastly different.
So yes, the capture of the media has been going on for quite some time. It appears nearly consolidated at this time. Instead
of using this as a reason to ignore the situation, it is more important than ever to speak out. History is helpful in learning
how to confront injustice. It is not a reason, as I see many use it, to say; "well it's always been that way, so what?" In history,
we learn about corruption but we also learn that people opposed corruption. Is there some reason why we cannot also oppose corruption
right now?
I though Michael Wolff's recent analysis of Apple (here in the Guardian) was in many ways metaphorical for Western leadership,
his article acting in some ways to explain the behavior we see in cultural "elites."
Worth the read.
And somehow, after reading this article, all I can think of is the Wizard of Oz and a dancing midget army singing in
repetitive, high-pitched tones.
And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets.
Who will be the first commenter to leave the classic devastating critique: "The author fails to present a balanced view, showing
only one side. The author's argument has no substance and is not really worth anything."
Don't forget this one: "The author just complains and complains without ever offering a solution or a better approach."
Also, can anyone 'splain me how to do a "response"?
China does not have its own technological base and is depended on the USA for many technologies. So while China
isdefinitly in assendance, Washington still have capability to stick to "total global dominance" agenda for some time.
Attempt to crush China by Tariffs might provoke the economic crisi in China and possible a "regime change", like Washington
santions to the USSR in the past. And that's probably the calculation.
Notable quotes:
"... President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices. ..."
"... The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia. ..."
"... Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage. ..."
"... In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional" virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power. ..."
"... Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America. ..."
"... Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment. ..."
"... China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades. ..."
"... American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership ..."
The G20 summits are nominally about how the world's biggest national economies can cooperate
to boost global growth. This year's gathering – more than ever – shows, however,
that rivalry between the US and China is center stage.
Zeroing in further still, the rivalry is an expression of a washed-up American empire
desperately trying to reclaim its former power. There is much sound, fury and pretense from the
outgoing hegemon – the US – but the ineluctable reality is an empire whose halcyon
days are a bygone era.
Ahead of the summit taking place this weekend in Argentina, the Trump administration has
been issuing furious ultimatums to China to "change its behavior". Washington is threatening an
escalating trade war if Beijing does not conform to American demands over economic
policies.
President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point,
castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property
rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices.
Nevertheless, if Beijing does not comply with US diktats then the Trump administration says
it will slap increasing tariffs on Chinese exports.
The gravity of the situation was highlighted by the comments this week of China's
ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, who warned that the "lessons of history" show trade wars can
lead to catastrophic shooting wars. He urged the Trump administration to be reasonable and to
seek a negotiated settlement of disputes.
The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants
China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it
is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US
dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia.
For decades, China functioned as a giant market for cheap production of basic consumer
goods. Now under President Xi Jinping, the nation is moving to a new phase of development
involving sophisticated technologies, high-quality manufacture, and investment.
It's an economic evolution that the world has seen before, in Europe, the US and now
Eurasia. In the decades after the Second World War, up to the 1970s, it was US capitalism that
was the undisputed world leader. Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was
defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing
peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability
purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage.
In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from
the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional"
virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the
application of ruthless imperial power.
The curious thing about capitalism is it always outgrows its national base. Markets
eventually become too small and the search for profits is insatiable. American capital soon
found more lucrative opportunities in the emerging market of China. From the 1980s on, US
corporations bailed out of America and set up shop in China, exploiting cheap labor and
exporting their goods back to increasingly underemployed America consumers. The arrangement was
propped up partly because of seemingly endless consumer debt.
That's not the whole picture of course. China has innovated and developed independently from
American capital. It is debatable whether China is an example of state-led capitalism or
socialism. The Chinese authorities would claim to subscribe to the latter. In any case, China's
economic development has transformed the entire Eurasian hemisphere. Whether you like it or
not, Beijing is the dynamo for the global economy. One indicator is how nations across
Asia-Pacific are deferring to China for their future growth.
Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies
in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory.
Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered
by China, no longer America.
Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that
– empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic
development and the benefits of Chinese investment.
One example is Taiwan. In contrast to Washington's shibboleths about "free Taiwan", more and
more Asian countries are dialing down their bilateral links with Taiwan in deference to China's
position, which views the island as a renegade province. The US position is one of rhetoric,
whereas the relations of other countries are based on material economic exigencies. And
respecting Beijing's sensibilities is for them a prudent option.
A recent
report by the New York Times starkly illustrated the changing contours of the global
economic order. It confirmed what many others have observed, that China is on the way to
surpass the US as the world's top economy. During the 1980s, some 75 per cent of China's
population were living in "extreme poverty", according to the NY Times. Today, less than 1 per
cent of the population is in that dire category. For the US, the trajectory has been in reverse
with greater numbers of its people subject to deprivation.
China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of
integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world
order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades.
American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's
economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other
countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership.
Arguably, Beijing's vision for economic development is more enlightened and sustainable than
what was provided by the Americans and Europeans before. The leitmotif for China, along with
Russia, is very much one of multipolar development and mutual partnership. The global economy
is not simply moving from one hegemon – the US – to another imperial taskmaster
– China.
One thing seems inescapable. The days of American empire are over. Its capitalist vigor has
dissipated decades ago. What the upheaval and rancor in relations between Washington and
Beijing is all about is the American ruling class trying to recreate some fantasy of former
vitality. Washington wants China to sacrifice its own development in order to somehow
rejuvenate American society. It's not going to happen.
That's not to say that American society can never be rejuvenated . It could, as it could
also in Europe. But that would entail a restructuring of the economic system involving
democratic regeneration. The "good old days" of capitalism are gone. The American empire, as
with the European empires, is obsolete.
That's the unspoken Number One agenda item at the G20 summit. Bye-bye US empire.
What America needs to do is regenerate through a reinvented social economic order, one that
is driven by democratic development and not the capitalist private profit of an elite few.
If not, the futile alternative is US failing political leaders trying to coerce China, and
others, to pay for their future. That way leads to war.
"... Here's a wonderful example of the NYT's propensity for re-writing history: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/30/ny-times-scrubs-mention-cia-arming-syrian-rebels-177311/ Long live the memory hole. ..."
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence Victor Marchetti
"It is the first book the federal government of the United States ever went to court to
censor before its publication. The CIA demanded the authors remove 399 passages but they
stood firm and only 168 passages were censored. The publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, chose to
publish the book with blanks for censored passages and with boldface type for passages that
were challenged but later uncensored."
There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult -- the cult of
intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government.
Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers
of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important
public influence -- the academic world and the communications media.
The cult of
intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy.
The purpose of
the cult is to further the foreign policies of the U.S. government by covert and usually
illegal means, while at the same time containing the spread of its avowed enemy, communism.
Traditionally, the cult's hope has been to foster a world order in which America would
reign supreme, the unchallenged international leader.
Today, however, that dream stands
tarnished by time and frequent failures. Thus, the cult's objectives are now less
grandiose, but no less disturbing. It seeks largely to advance America's self-appointed
role as the dominant arbiter of social, economic, and political change in the awakening
regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And its worldwide war against communism has to
some extent been reduced to a covert struggle to maintain a self-serving stability in the
Third World, using whatever clandestine methods are available.
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of
the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent
military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite
was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and
forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had
become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by
the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the
economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force.
Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference.
And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and
appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life
constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public
opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are
attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was
nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to
accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "
War or a high state of war
preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"
Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a
genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the
military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed
permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical,
and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the
military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most
congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government
spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which
manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms
market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die,
even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there
is no demonstrable military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America
plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster
its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the
possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either
refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the
lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of
communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to
mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential
investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the
United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a
dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time
Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and
consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those
proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three
million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that
number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that
both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more
dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American
life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever
they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their
employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice
between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always
choose the latter over the former.
Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in
American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now
it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with
economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....
"... Enough Afghans either support the Taliban or hate the occupation, and managed, through assorted conventional and unconventional operations, to fight on the ground. And "on the ground" is all that really matters. This war may well have been ill-advised and unwinnable from the start. ..."
"... There's no shame in defeat. But there is shame, and perfidy, in avoiding or covering up the truth. It's what the whole military-political establishment did after Vietnam, and, I fear, it's what they're doing again. ..."
America Is Headed For Military Defeat in
AfghanistanIt is time to acknowledge this is more than political. We can lose on the
battlefield, and it's happening right now. By Danny Sjursen •
November 30, 2018
Marines
with Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, sprint across a field to load onto a
CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter during a mission in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 4,
2014. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Joseph Scanlan / released) There's a prevailing maxim,
both inside the armed forces and around the Beltway, that goes something like this: "The U.S.
can never be militarily defeated in any war," certainly not by some third world country.
Heck, I used to believe that myself. That's why, in regard to Afghanistan, we've been told that
while America could lose the war due to political factors (such as the lack of grit
among "soft" liberals or defeatists), the military could never and will never lose on the
battlefield.
That entire maxim is about to be turned on its head. Get ready, because we're about to lose
this war militarily.
Consider this: the U.S. military has advised, assisted, battled, and bombed in Afghanistan
for 17-plus years. Ground troop levels have fluctuated from lows of some 10,000 to upwards of
100,000 servicemen and women. None of that has
achieved more than a tie, a bloody stalemate. Now, in the 18th year of this conflict, the
Kabul-Washington coalition's military is outright losing.
Let's begin with the broader measures. The Taliban controls or contests more districts --
some 44 percent -- than at any time since the 2001 invasion. Total combatant and civilian
casualties are forecasted to
top 20,000 this year -- another dreadful broken record. What's more, Afghan military casualties
are frankly unsustainable: the Taliban are killing more than the government can recruit. The
death rates are staggering, numbering 5,500 fatalities in 2015, 6,700 in 2016, and an estimate (the number is newly
classified) of "about 10,000" in 2017. Well, some might ask, what about American airpower --
can't that help stem the Taliban tide? Hardly. In 2018, as security deteriorated and the
Taliban made substantial gains, the U.S. actually
droppedmore bombs than in anyother year of the war . It
appears that nothing stands in the way of impending military defeat.
Then there are the very recent events on the ground -- and these are telling. Insider
attacks in which Afghan "allies" turn their guns on American advisors are back on the rise,
most recently in an attack that wounded a
U.S. Army general and threatened the top U.S. commander in the country. And while troop numbers
are way down from the high in 2011, American troops deaths are rising. Over the Thanksgiving
season alone, a U.S. Army Ranger was
killed in a friendly fire incident and three other troopers
died in a roadside bomb attack. And in what was perhaps only a (still disturbing) case of
misunderstood optics, the top U.S. commander, General Miller, was filmed carrying his own M4
rifle around Afghanistan. That's a long way from the days when then-General Petraeus (well
protected by soldiers, of course) walked around the markets of Baghdad in a soft cap and
without body armor.
More importantly, the Afghan army and police are getting hammered in larger and larger
attacks and taking unsustainable casualties. Some 26 Afghan security forces were killed on
Thanksgiving, 22 policemen
died in an attack on Sunday, and on Tuesday 30 civilians were
killed in Helmand province. And these were only the high-profile attacks, dwarfed by the
countless other countrywide incidents. All this proves that no matter how hard the U.S.
military worked, or how many years it committed to building an Afghan army in its own image,
and no matter how much air and logistical support that army received, the Afghan Security
Forces cannot win. The sooner Washington accepts this truth over the more comforting lie, the
fewer of our adulated American soldiers will have to die. Who is honestly ready to be the last
to die for a mistake, or at least a hopeless cause?
Now, admittedly, this author is asking for trouble -- and fierce rebuttals -- from both
peers and superiors still serving on active duty. And that's understandable. The old maxim of
military invincibility soothes these men, mollifies their sense of personal loss, whether of
personal friends or years away from home, in wars to which they've now dedicated their entire
adult lives. Questioning whether there even is a military solution in Afghanistan, or, more
specifically, predicting a military defeat, serves only to upend their mental framework
surrounding the war.
Still, sober strategy and basic honesty demands a true assessment of the military situation
in America's longest war. The Pentagon loves metrics, data, and stats. Well, as demonstrated
daily on the ground in Afghanistan, all the security (read: military) metrics point towards
impending defeat. At best, the Afghan army, with ample U.S. advisory detachments and air
support, can hold on to the northernmost and westernmost provinces of the country, while a
Taliban coalition overruns the south and east. This will be messy, ugly, and discomfiting for
military and civilian leaders alike. But unless Washington is prepared to redeploy 100,000
soldiers to Afghanistan (again) -- and still only manage a tie, by the way -- it is also all
but inevitable.
The United States military did all it was asked during more than 17 years of warfare in
Afghanistan. It raided, it bombed, it built, it surged, it advised, it everything. Still, none
of that was sufficient. Enough Afghans either support the Taliban or hate the occupation,
and managed, through assorted conventional and unconventional operations, to fight on the
ground. And "on the ground" is all that really matters. This war may well have been ill-advised
and unwinnable from the start.
There's no shame in defeat. But there is shame, and perfidy, in avoiding or
covering up the truth. It's what the whole military-political establishment did after Vietnam,
and, I fear, it's what they're doing again.
Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army officer and a regular contributor to Unz. He served
combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his
alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
"... And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker is either losing money or losing their job? ..."
"... the monetisation of everything and the use of language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the norm, but the only way. ..."
"... Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of 'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious 'elite'. ..."
"... I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's being said. ..."
And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management
speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker
is either losing money or losing their job? Or some manager is about to award themselves
a bonus?
@gyges1 - No, she is surely railing against the monetisation of everything and the use of
language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the
norm, but the only way.
Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit
claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of
'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious
'elite'.
Language matters and its distortion is a political act.
But without these Exciting New Word Uprating Initiatives, we can never win The Global Race...
or something.
I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's
Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered
precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal
Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings
become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's
being said.
(By the way, the link's to Amazon, but, obviously, you may find you have a better
"Customer Experience" if you get from somewhere less tax-dodgy.)
"... I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina. ..."
"... The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor? ..."
"... It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home. ..."
"... The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it. ..."
"... We have become so embedded in the language of individuals, choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy" and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest. If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive. ..."
@finnkn - Apologies. I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant
and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared
in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina.
The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored
by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu;
paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism
was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor?
To be clear: I am arguing that the direct effects of 'actually existing neoliberalism' are very far from benign. I do not argue
that the militarisation of Central and South America are the direct consequence neoliberal theory.
@finnkn - Well I think many would. It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored
military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation
as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home.
Neoliberalism was first practiced in authoritarian states; the states in which neoliberalism is most deeply embedded are (surprise,
surprise) increasingly authoritarian, and neoliberalism solutions are regularly imposed on client/vulnerable states by suprastructures
such as the IMF, the EU, and the World Bank. Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith were very clear that the potential for degeneracy
existed. We have now reached that potential; increasingly centralised authority, states within states, the denuding of democratic
institutions and crony capitalism. Neoliberalism in practice is very different to neoliberalism in practice. Rather like 'really
existing socialism' and Marxism.
works best in authoritarian states because (in practice, if not in theory
As the statistics on that link show, there are certain countries (notably Russia and the Ukraine) where the +65 age group disapprove
of the change to democracy and capitalism. In the majority, however, people of all ages remain in favour.
For 'job' read 'bribe' (keep your mouth shut or lose it), for 'management' read 'take most of the interest out of the job
for everybody else and put them on a lower scale', etc. I guess you get my drift.
It's sad that you have such a negative, self-hating attitude towards your work.
Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could
have – moral and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core
Spoken like a true champagne socialist in a creative industry. How do you find meaning and fulfillment, or creative values, in
emptying bins, cleaning offices, sweeping the streets and a whole load of other work which needs doing but which is repetitive,
menial and not particularly pleasant?
There are two ways to get people to do work that needs doing but wouldn't be done voluntarily: coercion or payment. I think
the second is a more healthy way to run a society.
I've thought pretty much the same myself. Democracies can be good or bad (as the Greeks knew well)...but in our politic-speak
it is used to denounce and make good; as in "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East"...it is intended to make us feel
something good about Israel, as it humiliates the Palestinians and steals their land.
In ancient Greece....'tyrant' simply meant
'usurper' without any neccessary negative association....simply someone who had usurped political power...they recognized that
tyrannies could be good, bad or indifferent.
In Rome, dictator simply meant the cahp that took over fpr periods of six months at a time, during times of crisis.
I used to vacation in Yugoslavia in Marshall Tito's time....it was a wonderful place, beautiful, inexpensive and safe...very
very safe. What came into the power vacuum after he died in 1980...what happened to the country? I'd argue that his was a good
dictatorship or tyranny....
I'm also not too sure what the 90% of people unaffected by and uninterested in power politics in any given country feel about
the 'liberation' of Libya and Iraq from their prior dictatorships...I'm sure that plenty of people whose previously steady lives
have been wrecked, are all that thrilled.
I have recently been exercised by the right's adoption of "Social Justice". In the past it was the left and churches who talked
of social justice as a phenomenon to empower the poor and dispossessed, whether in this country or the developing world. Social
Justice was a touchstone of Faith in the City, for example, but it seems now to be the smoke screen behind which benefits are
stipped from the "undeserving poor".
Most of this crap comes from America. Crappy middle-management bureaucrats spouting "free-market" bollocks.
The efficiency of the private sector - some nob with a name badge timing how long you've been on the toilet.
Freedommm!!!!
It is not just neoliberalism. Everyone is at it - sucking the meaning out of words. Corporate bullshit, public sector bullshit.
Being customers of your own government is a crime that everyone is guilty of. This is what Orwell railed against decades ago,
and it has got worse.
Case in point; just look at the way in which the Cameron set about co-opting words and phrases justifiably applied to his own
regime and repurposed them against his detractors.
For example, people who took a stand against the stealth privatisation of the NHS were branded as "vested interests", quite
unlike the wholesome MPs who voted for the NHS bill who, despite the huge sums of money they received from the private healthcare
lobby, we are encouraged to believe were acting in our best interests by selling our health service to their corporate paymasters.
Or the farcical attempt to rebrand female Tory MPs as "feminists" despite their anti-social mobility, anti-equality, anti-human
rights and anti-abortion views.
The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used
it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid
profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it.
@Obelisk1 - You have single-handedly proven Massey's argument. We have become so embedded in the language of individuals,
choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy"
and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest.
If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive.
Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation
to the gallery and to this engaging person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
But in the eyes of the economic right, that is precisely the case. Adjectives like altruistic, caring, selfless, empathy and
sympathy are simply not in their vocabulary. They are only ever any of those things provided they can see some sort of beneficial
payback at the end.
maxfisher -> Venebles 11 Jun 2013 06:20
@Venebles - I was simply joining many commentators in the mire. Those that dispute the neoliberal worldview are routinely dismissed
as marxists. I thought I'd save you all the energy, duck.
I'm not sure that the families of the disappeared of Chile and Argentina would concur with you benign view of neoliberalism
and its effects.
Update 4 : A UN Security Council meeting has been called for 11am
tomorrow after Ukraine incident with Russia, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a
tweet.
* * *
Update 3 : according to media reports, on Monday Ukraine's president will propose imposing
military law, amid the ongoing crisis with Russia.
* * *
Update 2: This is the moment when the escalating crisis started...
* * *
Update 1: Following reports from the Ukraine navy that Russian ships had fired on Ukraine
vessels near the Kerch Strait, Ukraine accused Moscow of also illegally seizing three of its
naval ships - the "Berdyansʹk" and "Nikopolʹ" Gurza-class small armored artillery
boats and a raid tug A-947 "Jani Kapu" - off Crimea on Sunday after opening fire on them, a
charge that if confirmed could ignite a dangerous new crisis between the two countries.
As reported earlier, Russia did not immediately respond to the allegation, but Russian news
agencies cited the FSB security service as saying it had incontrovertible proof that Ukraine
had orchestrated what it called "a provocation" and would make its evidence public soon.
According to media reports, Russia said it has "impounded" three Ukrainian naval ships after
they crossed the border with Russia
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko immediately called a meeting with his top
military and security chiefs to discuss the situation.
Separately, the EU has urged both sides to rapidly de-escalate the tense situation at the
Kerch strait:
*EU URGES UKRAINE, RUSSIA TO DE-ESCALATE SITUATION AT STRAIT
*UKRAINE, RUSSIA SHOULD ACT W/ `UTMOST RESTRAINT', EU SAYS
*EU URGES RUSSIA TO RESTORE FREEDOM OF PASSAGE AT KERCH STRAIT
NATO has confirmed it is "closely monitoring" developments and is calling for "restraint and
de-escalation"...
" NATO is closely monitoring developments in the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait, and we are
in contact with the Ukrainian authorities. We call for restraint and de-escalation.
NATO fully supports Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its
navigational rights in its territorial waters. We call on Russia to ensure unhindered access
to Ukrainian ports in the Azov Sea, in accordance with international law.
At the Brussels Summit in July, NATO leaders expressed their support to Ukraine, and made
clear that Russia's ongoing militarisation of Crimea, the Black Sea, and the Azov Sea pose
further threats to Ukraine's independence and undermines the stability of the broader region.
"
Finally, Ukraine has called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting over 'Russian
aggression' while Ukraine's secretary for national security, Oleksander Turchynov, accused
Russia of engaging in an act of war: "We heard reports on incident and have concluded that it
was an act of war by Russian Federation against Ukraine"
* * *
As we detailed earlier, the Ukrainian navy has accused Russia of opening fire on some of its
ships in the Black Sea, striking one vessel, and wounding a crew member.
In a statement on its Facebook page , the Ukrainian navy said the
Russian military vessels opened fire on Ukrainian warships after they had left the 12-mile zone
near the Kerch Strait, leaving one man wounded, and one Ukrainian vessel damaged and
immobilized, adding that Russian warships "shoot to kill."
Ukraine accused a Russian coastguard vessel, named the Don, of ramming one of its tugboats
in "openly aggressive actions". The incident allegedly took place as three Ukrainian navy boats
- including two small warships - headed for the port of Mariupol in the Sea of Azov, an area of
heightened tensions between the countries.
Russia accused Ukraine of illegally entering the area and deliberately provoking a
conflict.
Sky News reports that the Ukrainian president has called an emergency session of his war
cabinet in response to the incident.
"Today's dangerous events in the Azov Sea testify that a new front of [Russian] aggression
is open," Ukrainian foreign ministry spokeswoman Mariana Betsa said.
"Ukraine [is] calling now for emergency meeting of United Nations Security Council."
It comes after a day of rising tensions off the coast of Crimea, and especially around the
Kerch Strait, which separates Crimea from mainland Russia after Ukrainian vessels allegedly
violated the Russian border. The passage was blocked by a cargo ship and fighter jets were
scrambled.
According to RT , Russia has
stopped all navigation through the waterway using the cargo ship shown above. Videos from the
scene released by the Russian media show a large bulk freighter accompanied by two Russian
military boats standing under the arch of the Crimea Bridge and blocking the only passage
through the strait.
"The [Kerch] strait is closed for security reasons," the Director-General of the Crimean sea
ports, Aleksey Volkov, told TASS, confirming earlier media reports.
Russian Air Force Su-25 strike fighters were also scrambled to provide additional security
for the strait as the situation remains tense. The move came as five Ukrainian Navy ships had
been approaching the strait from two different sides.
According to RT, two Ukrainian artillery boats and a tugboat initially approached the strait
from the Black Sea while "undertaking dangerous maneuvers" and "defying the lawful orders of
the Russian border guards." Later, they were joined by two more military vessels that departed
from a Ukrainian Azov Sea port of Berdyansk sailing to the strait from the other side.
The Russian federal security agency FSB, which is responsible for maintaining the country's
borders, denounced the actions of the Ukrainian ships as a provocation, adding that they could
create a "conflict situation" in the region. According to the Russian media reports, the
Ukrainian vessels are still sailing towards the strait, ignoring the warnings of the Russian
border guards.
According to
Reuters , a bilateral treaty gives both countries the right to use the sea, which lies
between them and is linked by the narrow Kerch Strait to the Black Sea. Moscow is able to
control access between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea after it built a bridge that straddles
the Kerch Strait between Crimea and southern Russia.
Reuters adds that tensions surfaced on Sunday after Russia tried to intercept three
Ukrainian ships -- two small armored artillery vessels and a tug boat -- in the Black Sea,
accusing them of illegally entering Russian territorial waters.
The Ukrainian navy said a Russian border guard vessel had rammed the tug boat, damaging it
in an incident it said showed Russia was behaving aggressively and illegally. It said its
vessels had every right to be where they were and that the ships had been en route from the
Black Sea port of Odessa to Mariupol, a journey that requires them to go through the Kerch
Strait.
Meanwhile, Russia's border guard service accused Ukraine of not informing it in advance of
the journey, something Kiev denied, and said the Ukrainian ships had been maneuvering
dangerously and ignoring its instructions with the aim of stirring up tensions.
It pledged to end to what it described as Ukraine's "provocative actions", while Russian
politicians lined up to denounce Kiev, saying the incident looked like a calculated attempt by
President Petro Poroshenko to increase his popularity ahead of an election next year. Ukraine's
foreign ministry said in a statement it wanted a clear response to the incident from the
international community.
"Russia's provocative actions in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have crossed the line and
become aggressive," it said. "Russian ships have violated our freedom of maritime navigation
and unlawfully used force against Ukrainian naval ships."
Both countries have accused each other of harassing each other's shipping in Sea of Azov in
the past and the U.S. State Department in August said Russia's actions looked designed to
destabilize Ukraine, which has two major industrial ports there.
Jun 6, 2017 50 Years After Launching June 1967 War, Israel Continues World's Longest Military
Occupation
In the final installment of our three-part special on the 50th anniversary of the June
1967 war, author and scholar Norman Finkelstein discusses why the U.S.-backed "peace process"
was never meant to end the Israeli occupation, and how, despite the ongoing brutality, mass
Palestinian civil resistance could still bring it to an end.
"... The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an officially racist basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White: ..."
"... A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime ..."
"... The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences ..."
The original apartheid state of South Africa created "homelands", known colloquially as "bantustans", and proposed that, as the
apotheosis of apartheid, these "homelands" would become independent states and house the majority black population of the country
in fenced-off areas which had been too arid, rocky or commercial mineral free to attract significant white settlement over three
centuries of theft. South Africa actually did recognise some of these as Independent states, while the rest were supposed to be on
a course to recognition.
The maps really do bring out the startling similarity between these two attempts to formalise the dispossession of the original
people. Thankfully, even though the "Homelands solution" had its supporters including Thatcher, it never achieved support beyond
what was then an extreme right wing view, and none of the "independent states" ever achieved international recognition.
I worked in the FCO as the South Africa (Political) desk officer from 1984-6, and seeing off right wing Tory lobbying to adopt
the Homelands policy was a major problem. It is simply symptomatic of the extraordinary right wing shift in western politics over
the intervening three decades, that a "Bantustan" solution for Palestine, laughably called a "two state solution", is now the accepted
wisdom of the political and media class.
The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated
enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically
enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an
officially racist
basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime
faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively
documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White:
Many of the practices Ben describes have strong echoes of the apartheid regime, as do the disregard for Black/Palestinian life,
the regular use of disproportionate lethal force against protestors, the mass arrests and detentions, the impunity for both law enforcers
and "master race" civilians who attack blacks/Palestinians. These features are highly analogous.
But what I want to address here is the striking similarity between the arguments used by supporters of apartheid, with which I
dealt every day at the FCO, and the arguments used today by supporters of Israel. They came by post thirty years ago not internet,
and we did not use the word meme, but the key arguments are exactly the same.
Imagine if the UK had in its statutes, and the USA had in its constitution measures to ensure only white people had the right
to immigration [one of Israel's basic laws is only Jews have the right to immigration into Israel]. Continuing the analogy with Israel's
recently passed 'Nation-State' [basic law].
1. "The states of the UK and the US are the nation-states of the 'white people".
2. "The actualization of the right of national self- determination in the states of the UK/USA is unique to white people"
3. "The UK/USA will labour to ensure the safety of sons of white people".
4. "The UK/USA will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of white people among the Diaspora".
5. "The UK/USA views 'white's only' settlement as joint national values and will labour to encourage and promote its establishment
and development".
Now let us look at one of the IHRA examples which the Labour Party have incorporated into the Labour Party rule book:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination – e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavour".
Who could deny that examples 1 to 5 above if incorporated into UK and US law would prove 100% that the UK and US were inherently
racist and that their 'existence were racist endeavours' and that anyone in the UK/US [including Jeremy Corbyn] who disapproved of
1 to 5 above, and said so, would fall foul of the IHRA definition, be accused of being Anti Semitic and drummed out of associations
like the Labour Party and possibly ostracised from society for life. Disgraceful.
Wilhelm Marr seems to have been strongly anti-J_ish and, in 1879, "he founded the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the
first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany posed by the J_s and advocating their
forced removal from the country".
I find it bizarre that a term coined by a vehemently anti-J_ish person is used by the IHRA in preference to the more accurate
term anti-J_ism.
Meanwhile: The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas authorities in Gaza routinely arrest and torture
peaceful critics and opponents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/23/palestine-authorities-crush-dissent
Explains a lot
I think you'll find that most "bantustans" were led by corrupt officials who mistreated their "citizens". You don't imagine that
the Apartheid colonisers would want a genuine, free and united populace in their client statelets, do you? What goes for South Africa,
applies just as neatly to Israel.
As a South African there are lots of parallels with Israel/Palestine and a few differences. The differences are never in Israel's
favour. The one thing that I always convinced myself of was that Palestinians were not controlled like our Bantustan leaders were
– like Buthelezi managing the Zulus into good little darkies.
But now I am not so sure when I see the deliberate shut down of electricity.
Those in Israel will tell you that it is a better life than a Black South African experienced living in the madam or master's house.
There are Palestinian Doctors working in real jobs in real hospitals alongside real jews. That never happened in South Africa.
Those in Gaza will tell you that it is a worse life than living in a Homeland. That I can believe, we could at least grow food, tend
animals, create a community.
A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose
this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various
friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime . If
they do they get shadow-banned or dragged through the courts/
The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who
were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered
to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences
Many whites have in fact been murdered since blacks took over South Africa. The facts are clear. So their fears were not only
a fantasy but realistic. This is the weakness of your argument, that you simply reject the fears of whites, which have come to fruition.
I suspect you simply have an animus towards white South Africans, it is a result of your moral self-righteousness. I also noticed
that you changed topic after mentioning that many whites genuinely believed that they would be murdered by blacks.
We suffered an armed robbery, my mother, who had just come out of intensive care, was beaten. She died less than 1 year later,
most probably from trauma. Many whites are not as lucky to have survived even the robbery. We have since emigrated. My family has
been living in SA for 250 years. More than 50% of blacks are immigrants of the last 50 years. Yet you insinuate that our right to
live in the land is less than theirs.
The number of whites, especially farmers, who have since been murdered brutally, create facts on the ground which you cannot gloss
over or dismiss if you were honest. It is telling that you changed topics just after mentioning the fears of whites. Because you
will never let a fact get in the way of your moral self.righteousness.
I do understand it. Once the Israeli's had established themselves, as immigrants have in UK, you almost can't turn the clock back
without inflicting the same policies/suffering in reverse. The Palestinians have de facto recognised this, hence their support for
a two state solution. I.e. two viable independent nations. Except, in practice, its not on offer as the Likud want to drive them
all into the sea or, until they expand further, Jordan.
Now that two states is unviable, the one multi-national state solution takes centre stage, but the Likud want a one-state without
the Palestinians, hence the new apartheid laws, in an attempt to keep the multi-national one-state, Jewish.
But it wont work, once the Palestinians embrace the one-state solution, and in effect declare themselves Israeli's, as the world,
even US, will support the need for all Israeli's to have equal rights, and Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital
of Israel (and de facto Palestine) brings that day closer.
To illustrate the point, the Zionists are advancing too far, like Hitler towards Stalingrad, to be cut off in the rear, resulting
in a pyrrhic victory. Instead of settling for a Jewish state, mostly occupied by Jews, alongside a Palestinian state, they are forcing
the creation of a multi-national one state, only half occupied by Jews, hence the need for new apartheid rules, to keep the multi-national
state, Jewish.
From an Israeli perspective, the "problem" is more or less solved. They'd love to fully take over Gaza and the West Bank, of course,
build a few hotels etc., but these are more or less clean-up operations. Something like 90% of the Palestinian population has been
expelled.
The whole area is a massive crime scene. I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there. It'd be like trying to find
the solution to the Big Bang. I can't see past making them stop and then setting up some sort of Nuremberg type system to deal with
the criminals.
There's nothing more depressing than this subject for me.
"I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there."
One man, One vote.
The demographics will then sort themselves out very quickly as those Israelis with dual-citizenship decamp and move to their "second"
country.
I would think that within a decade – maybe two – the demographics would be 70/30 or even more in favour of the Arab-speaking population,
and nobody will be killed and nobody will be dispossessed. And at that point "Israel" will change its name to "Palestine" and nobody
will make the slightest fuss about it.
I wouldn't use that phrase, no.
But it is as inevitable as that.
When the Zionist grip starts to loosen then a significant number of those Zionists are going to bolt – and that will accelerate
the process until it become a steamroller.
That's what nobody pays any attention to: the Palestinians won't go away because they have nowhere to go.
But there are enough Zionists who can – and will – and that will end up being the decisive factor.
They're not bolting for the exits yet because they are convinced that they are winning.
But they will waver, and it won't take many to break before the whole thing collapses.
Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though. They're intensifying and extending their grip. The Golan Heights aren't even
an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten. Poverty levels in Gaza thanks to sanctions and blockade have never been so bad as they
are right now.
Any day now we are expecting another major attack on Gaza along the lines of Caste Lead. They will hit schools and hospitals as
usual and thousands of unarmed civilians will die.
Not on the surface, no. The Israelis have excellent propaganda. Negative points are quickly brushed under the carpet. But Israel
is being hollowed out from the inside. Everybody has their second passport, ready to run. You will remember there was a big panic
in 2006 during Olmert's war in Lebanon. Hizbullah missiles were falling on Israel, and there were lengthy queues outside foreign
embassies for Israelis desperate to renew their second passports.
Nobody wants to fight any more. I mean, would you want to spend your life in the army reserve, obliged to be ready to go to war
whenever Netanyahu happens to decide on another invasion of Gaza? No, you would say sod it, I'm off to the States for a more peaceful
'normal' life. The Israeli army is just a poor militia now (see Pat Lang, passim). Even the Gazans stopped them cold in 2014. That
said, the airforce is very good, but it's the only arm that works now. And then Hizbullah have their stash of missiles that can now
reach anywhere in Israel, and Israel can do nothing about it (if they could, they would).
"Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though."
Agreed, there is no *sign* of wavering.
Indeed, the degree of bombast coming out of the Israeli establishment is now deafening.
"The Golan Heights aren't even an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten."
Oh, I think that once the Syrian government wipes out the last of the jihadists and then forces the US to withdraw from Syrian
territory then you will find the Golan Heights will become very much a hot potato.
After all, it will then be the last piece of Syrian territory that is not under the control of the Syrians, and they'll be in
no mood to be "intimidated" by the Israelis.
The Israelis will keep beating up on the Gaza Strip? Sure, they will.
And that will lull the Likud into thinking that the IDF is still a mighty fighting force, sure, it will.
But the strategic situation for Israeli is getting worse and worse, to the point where the Israelis dare not attack Lebanon for
fear that the Syrians will take the opportunity to seize the Golan Heights, and the Israelis dare not launch an attack into Syria
lest Hezbollah launch a counter-attack on the flank of that expeditionary force.
And either way there is this slight problem: the IDF is now a bunch of fluffy-girls-blouses, and as such is likely to get its
arse kicked in a fight with a real army.
laguerre has it correct below: the IDF has been hollowed out, as has Israeli society as a whole. They are riding for a fall, and
when they do they will come down to earth with a thud.
And nobody will be more surprised than them, which is when they will stampede for the door.
@ABasu - My comment was not in direct agreement with the article, it was a critique of the
first comment above.
I won't even begin with the welfare debate in which you somehow think that 'welfare' and
its relatively recent introduction is somehow anti neo-liberal because that is nothing other
than newspeak...
The point I was making (with perhaps a less than perfect example) is that language is
political and therefore it matters greatly what we call things.
Quite. Language is the first victim of any hegemonic project. Examples abound in communism,
fascism and neoliberalism. There's nothing to argue with in this article yet, unsurprisingly,
the usual swivel-eyed brigade seem to have popped up. Perhaps your discussion of work strays
a little too close to philosophy for the unthinking. I don't know why I'm disheartened by
some of the responses, as the same voices appear btl in almost ever CIF article, but I am
somehow. Perhaps because the point of the article - the hijacking of language - is so
obviously true as to be uncontroversial to any but the ideologically purblind, yet still....
@thesingingdetective - what is an insurance policy other than a financial product where in
return for payments over a period of time a claim can be made in certain circumstances?
If anything, particularly given that the link between contributions and claims is now
nugatory, describing welfare as welfare is much more honest and much less "neoliberal". It is
a set of payments and entitlements society has agreed upon to ensure a level of welfare for
all rather than an insurance policy which each individual may claim against if they've kept
up their payments.
If an anti-neo-liberal, supportive of the article can get this so back to front, perhaps
the "debate" being posited is an empty one about language.
If you changed a few words from the Communist Manifesto, it could easily be about
neo-liberalism and leftist attitudes towards it.
"A spectre is haunting Europe; the spectre of neo-liberalism. All the leftists of old
Europe have entered into a Holy Alliance to exorcise this spectre; Toynbee and Loach;
Redgrave and Harris.
Where is the party in power that has not been decried as neo-liberalistic by its leftist
opponents on the sidelines?"
Take FE as a case study on how the coin counters have taken over the world.
Back in the dark ages of the 1980s, the maths department had 7 lecturers (2 part time) and
two people to look after the admin - there was also the Department Head (who was a lecturer)
and a Head of School. They had targets, loosely defined, but it was a rare year when there
wasn't a smattering of A grades at A level...
Then along came the coin counters, the target setters, with their management degrees and
swivel eyed certainty that 'greed is good... competition! competition! competition!' and with
them came the new professionals into the department... the 'Quality Manager'... the
'Curriculum Manager' the 'Exams Manager' the 'Deputy Exams Manager'... and the paperwork
increased to feed the beast that counts everything but knows nothing... and targets were
set.... 'Targets! Targets! Targets!... and we were all sent in search of excellence... 'teach
to the exam' 'We must meet our targets'... 'we won't use exam board 'A' because they're
tough' and the exam boards reacted to their own target culture by all simplifying. The
universities began to notice the standard of 'A' grade students (who increased) was
equivelant to a C grade of 5 years ago. However, targets were being met (on paper) quality
was maintained (on paper) we were improving year on year (on paper). However, what was going
on in the real world is that our students were being sold a pup - their level of competence
and of knowledge was very much inferior to their same grade fore bearers of just 5 years
previous
Eventually, the department became 1 full time lecturer and 4 on 'zero hour contracts' and
the Head of School became 'Chief Executive' the 'Head of Department' became 'Department
Manager' and a gap developed between those who taught and those who 'managed'... not just a
culture gap... a bloody big pay gap...
Who benefited from all this marketisation?
Not the lecturers... not the students... not the universities... not industry...not the
economy...
Who benefited? Work it out for yourselves (as I used to tell my students)
@roachclip - I am familiar with the numerous wiki sites including Wikipedia, thank you very
much. If you read the article yourself you would see it supports my point of view here.
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic
vocabulary, for instance that bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure
– terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an
action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive
outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
This is absolute nonsense...the terms "investment" and "expenditure" carry no moral
connotations that I can determine. Does the author accept that we need to have terms to
express each of these concepts? Perhaps she would like to come up with some alternative
suggestions for the notions of "contributing money" and "spending money"?
Seconded, its uses and abuses of the English Language second only that of the Church. A
fitting comparison in my book because they both have much in common. Both are well aware that
it is through language and the control of which that true cultural change is achieved.
Both know that this new language must be propagated as far and as wide as possible, with
saturation coverage. Control of information is a a must, people must see and they must know
only things of your choosing.
For example, back in the 4th Century AD (which is incidentally an abbreviation of the Latin
'Anno Domini', which means 'in the year of our Lord'), the church became centralised and
established under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Part of this centralising
mission was the creation of a uniform belief system. Those that 'chose' to believe something
else were branded 'heretics'. The word 'heresy' coming from the Greek
'αἵρεσις' for 'choice'. Thus to choose to have your
own opinions was therefore deemed to be a bad thing.
As a quick aside, 'Pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus' which means 'rural dweller'. I.e.
those beyond the remit of the urban Christian elites. 'Heathen' on the other hand is Old
English (hæðen). It simply means 'not Christian or Jewish.
When you have complete control over the flow of information, as the Church did by the 5th
Century, then you can write practically anything. This doesn't mean just writing good things
about yourself and bad things about your enemies. Rather it means that you can frame the
debate anyway you wish.
In modern times, I would argue that you can see similar things happen here. As the author
suggests, terms like 'Wealth Creator', 'Scrounger', 'Sponger', 'living on welfare', 'Growth',
'progress' and my personal favourite, 'reform', take on a whole new meaning.
Their definition of the word 'reform' and what we would see it to mean are two totally
different things, Yet since it is they that has access to the wider world and not us, then it
is their definition that gets heard. The same could be said for all the other words and their
latter day connotations.
Thus when you hear the news and you hear what passes for debate, you hear things on their
terms. Using their language with their meanings. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that
proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private
property rights, free markets, and free trade.
You'll notice I've highlighted the word freedoms. Freedom is a word they hijacked right
from the start of the process and how they hijacked the Republican party in the USA.
For any way of thought to become dominant, a conceptual apparatus has to be advanced that
appeals to our intuitions and instincts, to our values and our desires, as well as to the
possibilities inherent in the social world we inhabit. If successful, this conceptual
apparatus becomes so embedded in common sense as to be taken for granted and not open to
question. The founding figures of neoliberal thought took political ideals of human
dignity and individual freedom as fundamental.
Concepts of dignity and individual freedom are powerful and appealing in their own right.
Such ideals empowered the dissident movements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before
the end of the Cold War as well as the students in Tiananmen Square. The student movements
that swept the world in 1968––from Paris and Chicago to Bangkok and Mexico
City––were in part animated by the quest for greater freedoms of speech and of
personal choice.
More generally, these ideals appeal to anyone who values the ability to make decisions for
themselves.
The idea of freedom, long embedded in the US tradition, has played a conspicuous role in
the US in recent years. '9/11' was immediately interpreted by many as an attack on it. 'A
peaceful world of growing freedom', wrote President Bush on the first anniversary of
that awful day, 'serves American long-term interests, reflects enduring American ideals
and unites America's allies.' 'Humanity', he concluded, 'holds in its hands the opportunity
to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes', and 'the United States welcomes its
responsibilities to lead in this great mission'. This language was incorporated into the US
National Defense Strategy document issued shortly thereafter. 'Freedom is the Almighty's gift
to every man and woman in this world', he later said, adding that 'as the greatest power on
earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom'.
When all of the other reasons for engaging in a pre-emptive war against Iraq were proven
wanting, the president appealed to the idea that the freedom conferred on Iraq was in and of
itself an adequate justification for the war. The Iraqis were free, and that was all
that really mattered. But what sort of 'freedom' is envisaged here, since, as the cultural
critic Matthew Arnold long ago thoughtfully observed, 'freedom is a very good horse to ride,
but to
ride somewhere'.To what destination, then, are the Iraqi people expected to ride the horse of
freedom donated to them by force of arms?
As Hayek quoted....
Planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom. Free
enterprise and private ownership are declared to be essentials of freedom.
No society built on other foundations is said to deserve to be called free.
The freedom that regulation creates is denounced as unfreedom; the justice, liberty and
welfare it offers are decried as a camouflage of slavery.
The Neoliberal idea of freedom 'thus degenerates into a mere advocacy of free
enterprise. It helps explain why neoliberalism has turned so authoritarian, forceful, and
anti-democratic at the very moment when 'humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes'. It makes us focus on how so many
corporations have profiteered from withholding the benefits of their
technologies, famine, and environmental disaster. It raises the worry as to whether or not
many of these calamities or
near calamities (arms races and the need to confront both real and
imagined enemies) have been secretly engineered for corporate advantage.
Political slogans can be invoked that mask specific strategies beneath vague
rhetorical devices. The word 'freedom' resonates so widely within the common-sense
understanding of Americans that it becomes 'a button that elites can press to open the door
to the masses' to justify almost anything.
Appeals to traditions and cultural values bulked large in all of this. An open project
around the restoration of economic power to a small elite would probably not gain much
popular support. But a programmatic attempt to advance the cause of individual freedoms could
appeal to a mass base and so disguise the drive to restore class power.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
@gyges1 - The idea of language is very important in the production of a way of thinking which
closes down other alternatives and futures. One which leaves neoliberal globalisation as 'the
only game in town'.
I worry that the very term 'neoliberalism' is one not used by the political classes and
much of the media, I don't think I've ever heard the world 'neoliberalism' used on the
BBC.
This unwillingness to even call a spade a spade has political consequences . For
example, I had an online discussion with someone over Thatchers death a little while ago. He
called me 'comrade' and then questioned the very existence of the term Neo-liberalism. At the
time I thought this was a bit of a cheap shot, but if you can quite cheerfully label someone
a 'socialist' and then refuse to accept that neo-liberalism exists, you are well on your way
to making people believe that the current set of social relations are indeed completely
normal and that there are few, if any, alternative ways of rewiring the world which can
create a better world.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
The Russian world is caught up in a drama. Its leading Orthodox Church faces a schism over the Ukraine's drive for its own independent
church. If Kiev regime succeeds, the split between Russia proper and its breakaway Western part, the Ukraine, will widen. The Russian
Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. However, there is a chance
for the Russians to gain a lot from the split, to gain more than to lose.
The Ukraine actually has its own church, and this church is the self-ruling autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a part of the
Russian Orthodox Church. Its autonomy is very broad; it can be considered independent practically in every aspect excepting its nominal
recognition of Moscow supremacy. The Ukrainian Church does not pay tribute to Moscow, it elects its own bishops; it has no reason
to push for more. No tangible reason, at least.
But in the Ukraine, there was and is a strong separatist tendency, with a somewhat romantic and nationalist tinge, comparable
to Scots or Languedoc separatism. Its beginning could be traced to 18th Century, when a Moscow-appointed ruler Hetman Mazeppa rose
against Russia's Peter the Great and allied himself with the Swedish warrior-king Charles XII. A hundred years after the revolt,
the foremost Russian poet, Alexander Pushkin, composed a beautiful romantic poem Poltava (following
Byron's Mazeppa ) where he gives Mazeppa the following words:
For far too long we've bowed our heads, Without respect or liberty, Beneath the yoke of Warsaw's patronage, Beneath the yoke of Moscow's despotism. But now is Ukraine's chance to grow Into an independent power. (trans. by Ivan Eubanks)
This romantic dream of an independent Ukraine became real after the 1917 Revolution, under the German occupation at the conclusion
of World War One. Within a year or two, as the defeated Germans withdrew, the independent Ukraine became Soviet and joined Soviet
Russia in the Soviet Union of equal Republics. Even within the Union, the Ukraine was independent and it had its own UN seat. When
Russian President Yeltsin dissolved the Union, Ukraine became fully independent again.
In the 1991 divorce with rump Russia (after hundreds of years of integration), the Ukraine took with her a major portion of the
former Union's physical and human assets. The spacious country with its hard-working people, fertile black soil, the cream of Soviet
industry producing aircraft, missiles, trains and tractors, with the best and largest army within the Warsaw Treaty, with its universities,
good roads, proximity to Europe, expensive infrastructure connecting East and West, the Ukraine had a much better chances for success
than rump Russia.
But it didn't turn out this way, for reasons we shall discuss elsewhere. A failed state if there ever was one, the Ukraine was
quickly deserted by its most-valuable people, who ran away in droves to Russia or Poland; its industries were dismantled and sold
for the price of scrap metal. The only compensation the state provides is even more nationalism, even more declarations of its independence.
This quest for full independence has been even less successful than economic or military measures. The Kiev regime could dispense
with Moscow, but it became subservient to the West. Its finances are overseen by the IMF, its army by NATO, its foreign policy by
the US State Department. Real independence was an elusive goal, beyond the Ukraine's reach.
A total break of the Ukrainian church with the nominal supremacy of Moscow appealed to President Petro Poroshenko as a convincing
substitute for real independence, especially with a view toward the forthcoming elections. He turned to the patriarch of Constantinople,
His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew asking him to grant his church its full independence (called autocephaly
in ecclesiastical language).
Fine, but what is 'his church'? The vast majority of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians and their bishops are content with their status
within the Russian Church. They have their own head, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphrius, who is also content with his position.
They do not see any need for autocephaly. However, the Ukraine has two small splinter orthodox churches, one led by the ambitious
bishop Filaret and another by Macarius; both are very nationalist and anti-Russian, both support the regime and claim for autonomy,
both are considered illegitimate by the rest of the Orthodox world. These two small churches are potential embryos of a future Ukrainian
Church of President Poroshenko.
Now we shall turn to Bartholomew. His title describes him as the patriarch of Constantinople, but in vain you will seek this city
on a map. Constantinople, the Christian capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the greatest city of his time, the seat of Roman emperors,
was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and became Islamic Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire and of the last Muslim
Caliphate; since 1920 it has been a city in the Republic of Turkey. The Constantinople Patriarchate is a phantom fossil of a great
past; it has a few churches, a monastery and a few ambitious monks located in Phanar, an old Greek quarter of Istanbul.
The Turkish government considers Bartholomew a bishop of the local Greeks, denying his 6 th -century title of Ecumenical
Patriarch. There are only three thousand Greeks in the city, so Bartholomew has very small foothold there indeed. His patriarchate
is a phantom in the world of phantoms, such as the Knights of Maltese and Temple Orders, Kings of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, emperors
of Brazil and of the Holy Roman Empire Phantom is not a swear word. Phantoms are loved by romantics enamoured by old rituals and
uniforms with golden aiguillettes. These honourable gentlemen represent nobody, they have no authority, but they can and do issue
impressive-looking certificates.
ORDER IT NOW
The Orthodox Church differs from its Roman Catholic sister by having no central figure like the Pope of Rome. The Orthodox have
a few equal-ranking heads of national churches, called Patriarchs or Popes. The Patriarch of Constantinople is one of these fourteen
church leaders, though he has more than his share of respect by virtue of tradition. Now the Phantom of Phanar seeks to make his
position much more powerful, akin to that of the Pope of Rome for the Western Church. His organization
claims that "The Ecumenical Patriarchate has the
responsibility of being the Church of final appeal in Orthodoxy, and it is the only Church that may establish autocephalous and autonomous
Churches". These claims are rejected by the Russian Church, by far the biggest Orthodox Church in the world.
As the Ukrainian church is a part of the Russian Church, it could seek its full independence (autocephaly) in Moscow, but it has
no such wish. The two small splinter churches turned to Phanar, and the Phanar leader was more than happy to get into the game. He
had sent two of his bishops to Kiev and started with establishing a united Ukrainian church. This church wouldn't be independent,
or autocephalous; it would be a church under the direct rule of Phanar, an autonomous or the stavropegial church. For Ukrainian
nationalists, it would be a sad reminder that they have the choice to go with Moscow or with Istanbul, now as their ancestors had
four hundred years ago. Full independence is not on the cards.
For the Phanar, it was not a first foray into Russian territory: Bartholomew also used the anti-Russian sentiments of Tallinn
and took a part of the Estonian churches and their faithful under his rule. However, then the Russians took it easy, for two reasons.
Estonia is small, there are not too many churches nor congregants; and besides, the Phanar had taken some positions in Estonia between
the wars, when Soviet Russia did not care much about the Church. The Ukraine is absolutely different. It is very big, it is the heart
of Russian church, and Constantinople has no valid claim on it.
The Russians say that President Poroshenko bribed Bartholomew. This is nonsense of very low grade; even if the Patriarch is not
averse to accepting gifts. Bartholomew had a very valid reason to accept Poroshenko's offer. If he would realize his plan and establish
a church of Ukraine under his own rule, call it autonomous or stavropegial or even autocephalous, he would cease being a phantom
and would become a very real church leader with millions of faithful. The Ukraine is second only to Russia in the Orthodox world,
and its coming under Constantinople would allow Bartholomew to become the most-powerful Orthodox leader.
The Russians are to blame themselves for much of their difficulties. They were too eager to accept the Phanar Phantom for the
real thing in their insistent drive for external approval and recognition. They could have forgotten about him three hundred years
ago instead of seeking his confirmation now and then. It is dangerous to submit to the weak; perhaps it is more risky than to submit
to the strong.
This reminds me of a rather forgotten novel by H. G. Wells
The Food of the Gods and How It Came to Earth . It is a story of a wondrous nourishment that allows children to grow into
forty-foot-high giants. Society mistreats the young titans. In a particularly powerful episode, a mean old hag scolds the tall kids
– thrice her size, and they timidly accept her silly orders. In the end, the giants succeed in standing their ground, throw off the
yoke and walk tall. Wells writes about "young giants, huge and beautiful, glittering in their mail, amidst the preparations for the
morrow. The sight of them lifted his heart. They were so easily powerful! They were so tall and gracious! They were so steadfast
in their movements!"
Russia is a young giant that tries to observe the pygmy-established rules. International organisation called PACE (The Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe) where Russia is harshly mistreated and is not even allowed to defend itself, is a good example.
International courts where Russia has little chance to stand its ground is another one. President Trump has taken the US out of a
few international organisations, though the US has huge weight in international affairs and all states pay heed to the US position.
Russia's voice is not even heard, and only now the Russians begin to ponder the advantages of Ruxit.
The church rules are equally biased as they place the biggest Orthodox state with millions of faithful Christians on the same
footing as Oriental phantoms.
In the days of the Ottoman Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople had real weight. The Sultan defended his position, his decisions
had legal implications for the Orthodox subjects of the Empire. He caused many troubles for the Russian Church, but the Russians
had to observe his decrees as he was an imperial official. After Ataturk's revolution, the Patriarch lost his status, but the Russian
church, this young giant, continued to revere him and support him. After 1991, when Russia had turned to its once-neglected church,
the Russian Church multiplied its generosity towards Phanar and turned to him for guidance, for the Moscow Church had been confused
and unprepared for its new position. Being in doubt, it turned to tradition. We can compare this to the English "rotten boroughs"
of Dickens novels, towns that had traditionally sent their representatives to the Parliament though they scarcely had any dwellers.
In this search for tradition, the Russian church united with the Russian Church abroad, the émigré structure with its checkered
history that included support for Hitler. Its main contribution was fierce anti-Communism and rejection of the Soviet period of the
Russian past. However it could be justified by the Russians' desire to heal the White vs. Red split and restore the émigrés to the
Russian people. While honouring the Phanar Phantom as the honorary head of the Orthodox world had no justification at all.
The Phanar had US State Department backing to consider. US diplomacy has had a good hand in dealings with phantoms: for many years
Washington supported phantom governments-in-exile of the Baltic states, and this support was paid back a hundredfold in 1991. Now,
the US support for Phanar has paid back well in this renewed attack on Russia.
ORDER IT NOW
The Patriarch of Phanar, perhaps, underestimated possible Russian response to his Ukrainian meddling. He got used to Russian good
treatment; he remembered that the Russians meekly accepted his takeover of the Estonian church. Being encouraged by the US and driven
by his own ambitions, he made the radical step of voiding Constantinople's agreement of transfer of Kiev Metropolitan seat to Moscow,
had sent his bishops and took over the Ukraine to himself.
The Moscow Church anathemised Bartholomew, and forbade its priests to participate in service with Phanar priests and (!!!) with
priests that accept Phanar priests. While ending communion with Phanar is no pain at all, the secondary step – of ending communion
with the churches that refuse to excommunicate Phanar – is a very radical one. Other Orthodox churches are unhappy about Phanar moves.
They are aware that Phanar's new rules may threaten them, too. They are not keen to establish a Pope above themselves. But I doubt
they are ready to excommunicate Phanar.
The Russian church can take a less radical and more profitable way. The Orthodox world's unity is based on two separate principles.
One, the Eucharist. All Orthodox churches are united in the communion. Their priests can serve together and accept communion in any
recognised church. Two, the principle of canonical territory
. No church should appoint bishops on the other church's territory.
Phanar transgressed against the territorial principle. In response, the Russian Church excommunicated him. But Phanar refused
to excommunicate the Russians. As the result, the Russians are forbidden by their own church to accept communion if excommunicated
priests participate in the service. But the priests of the Church of Jerusalem do not ban anybody, neither Russians, no Phanariots.
As it happened with Russian counter-sanctions, they cause harm and pain mainly to Russians themselves. There are few Orthodox
pilgrims visiting Russia, while there are many Russian pilgrims visiting the Holy Land, Mount Athos and other important sites of
Greece, Turkey and Palestine, first of all Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Now these pilgrims won't be able to receive the holy communion
in the Holy Sepulchre and in the Nativity Cathedral, while Russian priests won't be able to celebrate mass in these churches.
The Russian priests will probably suffer and submit, while the lay pilgrims will probably break the prohibition and accept the
Eucharist in the Church of Jerusalem.
It would be better if the Russian church were to deal with Phanar's treachery on the reciprocity basis. Phanar does not excommunicate
Russians, and Russians may go back to full communion with Phanar. Phanar broke the territorial principle, and the Russians may disregard
territorial principle. Since the 20th century, canonical territory has increasingly become a violated principle of canon law, says
OrthodoxWiki . Facing such major transgression, the Russians
may completely drop the territorial principle and send their bishops to Constantinople and Jerusalem, to Rome and Washington, while
keeping all Orthodox churches in full communion.
The Russian church will be able to spread the Orthodox faith all over the world, among the French in France, among the Italians
in Italy, among Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Russian church dos not allow women into priesthood, does not allow gay unions,
does not consider the Jews its elder brothers, does not tolerate homosexual priests and allows its priests to marry. Perhaps it has
a good chance to compete with other churches for the flock and clergy.
Thus Moscow Church will be free of tenets it voluntarily accepted. Regarding communion, the Russian church can retain communion
with Phanar and Jerusalem and with other Orthodox churches, even with splinter churches on reciprocity basis. Moreover, the Russian
Church may allow communion with Catholics. At present, Catholics allow Russians to receive communion, but the Russian Church do not
allow their flock to accept Catholic communion and does not allow Catholics to receive communion in Russian churches. With all the
differences between the churches, we the Christians can share communion, flesh and blood of our Saviour, and this all we need.
All this is extremely relevant for the Holy Land. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Theophilos does not want to quarrel
with Constantinople nor with Moscow. He won't excommunicate the priests of Phanar despite Moscow's requests, and I think he is right.
Ban on communion in the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem or in the Nativity of Bethlehem would become a heavy unnecessary and self-inflicted
punishment for Russian pilgrims. That is why it makes sense to retain joint communion, while voiding the territorial principle.
Russian church may nominate its bishops in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth to attract the flock presently neglected by the traditional
Patriarchate of Jerusalem. I mean the Palestinian Christians and Israeli Christians, hundreds of thousands of them.
The Church of Jerusalem is, and had been ruled by ethnic Greeks since the city was conquered by the Ottomans in 16th century.
The Turks removed local Arab Orthodox clerics and appointed their loyal Greeks. Centuries passed by, the Turks are gone, the Greeks
are loyal only to themselves, and they do not care much about the natives. They do not allow Christian Palestinian monks to join
monasteries, they bar them from holding bishop cathedra and do not let them into the council of the church (called Synod). This flagrant
discrimination annoys Palestinian Christians; many of them turned to the Catholic, or even Protestant churches. The flock is angry
and ready to rise in revolt against the Greeks, like the Syrian Orthodox did in 1898, when they expelled the Greek bishops and elected
an Arab Patriarch of Antioch – with Russian support. (Until that time the Patriarch of Antioch had been elected in Istanbul by Phanar
monks exclusively from the "Greeks by race", as they
said in those days, and as is
the custom of the See of Jerusalem now).
Last Christmas, the Patriarch of Jerusalem had been blocked from entering the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem by angry local Christians,
and only Israeli army allowed him to get in. If the Russian Church will establish its bishops in the Holy Land, or even appoint her
own Patriarch of Rum (traditional name of the Church) many churches of the Holy Land will accept him, and many faithful will find
the church that they can relate to. For the Greek leadership of the Jerusalem church is interested in pilgrimage churches only; they
care for pilgrims from Greece and for Greeks in the Holy Land.
ORDER IT NOW
There are many Russian Orthodox in Israel; the Greeks of the Church do not attend to their needs. Since 1948, not a single new
church had been built by the Orthodox in Israel. Big cities with many Christians – Beer Sheba, Afula, touristy Eilat – have no churches
at all. For sure, we can partly blame Israeli authorities and their hatred of Christianity. However, the Church of Jerusalem is not
trying hard enough to erect new churches.
There is a million of immigrants from Russia in Israel. Some of them were Christians, some want to enter the church, being disappointed
by brutal and hostile Judaism. They had some romantic image of the Jewish faith, being brought up in atheist USSR, but the reality
was not even similar. Not only them; Israelis of every origin are unhappy with Judaism that exists now in Israel. They are ready
for Christ. A new church of the Holy Land established by Russians can bring Israelis, Jews and non-Jews, native Palestinians and
immigrants to Christ.
Thus Phanar's rejection of territorialism can be used for the greater glory of the Church. Yes, the Russian church will change
its character and assume some of global, ecumenical function. This is big challenge; I do not know whether the Russians are ready
for it, whether the Patriarch of Moscow Kyril is daring enough for it.
His Church is rather timid; the bishops do not express their views in public. However, a Moscow priest Fr Vsevolod Chaplin, who
was close to the Patriarch until recently, publicly called for full reformatting of the Orthodox Christianity, for getting rid of
rotten boroughs and phantoms, for establishing sturdy connection between laity and Patriarchate. Without great push by the incautious
Patriarch Bartholomew, these ideas could gestate for years; now they can come forth and change the face of the faith.
Constantinople, the Christian capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the greatest city of his time, the seat of Roman emperors,
was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 145 2
According to Wiki:
The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire by an invading Ottoman army on 29 May
145 3 .
@geokat62 First, using Wikipedia as a
reference source is rather déclassé. You are right, however–Wikipedia is right, however–Constantinople did fall in 1493 and Mr.
Shamir was wrong. However, as the title of The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492 (sic) tells, the empire
was gone in 1492. We all make mistakes and a few months' difference in events that happened over 500 years ago seems of little
significance. That you needed to bring it to our attention has far more significance to me.
Well now we have the second installment of the Great Orthodox Schism Controversy
I must say that Shamir does spin a rather lively story here rather more gripping than Saker's sombre monograph of a few weeks
ago
One is tantalized by images of dancing Israelis who are 'ready for Christ' and French and Italians converting en masse to Orthodoxy
[what with all the advantages outlined here by Shamir, I must admit it does sound rather attractive, for anyone thinking of 'trading
in' so to speak...]
A possible 'takeover' of the Patriarchate of Rum [will they add Coke...?] the possibilities are endless
'A new church of the Holy Land established by Russians can bring Israelis, Jews and non-Jews, native Palestinians and immigrants
to Christ.'
I usually like Shamir's writings but this article clearly shows up his shortcomings on this particular subject. He treats the
whole affair as if it is a business deal and then tallies up the pluses and the minuses for the Russian Orthodox church. He forgets
that the Russian church was massively persecuted and that for them doing the correct thing in God's site is the only thing.
The spacious country with its hard-working people, fertile black soil, the cream of Soviet industry producing aircraft,
missiles, trains and tractors, with the best and largest army within the Warsaw Treaty, with its universities, good roads,
proximity to Europe, expensive infrastructure connecting East and West, the Ukraine had a much better chances for success than
rump Russia.
Soviet-era industries couldn't compete in the modern capitalist economy, and were destined to die. Post-communist Ukraine had
no capable class of entrepreneurs, its univercities couldn't meet the demands of the market economy, Ukrainian workers lacked
marketable skills. It was a recipe for failure. Russia had all the same problems of course, but it also retained its vast reserves
of oil and gas
" The Russian Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. "
The loss of the catholic church because of the Anglican church indeed was horrible, financially.
Not just catholic priests in England suffered, archbishops on the continent, of British sees, who had never been in England, suffered
enormously.
While I respect and generally enjoy Shamir's intellect and writing skills, in this topic he is completely out of his depth. He
recommends actions which would totally destroy Christ's Church on earth, deforming it into a mere worldly contestant for the praise
of men.
The one true Church is not an episode in political gamesmanship–regardless how heretical bishops may behave from time to time–but
Shamir only relates to it in terms of what behaviors would yield the greatest worldly satisfaction in political power. This is
the fatal road the Roman church went down (labeled with the year 1054) when their mere bishop decided he needs to be the Pope
of the entire world and so broke communion and excommunicated the rest of the Church (which remained Orthodox). The papacy then
went on to a successful pursuit of worldly power through the sword that continues to this day. Restore communion with the Roman
pope??? Is Shamir crazy??? Each pope puts himself in the place of Christ (antichrist), and true Orthodox will never have Eucharist
with that.
Russia's mistake and the mistake of the rest of Orthodoxy is to have gone along with Constantinople (out of brotherly love
and respect for Tradition) for the past 100 years of her micro-heresies. The First and Most Egregious action by Constantinople
was to exploit the bloody Soviet persecution of the Church in Russia to declare that the rest of the Orthodox world must switch
from the Church calendar to the secular, civil calendar devised by the Latins. This was the kickoff of a chain of heretical actions
which are continuing throughout the world, to the extent that now so-called churches contemplate legitimizing women priests, sodomy,
pedophilia, and turning the Eucharist into a cafeteria.
The USA is 100% actively behind the actions in Ukraine and the Phanar. In fact no one can be enthroned in Constantinople without
the sponsorship of the CIA. So this arch-heretic Bartholomew of the Phanar "elevates" an excommunicated prideful heretic, Philaret,
to be the "head" a new "orthodox church in Ukraine." This is the empire seeking to destroy the strength of Russia, which is Orthodoxy.
The Evil wants to turn Orthodoxy into a beautiful whitewashed tomb: resplendent cathedrals, sumptuous robes, exalted chanting,
artful icons, politically correct bishops. But inside it will be full of dead men's bones.
" The Russian Church will suffer a great loss, comparable to the emergence of the Anglican church for the Catholics. "
The loss of the catholic church because of the Anglican church indeed was horrible, financially.
Not just catholic priests in England suffered, archbishops on the continent, of British sees, who had never been in England, suffered
enormously.
While I respect and generally enjoy Shamir's intellect and writing skills, in this topic he is completely out of his depth. He
recommends actions which would totally destroy Christ's Church on earth, deforming it into a mere worldly contestant for the praise
of men.
The one true Church is not an episode in political gamesmanship -- regardless how heretical bishops may behave from time to time–but
Shamir only relates to it in terms of what behaviors would yield the greatest worldly satisfaction in political power. This is
the fatal road the Roman church went down (labeled with the year 1054) when their mere bishop decided he needs to be the Pope
of the entire world and so broke communion and excommunicated the rest of the Church (which remained Orthodox).
The papacy then
went on to a successful pursuit of worldly power through the sword that continues to this day. Restore communion with the Roman
pope??? Is Shamir crazy??? Each pope puts himself in the place of Christ (antichrist), and true Orthodox will never have Eucharist
with that.
Russia's mistake and the mistake of the rest of Orthodoxy is to have gone along with Constantinople (out of brotherly love
and respect for Tradition) for the past 100 years of her micro-heresies. The First and Most Egregious action by Constantinople
was to exploit the bloody Soviet persecution of the Church in Russia to declare that the rest of the Orthodox world must switch
from the Church calendar to the secular, civil calendar devised by the Latins. This was the kickoff of a chain of heretical actions
which are continuing throughout the world, to the extent that now so-called churches contemplate legitimizing women priests, sodomy,
pedophilia, and turning the Eucharist into a cafeteria.
The USA is 100% actively behind the actions in Ukraine and the Phanar. In fact no one can be enthroned in Constantinople without
the sponsorship of the CIA. So this arch-heretic Bartholomew of the Phanar "elevates" an excommunicated prideful heretic, Philaret,
to be the "head" a new "orthodox church in Ukraine." This is the empire seeking to destroy the strength of Russia, which is Orthodoxy.
The Evil wants to turn Orthodoxy into a beautiful whitewashed tomb: resplendent cathedrals, sumptuous robes, exalted chanting,
artful icons, politically correct bishops. But inside it will be full of dead men's bones.
Very thoughtful article. While the brilliant conclusion that there could be advantages in abandoning the territorial principle
in Orthodoxy might offer some hope to the incoherent situation in the American Church, on the other hand letting go of territoriality
sacrifices regionalism for globalism. So is this a great opportunity or an execration? That would depend on whether the Patriarchs
are intent on building Christ's Kingdom, or their own.
"... In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has collected 5.4m "adverse event" reports over the past decade, some from manufacturers reporting problems in other parts of the world. ..."
"... Interviews with patients and doctors have revealed flaws in how the medical devices industry is regulated. ..."
Patients around the world are suffering pain and many have died as a result of faulty
medical devices that have been allowed on to the market by a system dogged by poor regulation,
lax rules on testing and a lack of transparency, an investigation has found.
Pacemakers, artificial hips, contraceptives and breast implants are among the devices that
have caused injuries and resulted in patients having to undergo follow-up operations or in some
cases losing their lives.
In some cases, the implants had not been tested in patients before being allowed on to the
market.
In the UK alone, regulators received 62,000 "adverse incident" reports linked to medical
devices between 2015 and 2018. A third of the incidents had serious repercussions for the
patient, and 1,004 resulted in death.
In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has collected 5.4m "adverse event"
reports over the past decade, some from manufacturers reporting problems in other parts of the
world.
These included 1.7m reports of injuries and almost 83,000 deaths. Nearly 500,000 mentioned
an explant – surgery to remove a device.
The figures come from research by 252 journalists from 59 media organisations in 36
countries, which has uncovered a litany of problems in the global $400bn (£310bn)
industry.
Examples of failure in the market include:
Replacement hips and vaginal mesh products sold to
hospitals without any clinical trials. Patients relying on faulty pacemakers when manufacturers
were aware of problems. Complications with hernia mesh that ruled one of Britain's top athletes
out of competing for years. Regulators approving spinal disc
replacements that later disintegrated and migrated in patients. Surgeons admitting they were
unable to tell patients about the risks posed by implants because of a lack of central
registers. Patients in Australia being given devices that the regulator has approved on the
basis they have been approved in Europe.
The findings raise concerns about the level of scrutiny devices undergo before and after
they go on the market, and whether regulators detect and act upon findings quickly enough.
Information about problems with devices is, in many countries, kept under wraps, making it
difficult for patients to research procedures that have been recommended to
them.
Interviews with patients and doctors have revealed flaws in how the medical
devices industry is regulated.
Prof Derek Alderson, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said there had been
enough incidents involving flawed devices to "underline the need for drastic regulatory
changes", including the introduction of mandatory national registries for all implantable
devices.
"In contrast to drugs, many surgical innovations are introduced without clinical trial data
or centrally held evidence," he said. "This is a risk to patient safety and public
confidence."
The Guardian and organisations including the BBC , Le Monde and Süddeutsche Zeitung,
coordinated by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), have trawled
through thousands of documents, many obtained through freedom of information (FoI) requests, to
unearth some of the biggest problems.
Alongside interviews with patients and doctors, these have revealed flaws in the way the
industry is regulated that are unlikely to be fixed by rules due to come into force in
Europe.
Among the concerns raised by the Implant Files project are that manufacturers are in
charge of testing their own products after faults have developed – and are allowed to
shop around for approval to market their products, without declaring any refusals.
The Guardian has also heard about doctors who have close industry ties or seem eager to be
early adopters of the latest devices to enhance their professional standing.
Plans for tougher EU rules have been watered down after industry lobbying, according to a
huge trove of documents uncovered by the project.
She thought the investigation might have about six months left, although if Trump refuses a
face-to-face meeting, Mueller could seek a subpoena to put him before the grand jury. That
could be fought all the way to the supreme court.
There is a precedent, US v Nixon, when the justices ruled that the president must deliver
subpoenaed materials to a district court. Sixteen days later, Nixon resigned.
If Mueller decides not to have that fight, he could write a report saying he believed the
president obstructed justice. If he does not reach that conclusion, the Democratic-led House
could issue its own subpoenas.
"It is a chess match," said Milgram. "We'll have to see how it plays out in the next
year."
The denial of the economic ideology of Neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cheap debating point. If you pretend something
doesn't exist then you make it difficult to attack.
Notable quotes:
"... Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University Press". ..."
"... What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen? ..."
"... All one needs to know is that English language is being manipulated just as it always has been by those that have the power to do it. Today the main manipulators are, Madison Avenue, agencies and departments the United States government, Wall Street, US television media. Most people don't realize that the language is being manipulated, when they hear or see in print words being used in unusual ways they just go along with it. ..."
"... Advertising frequently refers to things being "better" with no explanation of what it is better than. ..."
"... "Underpriviliged" to describe people living in poverty but no explanation of the privileges that people have who are not poor. ..."
"... I could go on and on, but I am sure that you scribblers who do not indulge in "confuse speak" know exactly what I am trying to explain. Best example I can give is "The free world" which by latest check includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and sundry other brutal regimes and one time actually included outright fascist countries. ..."
"... Yes - the person who said language was mankind's first technology were absolutely correct. I expect language was invented by those who invent all technology to be just out of reach of the general public until the inventers decide they can do business for themselves out of it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the final stage of liberal democracy which has been around for 60-70 years, the most destructive form of government the world has ever seen, based on deregulation for the wealthy oligarchs and debt and debauchery for the poor .............. which is rapidly taking us back to feudal times. ..."
"... I prescribe a course of Orwell, Start, perhaps, with short stories...... Politics and the English Language, Why I Write, Notes on Nationalism, for example. And then a full dose of Nineteen Eighty-Four. That should do the trick! ..."
"... Nothing has been learnt from the crash of 2008 beyond "get rich even quicker", or as its more commonly known, economic and ecological suicide. ..."
Term abuse didn't arrive with neoliberalism; it's been around since forever. Also, the fact
that most of our daily transactions might be commercial is a reflection of our own habits as
much as the changing use of language.
If a person is employed by a commercial gallery, they are effectively working in a shop,
and the people who visit these galleries are potentially customers. No surprise there. Just
like a person who uses transport can be a customer. Of course, there are public services
where commercial terms such as customer make little sense.
Sure, it isn't that important who is making the point, even if the point is made by
reference to questionable and contentious examples.
I also think that any even bigger influence on meaning / lack of meaning / interchangeable
meaning etc.has been postmodernity far more than neoliberalism.
All true but the left is just as bad as coining its Orwellisms. Witness the way nobody has to use an approved vocabulary to talk about every and any group
on fear of moral ridicule or worse. Language is a mental battlefield.
@RClayton - Can I suggest resurrecting William Morris's distinction between "work" (ie labour
that is moral, creative, aesthetic or, at least, hygienic - ie intrinsically worth doing) and
"toil" which is work done only because of the necessity to earn money to buy the means of
existence?
Having words that distinguish between these two ideas is useful. The 'work' you talk about
is 'toil' and most of it is done simply to service the money/capitalist system.
As an example, I have in front of me a rubber 'stress reliever' in the shape of PacMan. It
was given to me as a gift.
Presumably, somewhere in the world there is a factory full of people turning out this
rubbish. It adds nothing to the world's beauty, nor its ability to support the people living
on it. Its only uses are in providing paid 'toil' to support the factory workers and to
enable someone to give me something I don't need as a token of their friendship, probably
paid for from the fruits of their own toil.
Changing the words we use will not change this, but it does give us a framework in which
to think about how it might be changed.
Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman,
and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University
Press".
What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen?
If I can repeat what I said at the top of this thread - The denial of the economic
ideology of Neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cheap debating point. If you pretend
something doesn't exist then you make it difficult to attack.
The biggest problem isn't so much that people use the language of commercial business and are
free and easy with their abuse of terms (there's a new one), but that people treat government
and politics as a service, and see their relationship with governance as akin to a
client/customer relationship, to that end we elect politicians who tell us what we want to
hear, even if what we hear can be, all to often, somewhat meaningless or trite.
@TheRealCmdrGravy - There's nothing vague about it, It represents the whole of UK and US
government economic policy for the last thirty years with the happy outcomes that we enjoy
today.
But now you know what a neoliberal is, perhaps you can reread the excellent article above
with added relish and understanding. Glad to be of assistance. If you want anything else
looking up I suggest using a search engine before posting here that a particular word is too
difficult for you.
According to Bradford DeLong, a Berkeley economic historian, neoliberalism has two main
tenets:
"The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core and the developing
periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua
non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be
eliminated as fast as possible).
The second is that governments in general lack the
capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core
missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and
a few others, governments should shrink and privatize)."
All one needs to know is that English language is being manipulated just as it always has been by
those that have the power to do it.
Today the main manipulators are, Madison Avenue, agencies and departments the United States
government, Wall Street, US television media.
Most people don't realize that the language is being manipulated, when they hear or see in
print words being used in unusual ways they just go along with it.
Example:
A couple of years back a motormouth U.S TV show host used the word "impact" in place of the
word "affect". He did so simply because "impact" seemed more dramatic. Now it is almost
impossible to hear or see the word "affect" used anywhere.
Now there are some of you that will say that language and usage of words change over time,
and I would agree with you, but when you see a word used in a context that is completely
inappropriate and that use is adopted in general you have to ask yourself questions like who
benefits from this.
Remember when Bush wanted to increase troop levels, he refered to the increase as a "surge".
"Surge" until then had a distinct meaning it was not associated with any meaning of
permanence, and that is why it was used.
Advertising frequently refers to things being "better" with no explanation of what it is
better than.
"Underpriviliged" to describe people living in poverty but no explanation of the privileges
that people have who are not poor.
I could go on and on, but I am sure that you scribblers who do not indulge in "confuse speak"
know exactly what I am trying to explain.
Best example I can give is "The free world" which by latest check includes Saudi Arabia,
Yemen, and sundry other brutal regimes and one time actually included outright fascist
countries.
Now all London Underground passengers are 'customers', which implies you are buying the
travel experience rather than paying for transportation. When misused it suggests to me lack
of strength and self-belief from the organization concerned.
@callaspodeaspode - Gosh - an excellent example of how to get things completely wrong. Just because a firm has the government for a customer does not mean it is a public sector
business.
Note the word 'customer'. In the case of the FE college, who is the customer - the
government or the students? Are the students just incidental fodder?
Your contract with the government will be for a certain job done in a certain for a
certain sum of money. In FE, the government has a sum of money which gets paid out
irrespective of the outcome. Indeed, how do you measure the 'outcome' of an FE college? In
your case, it's easy - either the software works or it doesn't.
Your company no doubt is either owned by an individual, or has shareholders. Those people
live on the profits of the company, or lose their money if it goes bust.
What is the profit made by an FE college? Who are the shareholders? Who goes broke if the
college folds? Still think an FE college is the same as private company?
@TheRealCmdrGravy - No definition is a distinct improvement on your deliberate distortion. I
was assuming you had the sense to find a definition on the internet for yourself, since you
managed to find your way here.
I do not consider alternative viewpoints brainless, i consider a refusal to even engage in
debate brainless, pretending that a word is undefined when there's reams of literature as
well as concise definitions freely available from any number of sources. That might
reasonably be construed as brainless.
Here, fill your boots, then if you have an actual argument instead of a crude attempt to
derail the debate it can be considered.
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic
liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the
size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
(From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
I'm convinced you had the brains to look it up yourself, that's why I suspect your agenda.
Now please stop wasting everyone's time unless you have something to contribute. I even
looked it up for you.
And I can give a further example. I used to work in a Private Equity-owned firm, which
happened to have some contracts to provide software support to the government.
Thus, in your conceptual framework, it was a public sector business. Indeed, by your reasoning, Lockheed Martin is a state-owned company as well.
I agree that 'Neoliberalism' has hijacked our vocabulary, but that is about the limit of our
agreement. People fling the word 'neoliberalism' around these days as a synonym for 'anything
I and my friends have decided is politically-economically objectionable' ('have decided', not
'think'). In the old days, 'fascist' served the same purpose in all those late-night student
flat discussions. I assume, until proven otherwise, that people who talk about
'neoliberalism', fall into the same category as those people who had so much difficulty
distinguishing between 'liberal democracy' and 'fascism'.
I can actually think of liberal left-leaning intellectuals who I can recall having
self-described as neoliberal. They, however, are distinctive for the sort of nuanced
understanding of political economy you are unlikely to find represented around the candles in
the kitchen on a Friday night when the world's problems are being discussed and solved.
First of all I am impressed by the psychic ability which enables you to deduce my
"closed political agenda", very impressive
Not really. It is transparently obvious when you declare that neo-liberalism is "vague
stuff which I don't like" when there are cogent definitions of it, to which you have been
referred in the past.
this is not the kind of liberalism we needed it needed to be socially liberal but not
economically liberal. How dare people become entrepenurial or take the thatcherite tax cuts,
or buy goods made from slave labour. Some seriously sick yuppies out there.
Yes - the person who said language was mankind's first technology were absolutely correct.
I expect language was invented by those who invent all technology to be just out of reach
of the general public until the inventers decide they can do business for themselves out of
it.
She says that we need to look at the language as it says a lot about how we think. Sounds
about right to me. It's hardly arguing white means black, just that the words we choose say
something about what we mean.
Then she says that what we talk about isn't the stuff we need to concentrate on. That's a
matter of debate and opinion.
Except that preference theory does not take into account causality. In any event we have
the evidence, there are those who are perfectly happy to cast others to the wall just so long
as they do OK and even benefit from it.
@makingtime - Really ? Some very interesting points you've made there ...
your closed political agenda may make it impossible for you to understand without a
brain transplant.
First of all I am impressed by the psychic ability which enables you to deduce my "closed
political agenda", very impressive. Secondly though it's interesting that you think a "closed
political agenda", which I am taking to mean a concrete political viewpoint, can only be
remedied with a "brain transplant" rather than through discussion. It's almos as though
you're saying "those with political views different to mine are brainless" which is quite a
bigoted point of view.
No definition from you regarding the word neo-liberal though so all in all not a very
helpful or insightful post. Disappointing.
..the word "neo-liberal" which, so far as I can see, simply means "vague stuff which I
don't like".
Is it possible that you can't see very far because you're deliberately not looking? There
are perfectly adequate and precise definitions. I quite liked 'A Brief History of
Neoliberalism' by Prof D.Harvey as a long form definition, but since it's rather critical of
'vague stuff which I don't like', your closed political agenda may make it impossible for you
to understand without a brain transplant.
It is exasperating when political discussion is reduced to which foghorn can generate the
loudest interference. I suppose it's a mistake to waste time on correcting this rubbish
Doreen Massey is an academic. It shows in the way she writes. It's good that she raises
fundamental questions about society and the way it is managed. It has traditionally been the
role of academics to play that role.
The disappointing feature of the debate however is the absence of input from our
politicians. All our leading politicians have essentially the same view of our society and
economy. One in which, as Ms Massey indicates, choice exercised through market based
mechanisms is the key principal. There is no view of progress towards a good society. There
is no view of co-operation rather than competition. The only option is for us to measure
ourselves by what we consume.
Our political system and its parties have failed us. In particular it is the left that has
failed. It has accepted the social and economic arguments of the right and contented itself
with suggesting minor variations on the same theme. Activists on the left need to re-gather
their strength and more forcefully put forward a better alternative.
@retarius - Any government is only as good as the human rights it upholds.
Neoliberalism is the final stage of liberal democracy which has been around for 60-70 years,
the most destructive form of government the world has ever seen, based on deregulation for
the wealthy oligarchs and debt and debauchery for the poor .............. which is rapidly
taking us back to feudal times.
This is a view that misunderstands where pleasure and fulfilment in human lives are
found. Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning
and fulfilment in human lives.
Wishful and naive thinking. Most work is very unfulfilling and even in cases where it is
meaningful the day to day grind and intensity required by a job is making it a chore. There
are very few people who have a job that is really a pleasure. There are many people though
who have empty lives and were brainwashed into believing that their job is the most important
part of their existence.
@gyges1 - " This is playground level debating. You are just saying the meaning you give to
words is to be preferred to that of your opponents."
Ah, I see the problem - a narrow mind with a broad-brush tendency.
I prescribe a course of Orwell, Start, perhaps, with short stories...... Politics and the
English Language, Why I Write, Notes on Nationalism, for example. And then a full dose of
Nineteen Eighty-Four. That should do the trick!
@RClayton - But if we start to think about work differently - which then gets its expression
with the words we use - maybe it can change. Your Bangladeshi example is interesting because
it assumes they need to work in that way to exist. Should we not try and change the system so
a Bangladeshi can harness his or her creativity to connect their creative ideas to a global
market and earn money in this way, rather than selling their physical labour to connect
someone else's t-shirt to a global market?
It's not just vocabulary, its demeanor, etiquette and peoples entire self perception that has
been usurped by the skewed modern logic of markets and the service industry.
People are preempting the technological singularity by rendering themselves robotic in a
quite tragic struggle to perpetually remain relevant and employable in the form that the
whims of the dictatorship of the market see fit to determine.
Some nationalities even have an intrinsic advantage, their national character tending rather
to the robotic from the outset. What remains of human expression, of impulsivity, of
spontaneity, of charisma, of originality is up for question, but the paucity of modern life,
of human expression and interaction, will increase in direct relation to the increases in
efficiency and productivity that will be demanded of citizens. And this despite the fact that
we are suffering under the weight of massive over production, and the excessive demand on
resources that this entails.
Nothing has been learnt from the crash of 2008 beyond "get rich even quicker", or as its more
commonly known, economic and ecological suicide.
@BaronessHawHaw - Working class pride in their jobs came from being highly skilled –
for example riveting in shipyards was difficult and you really were adding value there, so
was assembling a car and so on. Also, didn't most of their 'meaning and fulfilment' come from
the community, not really the work they were doing, except in so far as most of the people in
the community would be doing the same work so it gave them something to talk about?
I've never heard a modern person saying how much any of the jobs I listed give them
meaning or fulfilment. The kind of jobs that gave working class people a meaningful identity
have pretty much all gone.
Just looking at the Governments of Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary as an
example seems to indicate centrist and centre-right parties in power.
As I'm reading the annual report of my old sixth form college - which also operate adult
learning courses - and they're an exempt charity and therefore not liable for corporation
tax. They have an operating surplus (read: profit) on which no tax is paid, quite unlike a
private sector company.
"... Neoliberalism is bankrupt, it isn't even a philiosophy its simple social nihilism. The proof is in the get rich quick, or short term profit mentality of those at the top. Get rich quick is tantamount to jumping the ship, its the economic equivalent of deserting a sinking vessel. Until people recognise the destructive cynical nature of the current economic philosophy and cast out those that are steering the ship, we are all doomed. ..."
"... Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton University Press". ..."
"... What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen? ..."
"... Well it could be argued that postmodernism is the necessary condition for neoliberalism. ..."
'Customer'; 'growth'; 'investment'. We should scrutinise the everyday language that shapes how we think about the
economy
'We need to question that familiar categorisation of the economy as a space into which people enter in order to
reluctantly undertake unwelcome and unpleasing "work''.'
A
t a recent art exhibition I engaged in an
interesting conversation with one of the young people employed by the gallery. As she turned to walk off I saw she
had on the back of her T-shirt "customer liaison". I felt flat. Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my
experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation to the gallery and to this engaging
person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
The message underlying this use of the term customer for so
many different kinds of human activity is that in all almost all our daily activities we are operating as consumers
in a market – and this truth has been brought in not by chance but through managerial instruction and the
thoroughgoing renaming of institutional practices. The mandatory exercise of "free choice" – of a GP, of a hospital,
of schools for one's children – then becomes also a lesson in social identity, affirming on each occasion our
consumer identity.
This is a crucial part of the way that neoliberalism has become part of our commonsense understanding of life.
The vocabulary we use to talk about the economy is in fact a political construction, as Stuart Hall, Michael Rustin
and I have argued in our
Soundings manifesto
.
Another word that reinforces neoliberal common sense is "growth", currently deemed to be the entire aim of our
economy. To produce growth and then (maybe) to redistribute some of it, has been a goal shared by both neoliberalism
and social democracy. In its crudest formulation this entails providing the conditions for the market sector to
produce growth, and accepting that this will result in inequality, and then relying on the redistribution of some
portion of this growth to help repair the inequality that has resulted from its production.
This of course does nothing to question the inequality-producing mechanisms of market exchange itself, and it has
also meant that the main lines of struggle have too often been focused solely on distributional issues. What's more,
today we are living with a backlash to even the limited redistributional gains made by labour under social
democracy. In spite of all this, growth is still seen as providing the solution to our problems.
The second reason our current notion of wealth creation, and our commitment to its growth, must be questioned is
to do with our relationship with the planet. The environmental damage brought about by the pursuit of growth
threatens to cause a catastrophe of which we are already witnessing intimations. And a third – and perhaps most
important – defect of this approach is that increased wealth, especially as measured in the standard monetary terms
of today, has few actual consequences for people's feelings of wellbeing once there is a sufficiency to meet basic
needs, as there is in Britain. In pursuing "growth" in these terms, as a means to realise people's life goals and
desires, economies are pursuing a chimera.
Instead of an unrelenting quest for growth, might we not ask the question, in the end: "What is an economy for?",
"What do we want it to provide?"
Our current imaginings endow the market and its associated forms with a special status. We think of "the economy"
in terms of natural forces, into which we occasionally intervene, rather than in terms of a whole variety of social
relations that need some kind of co-ordination.
Thus "work", for example, is understood in a very narrow and instrumental way. Where only transactions for money
are recognised as belonging to "the economy", the vast amount of unpaid labour – as conducted for instance in
families and local areas – goes uncounted and unvalued. We need to question that familiar categorisation of the
economy as a space into which people enter in order to reluctantly undertake unwelcome and unpleasing "work", in
return for material rewards which they can use for consuming.
This is a view that misunderstands where pleasure and fulfilment in human lives are found. Work is usually – and
certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could have – moral
and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core. A rethinking of work could lead us to address more creatively both
the social relations of work and the division of labour within society (including a better sharing of the tedious
work, and of the skills).
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic vocabulary, for instance that
bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure – terms that carry with them implicit moral
connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future
positive outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
Above all, we need to bring economic vocabulary back into political contention, and to question the very way we
think about the economy in the first place. For something new to be imagined, let alone to be born, our current
economic "common sense" needs to be challenged root and branch.
•
Doreen Massey will be discussing Vocabularies of the Economy at a
Soundings seminar
on 13 June, 6.30-8.30pm, at the Marx Memorial Library, London. More information [email protected]
@Yorkied24 - Well, I just don't accept that. I agree that monetarism is a major part
of Friedman's legacy (as incorporated into neo-liberal doctrine). But, neo-liberalism
is what is says on the tin. It is a 'new' version of the liberalist free trade agenda
of the past, modified to take into account the welfare state.
I guess what I'm most
interested in is how you can disentangle and separate politics from economics, since
they are two sides of the same coin (where does 'science' fit in, by the way).
it seems that the political side of Neo-liberalism (or liberal democracy) has come up
with a new definition of the word "Catholic".
The Irish Prime-minster stated with a straight face in the Irish parliament today
........ that he is a "Catholic" outside parliament but when he enters parliament he
is not a "Catholic"........ in relation to a bill allowing for abortion to be
legalized in Ireland.
@NeverMindTheBollocks - when you criticise the author of "nonsensical thinking", this
suggests to me that you are uncomfortable with ideas that question "common sense".
Rather than engaging with the arguments, you are simply dismissing them as somebody's
arbitrary opinion. You seem to be suggesting that Massey is forcing her opinion on you
- but surely, like any good academic, she is really asking critical questions, rather
than providing answers and solutions. That's what academia is for. Why does that seem
to make you so angry?
@Pumplechook - Enterprise culture is a fine emboldening phrase to describe the sinking
of society casting citizens adrift with nothing but what nature gave them to keep them
afloat. Some might suggest we need to concentrate on mono platform non deliverables
going backwards. Or on a fleet of very cheap rubber dinghies.
Ms Massey clearly fails to see importance of remaining customer/client-focused in our
modern enterprise culture. It is crucial in terms of achieving outcomes-based win-win
solutions, as well as assisting in the interation of leading-edge opportunities and
leveraging cross-platform deliverables going forward.
@KingOfNothing - No, what I said was that neoliberalism is not an economic theory. For
a start, Milton Friedman's work has its own name in economics, which is monetarism.
Neoliberalism is a made up political word only used by those who are more interested
in politics and rhetoric than economics and science.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt, it isn't even a philiosophy its simple social nihilism. The
proof is in the get rich quick, or short term profit mentality of those at the top.
Get rich quick is tantamount to jumping the ship, its the economic equivalent of
deserting a sinking vessel. Until people recognise the destructive cynical nature of
the current economic philosophy and cast out those that are steering the ship, we are
all doomed.
@bill4me - 'Sweet smell of success'?
No, it's just that your shit-detector is so absent or degraded that you can no longer
smell the stink of 'filthy lucre'.
@Yorkied24 - I disagree. There is only one writer that deserves volleys of ad hominem
attacks and cheap insults and thats Julie Burchill. I know she's about as relevant as
a horse drawn carriage but nevertheless I think we need to keep criticism of
journalists in proportion.
@bill4me - The US under the aegis of freedom and capitalism sponsored paramilitary
regimes in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile and
Argentina. Not to mention Greece and Iran. It continues to sponsor repressive regimes
in the middle east and is about to make peace with the Taliban.
You mistake capitalism
as it exists in theory, or in your head with 'actually existing capitalism' which is
often red in tooth and claw. The bloody history of the 20th century (particularly
world war one, without which no world war two) was in many ways a consequence of
imperialism which was a consequence of capitalism.
Theories are all very well, but
they run into problems called people. This applies equally to Marx, Smith and Hayek.
@Yorkied24 - But they don't do they? They don't engage in cowardly and anonymous ad
hominem attacks. They are professional journalists. The Guardian pays them to write
articles. They then put their name to said articles. It's a transparent process. They
are infinitely better than people who anonymously insult them without engaging in
debate.
@bill4me - No, but it rather skews the data doesn't it? The Soviet Union lifted more
people out of extreme poverty than perhaps any society before or since. But I wouldn't
advocate Stalinism. I'm sure Pinochet's supporters could point to a growth in
prosperity during his reign, but I shouldn't imagine many Chileans would favour a
return to authoritarian rule.
Headline date is often meaningless, for example George
Osborne may be able to argue that more people are employed than ever before, whilst
the opposition may be able to argue that more people are unemployed than ever before.
Bo
Both statements my be true, but what do they tell us in isolation?
Does it not occur to you that appalling governance may be a consequence of the form
capitalism takes right now?
Strange then, that you can buy a book called: "Masters of the Universe: Hayek,
Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. By Daniel Stedman Jones. Princeton
University Press".
What were Friedrich Heyek and Milton Friedman: lollypop salesmen?
So, someone writes a book calling two economists 'neoliberals', so that makes it
so? By that argument, it also calls them Masters of the Universe, so they're fucking
He-Man too.
If you think capitalism is all winners and no losers you're either
tremendously naive or a bit thick.
I wouldn't rely on headline figures on Wikipedia to
support your argument. Drill down a little, find the data, look at individual
countries, see what type of regimes operate in said countries. And imagine, for a
second, that the stats are meaningful, then imagine what responsible capitalism could
achieve.
@Justthefactsman - Slightly off topic, but I hanker for obliged rather than obligated.
Also, most of the time I just feel ok, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Fair to middlin'
you might say. I seldom feel awesome.
No definition from you regarding the word neo-liberal though so all in all not a
very helpful or insightful post. Disappointing.
It's sometimes worth having a debate about what particular words mean, but all
debate rests on certain presumptions, a foundation on which the argument is built, and
in this case, Massey counts on her audience sharing her understanding of the term
'neoliberal', which many of us do. Anyone who doesn't can very easily look it up
online and quickly find a definition which sits well with Massey's points.
Your and others' approach to rejecting her argument is ungracious cavilling. It's
easy to do this in response to any argument, and make no mistake - anyone with
intelligence and an open mind can recognise it very clearly.
@Ken Terry - Chomsky is right, ("The Manufacturing of Consent") 'At the head of it is
the Military\Industrial Complex, coining the euphemisms of war to make the unthinkable
palatable.
On a localised scale, consider the Coalition who have done a similar job on the word,
"Reform". If you look at history's most accurate and honorific incidences of political
and parliamentary Reform look at the two Reform Acts which extended the franchise to
adult male suffrage, 1832 and 1867, under Peel and Disraeli, Tories FFS, opposed to
the Liberal's merciless free market obsessions.
What is "reforming" about stripping poor, ill and vulnerable people of their material
support?
Pure Deformation.
I'm not a Tory, (Lifelong Socialist) but I think it's important to reconnect the
Conservative Party with some of its avowed traditional self-definitions. "Maintaining
continuity with past institutions, and a 'gradualism', if change is necessary." (Henry
Cecil, I think).
Where has been the 'gradualism' in this Govt's' sudden and relentless pace of forcing
change on the mass of its people by Bill after Bill restricting our aspirations and
well-being?
We are governed by political liars who see this state of affairs as a triumph for
their expertise. Any criticism is dismissed as not being able to accept the world 'as
it is.'
The irony, of course, is that neoliberalism has *always* been coupled by high state
spending. I know they say different, but that doesn't make it a reality. Stop showing
your ignorance of the subject and go and delve in to some of the vast literature on
the subject.
@joseph1832 - I think this misses the point though. You're trying to claim there can
be words that are neutral, a language without a political dimension. This is besides
the point, it's certainly not feasible in a society constructed as it is now.
The
real point is that language is itself a field of struggle. It's a terrain on which
neoliberalism must be fought. In doing so we need not pretend to be doing anything
less than entering a political fight. In combating neoliberalism no claim to be
'neutral' is necessary, that would be precisely to do what it does from the opposite
direction - claim universality, eternalisation etc. The left does need to assert
interrogate the language of neoliberalism and assert its own. Not becuase this is less
political (I think "manipulation" is too strong a word here, the matter is somewhat
more complex than that) but becuase it can offer a better future.
@DemocracyNever - I should think the first two responses illustrate how and why debate
is increasingly meaningless. Neither of you engage with the argument or posit an
alternative; hence no debate.
That debate should be meaningful is given, that it should be an art form is,
frankly, silly.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum
of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
Noam Chomsky
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts,
probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit,
because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this
probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces
consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
Let's recap what Obama's coup
in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the
rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began
planning for
a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it
inside the
U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right
Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change
it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the
4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador
whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations
that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does,
and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
But wait there's more .... Remember
that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that
happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.
In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership
in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism.
She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that
Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into
the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress
have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted
the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the
U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression,
the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides
skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened
amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence,
Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police
impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes
her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the
confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.
"In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa
in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could
be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."
Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate
influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.
"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright
false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition
on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. " https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and
where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or
other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told
what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat
it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really
happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton
comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing
to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just
away forever.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality
TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin:
https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this
the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the
migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is
fine. She is deplorable.
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do,
and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king
or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to
be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to
combat it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is
really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly,
Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is
willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse
to go is just away forever.
@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake
of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually
had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a
reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host &
the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't
this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly)
fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else
is fine. She is deplorable.
"... The Private Contractors Using Vault 7 Tools for US Gov: Testimony Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild Part 1... https://www.opednews.com/ar... ..."
"... Why Vault 7 Tools Used by Private Contractors Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild- It's the News- Part 2... https://www.opednews.com/ar... ..."
"... Or is it owing to MI5/MI6 desperation, with how Trump will handle their involvement in the US Presidential Campaign. James Bond never had those types of problems, in the days when UK intelligence was not run by social media outlets. ..."
Not forgetting the US have their battalions of cyber trolls, together with the EU.
Then look into the media branches of cyber trolls. Ironic, when the UK Government is so
focused on Russia Today and the few funds they receive from the Russian Government.
Good point, with regards 'news' via social; media.
I do like the George Eliason articles, which explain intelligence agencies reliance on
social media. Including the US outsourcing 80% of it's intelligence to the social media.
Not just the US, when you look at the similarities with UK Media.
The Private Contractors Using Vault 7 Tools for US Gov: Testimony Shows US Intel
Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild Part 1...
https://www.opednews.com/ar...
Why Vault 7 Tools Used by Private Contractors Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up
Rebuild- It's the News- Part 2...
https://www.opednews.com/ar...
..........................
So what is with the timing? Is it to take attention away from BREXIT?
Or is it owing to MI5/MI6 desperation, with how Trump will handle their
involvement in the US Presidential Campaign. James Bond never had those types of
problems, in the days when UK intelligence was not run by social media outlets.
A new collection of essays, edited by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, clearly shows
that it is the U.S. that is largely responsible for the poverty and suffering in these very
nations, says Robert Fantina.
By Robert Fantina
In two years, the world has become
accustomed to being shocked by the words and actions of United States President Donald Trump.
In January of this year, he again showed his lack of diplomacy, tack and common decency, when
he referred to many poorer countries as "sh*ithole countries", asking, "Why do we want all
these people from sh*thole countries coming here?" Former member of the House of
Representatives Cynthia McKinney, in the new book she has edited, How the US Creates 'Sh*thole' Countries ,
(Clarity Press) has gathered a collection of essays, including one of her own, that clearly
shows that it is the U.S. that is largely responsible for the poverty and suffering in these
very nations.
The first series of essays describes U.S. foreign policy, and its true motives. In the
essay, The End of Washington's 'Wars on the Cheap' , The Saker sums up U.S. foreign
policy as follows: "Here's the template for typical Empire action: find some weak country,
subvert it, accuse it of human right violations, slap economic sanctions, trigger riots and
intervene militarily in 'defense' of 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'self-determination' (or some
other combo of equally pious and meaningless concepts)." The hypocrisy of such a policy is
obvious. A weak and vulnerable nation is victimized by a far more powerful one. The U.S. has
done this countless times in its history, and there appears to be no appetite in the government
to change.
This introduction and explanation of U.S. foreign policy is followed by essays on some, but
certainly not all, of the countries that have been victimized by the United States, usually
following this template. As McKinney says in her essay, Somalia: Is Somalia the U.S.
Template for All of Africa , " while mouthing freedom, democracy, and liberty, the United
States has denied these very aspirations to others, especially when it inconvenienced the US or
its allies. In Mozambique and Angola, the US stood with Portugal until it was the Portuguese
people, themselves, who threw off their government and voted in a socialist government that
vowed to free Portugal of its colonies."
In the essay, How the U.S. Perpetuates the Palestinian Tragedy', Sami Al-Arian
writes:
" It might be understandable, if detestable, for Israel and its Zionist defenders to
circulate false characterizations of history and myths to advance their political agenda. But
it is incomprehensible, indeed reprehensible, for those who claim to advocate the rule of
law, believe in the principle of self-determination, and call for freedom and justice to fall
for this propaganda or to become its willing accomplices. In following much of American
political leaders' rhetoric or media coverage of the conflict, one is struck by the lack of
historical context, the deliberate disregard of empirical facts, and the contempt for
established legal constructs and precedents."
The U.S. leads in these distortions, with its
officials proclaiming, each time that Israel bombs Gaza, that "Israel has a right to defend
itself". There is hardly mention of the brutal, illegal occupation and blockade; never a
discussion of the fact that Palestine has no army, navy or air force, and Israel's military is
one of the world's most powerful thanks to the U.S. It is never stated that international law
allows an occupied people to resist the occupation in any way possible, including armed
struggle. The countless United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions in Palestine are
ignored by U.S. officials.
Once again, U.S. hypocrisy is on very public display.
The third section of this informative book describes the United States' mostly-successful
efforts to camouflage its vile intentions and international crimes. Christopher Black, in his
essay Western Imperialism and the Use of Propaganda", clearly articulates how this is
done:
" The primary concern they [U.S. government officials] have, in order to preserve their
control, is for the preservation of the new feudal mythology that they have created: that the
world is a dangerous place, that they are the protectors, that the danger is omnipresent,
eternal, and omnidirectional, comes from without, and comes from within. The mythology is
constructed and presented through all media; journals, films, television, radio, music,
advertising, books, the internet in all its variety. All available information systems are used
to create and maintain scenarios and dramas to convince the people that they, the protectors,
are the good and all others are the bad. We are bombarded with this message incessantly."
Our memories are short, indeed, if we have forgotten both President George W. Bush and his
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, telling the world from the United Nations the blatant lie
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, threatening civilization. We are not paying
attention if we are unaware of the many innuendos given of the 'dangers' of all Muslims. Yes,
the government fosters fear, proclaiming subtly and not so subtly that there is danger
everywhere, and it is the role of the mighty United States to protect the world, whether or not
such protection is wanted or needed.
Lastly, the U.S. Itself can be described as a 'sh*thole' country. Its many violations of
international law, and crimes against humanity, are summarized by Richard Falk, in his essay
The Sh*thole Phenomenon at Home and Abroad:
" This kind of nationalist pride covered up and blindsided crimes of the greatest severity
that were being committed from the time of the earliest settlements: genocide against native
Americans, reliance on the barbarism of slavery to facilitate profitable cotton production
and the supposedly genteel life style of the Southern plantations. This unflattering national
picture should be enlarged to include the exploitation of the resources and good will of
peoples throughout Latin America, who, once freed from Spanish colonial rule, quickly found
themselves victimized by American gunboat diplomacy that paved the way for American investors
or joined in crushing those bold and brave enough to engage in national resistance against
the abuse of their homelands."
The final essay is the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human
Rights on his Mission to the United States of America, authored by Philip Alston. While
Trump decries "sh*thole" countries, the conditions that the U.S. put those countries in are not
unknown in the U.S. A few facts from Alston's report will suffice:
The U.S.'s " immense
wealth and expertise stand in shocking contrast with the conditions in which vast numbers of
its citizens live. About 40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3
million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty. It has the highest youth poverty
rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the highest
infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. Its citizens live shorter and sicker lives
compared to those living in all other rich democracies, eradicable tropical diseases are
increasingly prevalent, and it has the world's highest incarceration rate, one of the lowest
levels of voter registrations in among OECD countries and the highest obesity levels in the
developed world." " The United States has the highest rate of income inequality among Western
countries. The $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy
and worsened inequality." " For almost five decades the overall policy response has been
neglectful at best, but the policies pursued over the past year seem deliberately designed to
remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even
basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship."
The information in these essays is all rigorously documented with extensive footnotes. The
writing is clear and the facts are presented in a concise manner that is highly beneficial for
the average reader or academic.
For anyone who questions U.S. policies, at home or abroad, and who has perhaps become more
aware of such issues since Trump's election,
says: November 24, 2018 at 5:38 pm
GMT 100 Words @Big Bill They fought that it
was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they could quickly achieve Western
European standard of living. The first guy to become president of independent Ukraine promised
people that they were going to "live like France" .in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
step 1: Separate from Russia.
step 2:
step 3: France
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results Phanar Phantom
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart ?
are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
@Felix
Keverich Thanks for confirming that you have zero credentials in any technical field yet
you are somehow posing as someone qualified to talk about industry
Glad you are blocking me you little worm the Ostrich response do you cover your eyes and
ears when your teacher or parent [or caregiver, since you are obviously retarded] says
something that is true but which you don't want to hear ?
As for Soviet era factories churning out 'worthless crap' that would include the world's
best rocket engines, decades ahead of the west's technology ?
@Felix
Keverich Liberast opinion. People with this views destroyed the country, caused massive
displacement and demographic and social catastrophes. People with your views should not be
allowed to the levers of power for the distance of avangard shot. If to follow your logic USA
and China must dismantle and sell as scrap metal their MIC as they both clearly cannot
compete with Russian MIC. National manufacturing of everything is not about competition. It
is about souverenity in everything and national capability to provide own population both
with goods and means to make a living via manufacturing of everything needed. Current
situation with so much of everything made in China is an abomination that hurts too much
people around the globe. People with your views in Russia should be purged and preferably
executed for crimes against former Soviet people.
I find it strange that shamir who professes communist views is paying so much attention to
this basically religious spat about power and money. Wasn't it once th as t that religion is
opium for masses. It is here to keep population down so that it is easily fleeced by thieves.
The only value for Russia in orthodoxy at the moment is that the country completely devote of
ideology as per constitution there must be something to hold people together and give some
meaning to their existence.
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
money.
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
"protesters".
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
side.
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
fucked.
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
House Republicans will hear testimony on December 5 from the prosecutor appointed by
Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the Clinton
Foundation, according to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).
Meadows - chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, told The
Hill that it's time to "circle back" to former Utah Attorney General John Huber's probe with
the Justice Department into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in improper activities,
reports
The Hill .
"Mr. [John] Huber with the Department of Justice and the FBI has been having an
investigation – at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what
may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation
, so we've set a hearing date for December the 5th.," Meadows told Hill.TV on Wednesday.
Meadows says the questions will include whether any tax-exempt proceeds were used for
personal gain and whether the Foundation adhered to IRS laws.
Sessions appointed Huber last year to work in tandem with the Justice Department to look
into conservative claims of misconduct at the FBI and review several issues surrounding the
Clintons. This includes Hillary Clinton 's ties to a Russian nuclear
agency and concerns about the Clinton Foundation.
Huber's
work has remained shrouded in mystery . The White House has released little information
about Huber's assignment other than Session's address to Congress saying his appointed should
address concerns raised by Republicans. -
The Hill
According to a report by the
Dallas Observer last November, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the
IRS since July, 2016.
Meadows says that it's time for Huber to update Congress concerning his findings, and
"expects him to be one of the witnesses at the hearing," per The Hill . Additionally Meadows
said that his committee is trying to secure testimonies from whistleblowers who can provide
more information about potential wrongdoing surrounding the Clinton Foundation .
" We're just now starting to work with a couple of whistleblowers that would indicate that
there is a great probability, of significant improper activity that's happening in and around
the Clinton Foundation ," he added.
The Clinton Foundation - also under
FBI investigation out of the Arkansas field office, has denied any wrongdoing.
Launched in January, the Arkansas FBI probe, is focused on pay-for-play schemes and tax code
violations , according to The Hill at the time, citing law enforcement officials and a witness
who wishes to remain anonymous.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining
whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their
charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing
government outcomes .
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or
political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws , the officials
said. -
The Hill
The witness who was interviewed by Little Rock FBI agents said that questions focused on
"government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary
Clinton led President Obama's State Department," and that the agents were "extremely
professional and unquestionably thorough."
Sanctions may have knocked as much as 6 percent off Russia's economy over the past four
years and the drag isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
A new study by Bloomberg Economics has found that the economy of the world's biggest
energy exporter is more than 10 percent smaller compared with what might have been expected
at the end of 2013, before the Crimea crisis triggered wave after wave of restrictions by the
U.S. and EU. While some of the blame falls on the slump in oil prices, sanctions are the
bigger culprit .
"The underperformance has been much bigger than crude alone can explain," wrote Scott
Johnson, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics in London. "Part of the gap is likely to
reflect the enduring impact of sanctions both imposed and threatened over the last five
years."..
They admit that part of the 6 percent gap could be attributed to other shocks, such as
the introduction of inflation targeting and a sell-off in emerging markets
####
More anal-cysts at the link & my extra emphasis not to mention more
qualifiers in the article too boot.
Timely 'proof' that USA still runs the world and can punish people? Hardly a surprise but
they could have also pointed to not so great EU economic performance and its effect, but what
would be the point in that? Is it a) keep the sanction up and Russia will collapse/change its
foreign policy etc.? b) no need for more far reaching sanctions that could lead to Boeing/ULA
being stranded etc.? c) filler and fluff? d) Bloomturd shilling for business after their
Supermicro debacle?
Again, what's the point? What's it trying to prove?
If anything, de-dollarization and accelerating ties with the growing Asia-Pacific region
is very good for Russia, even if there is some initial short term pain inflicted by others.
If I do have a problem with Russia, it is that it seems to be cautious and then reactionary
by nature – or is this more institutionally safe behavior?
I smell GDP growth shenanigans at GKS. Hellevig had a piece earlier that debunked the claim
of a 1.3% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2018 and estimated that it was closer to 6%. He
was a bit too optimistic but the point is that 1.5% annual GDP growth (roughly 6%/4years) is
falling through the cracks and likely deliberately.
I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence. The CIA was not doing
a good job estimating the Russian GDP, so Putin could fake the numbers and NATzO
triumphalists would lap them up with glee. I think this policy was smart and actually worked.
That is why in 2014 Obama was certain the Russia's economy would collapse from the sanctions.
Read the articles in the NATzO MSM from 2014 and even through 2017 which assumed that massive
damage to Russia's economy was a given.
By keeping NATzO ignorant of Russia's actual potential, it could re-arm and regroup in
peace. I think it would have been bad for Russia if the events of 2014 happened in 2004. In
2004, the Russian defense industry physical plant was still in sad shape and collapsing. This
condition was basically rectified by 2014. And Russia was also able to deploy its new
hypersonic wunderwaffen. Anyone who thinks such machinations are tin foil hat nonsense does
not know the history leading up to WWII. The USSR managed to delay the attack of the Nazis by
2 years which allowed it to increase its military potential by 40% and to move defense
factories to the Urals.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not. This is ***physically*** apparent in Russia as import substitution
occurs on a massive scale. Since every dollar imports saved amounts to two dollars of
domestic production (one for local production and one for not exporting the dollar and
incurring a negative GDP accounting penalty) Russia's GDP growth should be over 4%. But you
would think that nothing was happening in terms of import substitution and that Russia's
economy was running cool and near recession. The employment statistics show that this is not
the reality. If the economy was near stagnation, the unemployment rate would go up. Low
unemployment occurs when the economy runs hot.
The way that Russia's GDP statistics are skewed is through the official CPI and PPI.
Nabiullina at the CBR claims that Russia is has serious inflationary instability. That is why
the prime rate is over three times the actual CPI (7.5% vs 2.3%). I have posted before why
there is no evidence of 1970s style South American inflation in Russia given the extremely
short lived inflation spike after the late 2014 ruble forex devaluation; the spike was
force-damped and did not have any recurring peaks after the initial one. Under real
inflationary conditions a 7.5% prime rate would do didley squat and, in fact, there is no
magic prime rate that controls the inflation. If it is set too high, the inflation actually
increases. Also, if Russia's economy was running cool there would not be any need for a 7.5%
rate since it would push the economy into a recession. So reality indicates that Russia's
economy is actually running hot and this has some inflationary pressure but also means that
1.3% GDP growth numbers are BS.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not.
I suspect that he is not the only one. There's a whole host of other sanctions that the
West has studiously avoided putting on Russia because of the damage that would be done to
itself, not to mention that it would always like to have a few extra sanctions to dangle
publicly/privately or both at will.
Vis the Bloomturd report, do they expect someone to pay for it? When you click on the link
to the 'report' you get:
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
####
Uh-huh. Who exactly is their target audience again?
"I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence."
Well, you could be right with this , Kirill.
Belarus, Armenia ( near 10%) and Kyrgyzstan( countries with economies interlinked heavily
with Russia's of course) all had very strong growth in their economies in the last year.
Russia as the mother economy for those countries would be expected to have a lesser but still
significant growth figures like 3-4%.
Other things like improved health and rapidly improving crime statistics in Russia, plus
public spending could further support your theory ( nearly 60 trillion roubles for the next 3
years is allocated). On the other hand salaries going up is what is needed to substantiate
your theory.
Salaries are determined by what the market perceives. If the Russian government and CBR are
spreading a fake image of Russia's economic health, then that will have negative
consequences. The choice is between those negative consequences and the neo-Reich lunatics
who are openly baying for war on Russia.
GNP is undoubtedly a fairly crude indicator of the health of an economy- I am a little
surprised that both GNP and the size of FIRE are not routinely published. Here is an
interesting bar graph giving some detail as to how the Russian economy managed in
2015-2016
People like Andrei Martyanov (smoothieX12) argue that the (real) US economy is much smaller
than customarily claimed, whilst the Russian economy is much larger. I have copied the above
graph from a comment by smoothieX12 to his article http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/11/it-begins-to-sink-finally-but-too-late.html
Interesting. I would have thought there was much more growth in Russian agriculture than
that, but maybe some of the self-sufficiency efforts are still in their early stages, or
perhaps domestic sales are harder to track for effect. Anyway, it puts paid to the nonsense
that American sanctions are crushing the Russian economy.
This calls to mind Russia's deal with Iran, in which Russia will trade food, medicines and
what necessities Iran desires but which American-imposed sanctions make difficult to obtain,
for Iranian oil and gas which Russia will use domestically. Countries are reverting to the
barter system to nullify US sanctions in a way that does not use currency flow the USA might
try to interdict or confiscate. No actual money changes hands, so America can snoop on SWIFT
to its heart's content without seeing evidence of promising targets. Striking, too, is the
prevalence of real sympathy for Iran and an evident desire to help it with its problems. The
USA has apparently bitten off more than it can chew here, and several nations are openly
flouting its rules. If America cannot think of a way to come down hard on them, their example
may become contagious.
Vesti News
Published on 19 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
Since Monday, we've been watching Poroshenko's panic. On the one hand, he was throwing rude
tantrums because his project to create a "new Church of Ukraine" didn't go as planned. He
only managed to create a branch of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Kiev, which is not the
division-building thing Poroshenko dreamed of. On the other hand, Ukraine, where it's already
snowing, isn't ready for winter.
My suspicion then that Poroshenko must have intended for this new Church of Ukraine to be
subservient to Kiev so that all its properties could be declared state properties and the
Church's wealth could be Kiev's (and Poroshenko's) for the taking only increased when I saw
this report. Interesting too that Poroshenko only now, near the end of his Presidency, is
selling off the assets he should have sold off at the start of his Presidency in compliance
with Ukrainian law.
Gee; who could ever have imagined such a thing would happen? Russia should handle any
emerging crisis very carefully, because Kiev will want to find a way to blame all Ukraine's
problems on Russia, as usual. Russia might win quite a few allies if it boxes clever.
No need to write Poroshenko's epitaph just yet; he's only sold off a ratty old shipyard
that likely was not making him any money anyway. That's not a bellwether of panic; not yet.
But he is almost certain to lose to Tymoshenko, and she will be a double whammy for Ukraine
because she has no more idea how to solve the problem than does Poroshenko, is steadfastly
loyal to the west although it has done nothing since the glorious Maidan but mess Ukraine up
even more than it already was, with the added bonus that she will probably usher in a
circuses-but-no-bread distraction of gunning for Poroshenko and his government, using the
premise that they are to blame for Ukraine's disintegration. That's broadly true, but
Tymoshenko has no plan at all for what comes after Ukrainians' fury is sated.
"On Nov.14, just a day before the decision to cut assistance, the European Parliament
overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution saying Moldova has become a "state captured by
oligarchic interests" that exert their influence over most parts of Moldova's society. The
country is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons."
Ukraine is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons; according to the European Council
on Foreign Relations (which wants Ukraine to succeed as a western satellite, so you can bet
anything negative about it will be soft-pedaled), the 50 5ichest Ukrainians pre-maidan
controlled 45% of national GDP.
Anyone want to present the case that the situation has improved since its oligarchic
president took power, and used it to continuously enrich himself and his family, maintaining
his status as a wealthy businessman even as he takes the odd moment out now and again to see
how the country's doing? I thought not.
Last year, after the country has had quite a generous spell to throw off the shackles of
its oligarchy, the top FIVE Ukrainian oligarchs alone control 13% of the nation's GDP –
Rinat Akhmetov, Ihor Kolomoyskiy, Victor Pinchuk, Petro Poroshenko and Dmytro Firtash.
Waiting in the wings to take over the helm, Yulia Tymoshenko, once known as 'the Gas
Princess", and another oligarch who has been rich since she was very young, whose past
performance suggests Ukraine is in for another round of nest-feathering and struggle for
financial gain among its wealthy citizens, with not a toss given for the rest.
Think we'll see the EU cut them off from funding any time soon? Me, either.
"... "It's basically a high level of corruption and the rule of man instead of the rule of law" ..."
"... "We're getting a lot of inquiries from various investors, they come to talk to us, and we see the opportunities in Ukraine, but time after time we hear the concerns about the governance." ..."
"... "meaningful progress" ..."
"... "inefficient court system continues to obstruct the administration of justice." ..."
It has been five years to the day since Ukraine's 'Euromaidan' protest movement began,
with anti-government protesters demanding an end to corruption and a closer relationship with
the European Union. But what became of the dream?
On the evening of November 21, 2013, pro-West protesters began flocking to Kiev's Maidan
Square, carrying banners and waving EU flags. Hours earlier, then-president Viktor Yanukovych
had suspended preparations to sign a European Association Agreement, which would have been a
potential step on the road to joining the EU - and a move which Russia had warned would be
"trade suicide" for the post-Soviet state. The West, on the other hand, was determined
to wrangle Ukraine out of Russia's "orbit" and lure it into its own.
Ukraine was facing an economic crossroads. The country was being pulled in two directions,
asked to choose between closer alignment with the EU or Russia. When Yanukovych chose Russia by
refusing to sign the Association Agreement, it sparked outrage within the EU and a protest
movement which would quickly be hijacked and used to engineer a Western-backed coup - a
shortcut to bringing a pro-West government to power.
Such interference, manipulation and exploitation of Ukraine's internal political and
societal divisions was not without consequences. More than 10,000 died during an insurgency in
the eastern regions which began when the ethnic Russian population began to fear it would be
swallowed into an anti-Russia nationalist state backed by Western powers. But the West ignored
dangerous
signs of growing nationalism - and outright Nazi-style fascism - in Ukraine, bargaining
that anything was better than Russia 'winning' in a game of geopolitical chess.
Five years on, what has become of the protesters' dreams to rid Ukraine of corruption and
build an equal, transparent and functional democracy? The sad answer is that Ukraine's
revolution was a disaster which left the country teetering on the edge of becoming a failed
state.
An anti-corruption revolution?
Corruption is still rampant in Ukraine. A recent assessment by the International Monetary
Fund suggested that
corruption wipes about two percent off the country's GDP growth per year.
The IMF and World Bank also scolded the Ukrainian government for the "limited
results" that have been seen in fighting corruption, with no high-level officials
convicted - something which is said to be keeping investors out of the country.
World Bank Country Director for Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine Satu Kahkonen said that
"governance issues" were forcing investors to steer clear. "It's basically a high
level of corruption and the rule of man instead of the rule of law" that have prevailed in
Ukraine, she said. "We're getting a lot of inquiries from various investors, they come to
talk to us, and we see the opportunities in Ukraine, but time after time we hear the concerns
about the governance."
Higher living standards?
Ukraine is also emerging as Europe's poorest
country , with a GDP per capita of just €2,960 - well below Estonia's €22,420 and
Slovenia's €26,590 GDP per capita.
In fact, according to a recent Credit Suisse report, Ukrainians
rank among the world's poorest people, coming a dismal 123rd out of 140 countries, with the
net wealth of the country's citizens lagging behind Bangladesh and Cameroon. Another recent
study by the United Nations Development Program found that, despite continuing economic growth,
60 percent of Ukrainians live below the poverty line.
Less income inequality?
Meanwhile, Ukraine's richest 100 citizens have seen their wealth increase significantly in
the years after the Euromaidan protests. A recent report from the Novoe Vremya magazine
showed
that the wealth of the country's richest people is growing 12 times faster than Ukraine's total
GDP. Pro-West President Petro Poroshenko is the country's sixth richest man, increasing his
wealth by 10 percent to about $1.1 billion, all while average Ukrainians see little or no
improvement in their own living standards or net wealth.
Political reforms?
While some recent reforms in education, pensions and healthcare were welcomed by the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in its l atest country report , there has still been a lack of
"meaningful progress" in the reform of governance and an "inefficient court system
continues to obstruct the administration of justice."
European values?
Scant attention has also been paid by the Ukrainian government - and Western powers and
media - to the increasingly worrying growth of neo-Nazi sentiment in Ukraine. When, in October
2017, Ukraine witnessed its biggest neo-Nazi march in years, Western media all but ignored it. In
fact, in deeds and words, Ukraine's government has almost encouraged this kind of sentiment, by
praising as an "inspiration" the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) fighters who the Nazi
marchers were commemorating. In recent months, mainstream media have done more to acknowledge
this creeping fascism in Ukraine, but the admission comes far too late.
On the world stage, too, Ukraine's pro-West President Petro Poroshenko has faded into
near irrelevance, barely
acknowledged by US President Donald Trump at recent Armistice Day commemorations in Paris,
as geopolitics returned to business-as-usual with Kiev fading from the headlines.
American foreign aid is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (the Symington Amendment) or refuses to abide by
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess
what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American foreign aid.
This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their agents of a foreign
government with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its American
Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of
American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks.
infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Refusal to renounce foreign citizenship should result in
immediate deportation with permanent loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders
of "dual citizenship" should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental
capacity.
In addition, any American citizen who serves or has served in Israel's military (Israel
Defense Forces) should automatically lose their American citizenship and be immediately
deported to Israel.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to see who would be the most rabid admirer of that foreign head
of state. The almost constant applause by our Congress was reminiscent of the Soviet
Politburo in which no one wanted to be the last person to stop clapping. Just who do they
work for? Certainly not for the interests of the United States.
Anyone can see that the USA is the only 'real' friend of Israel in the world.
But the USA is not a friend, as I heard long ago a USA politician say on tv, on jews in the
USA 'we do not love them, w're afraid of them'.
Any USA politcian who openly opposes Israel is without a job.
This is, in my opinion, what jewry does not realise, their power over the USA can disappear
overnight, could even become open hatred of jews.
These jewish organisations, with media controlled by jews, and politicians who accept the
inevitable, for money or not for money, just something like the Hoover Dam: one earthquake,
and their power over the USA is gone.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west,
I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
However, in many history books one finds sentences as 'and then something happened that
nobody foresaw, but had grave consequences'.
This is long overdue for so many reasons, but the corruption is so pervasive that reform
is nigh impossible (which I'm sure will reassure certain hearts).
I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid
lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism
about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel
standing right next to their shoulders.
Seriously, who can coherently argue that any hazard to democracy posed by Russia's
election influence was remotely comparable to the interference of Israel and Britain? And why
should the latter 2′s intentions any more than the former's?
Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a million
human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Notable quotes:
"... But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East. Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost. ..."
"... National Security Advisor John Bolton recently received the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America. ..."
"... one might suggest that the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given events of last Friday whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense
of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state ..." Depending on what criteria one uses, there are between
200 and 600 groups in the United States that wholly or in part are dedicated to furthering the interests of Israel. The organizations
are both Jewish, like the Zionist Organization of America, and Christian Zionist to include John Hagee's Christians United for Israel,
but the funding of the Israel Lobby and both its political and media access comes overwhelmingly from Jewish supporters and advocates.
Many of the groups are registered with the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes as 501(c)3 "educational" or "charitable"
foundations, which enables them to solicit tax exempt donations. One might dispute whether promoting Israeli interests in the United
States is actually educational, but as of right now the Department of the Treasury believes it can be so construed, protected by
the First Amendment.
But there is a more serious consideration in terms of the actual relationships that many of the groups enjoy with the Israeli
government. To be sure, many of them boast on their promotional literature and websites about their relationships with the Benjamin
Netanyahu and his cabinet, so the issue of dual loyalty or, worse, acting as actual Israeli government agents must be considered.
There is a legal remedy to hostile foreigners acting against American interests and that is the Foreign Agents Registration Act
of 1938 (FARA). Originally intended to identify and monitor agents of Nazi Germany propagandizing in the United States, it has since
been applied to individuals and groups linked to other nations. Most recently, it was used against Russian news agencies RT America
and Sputnik, which were forced to register. It is also being considered for Qatar based al-Jazeera.
FARA
requires
identified agents to be transparent in terms of their funding and contacts while also being publicly identified as representing
the interests of a foreign nation. They must report to the Department of Justice every contact they have with congressmen or other
government officials. The text of the Act defines a foreign agent as
"any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the
order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly
or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and
who directly or through any other person --
(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
(ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political
consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of
value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or
(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government
of the United States."
In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has never
been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working closely
with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests.
That failure is at a minimum a tribute to Jewish power in the United States, but it is also due to the fact that the organizations
are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews, not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately
made by the groups
themselves
to demonstrate that they are not being directed by the Israeli government.
The difficulty in proving that one is directed by a foreign government has been definitively resolved regarding one group the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has become the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran, Israel's
bête noir
. The recent al-Jazeera expose on the activities of the Israeli lobbies in both Britain and the United States,
which I wrote about last week
, included a surreptitiously
filmed conversation with Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli intelligence officer who now heads the Ministry of Strategic Affairs,
which is tasked with countering what is perceived to be anti-Israeli activity worldwide.
The Ministry is particularly focused on the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which is increasingly
active in both the United States and Europe.
Vaknin-Gil was discussing his activities with Tony Kleinfeld, an undercover investigative reporter who was secretly recording
and filming his encounters with various members of the Israel Lobby as well as of the Israeli government.Vaknin-Gil provided
explicit confirmation
that the FDD
works directly with the Israeli government, making it an Israeli agent by the definition of FARA.
For those who are unfamiliar with FDD, it is probably currently the most prominent neocon organization though it nevertheless
claims to be a non-partisan "research group." It focuses on foreign policy and security issues by "Fighting Terrorism and Promoting
Freedom," as it informs us on its
website
masthead.
It works to "defend free nations against their enemies," which frequently means in practice anyone whom Israel considers to be
hostile, most particularly Iran. FDD's Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman,
and Bill Kristol. Its Executive Director is Canadian import Mark Dubowitz, who is obsessed with Iran. Its advisors and experts are
mostly Jewish and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.
FDD's auditorium has become a preferred venue for senior officials of the Trump Administration to go and make hardline speeches,
just as the American Enterprise Institute was under George W. Bush. Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Nikki Haley have all
spoken there recently, frequently focusing on Iran and the threat that it allegedly constitutes.
FDD aside, Vaknin-Gil
also confirmed
that there were other groups in the United States doing the same sorts of things on behalf of Israel. He said "We have FDD. We
have others working on this," elaborating that FDD is "working on" projects for Israel including "data gathering, information analysis,
working on activist organizations, money trail."
So Vaknin-Gil was admitting that FDD and others were working as Israeli proxies, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying
on legal organizations, and both planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction. Kleinfeld also spoke with a Jonathan
Schanzer, a senior official in FDD, who filled in a bit more of what the foundation is up to in terms of discrediting groups in the
U.S. that support the BDS movement.
Schanzer admitted "BDS has taken everybody by surprise" before complaining that the Jewish response has been "a complete mess.
I don't think that anybody's doing a good job. We're not even doing a good job." He then complained that attempts to discredit Palestinian
groups by linking them to terrorist groups had failed, as also had the use of the label anti-Semitism. "Personally I think anti-Semitism
as a smear is not what it used to be."
So, when will the Justice Department move on FDD now that its true colors have been exposed by al-Jazeera? The group must be required
to register if justice be done, but will it? Its principal partner in crime the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
has avoided registering for more than sixty years by claiming that it is an American organization working to educate the U.S. public
about the all the good things connected to Israel. Even though it meets regularly with Israeli government officials, it claims not
to be representing Israeli interests.
But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered
agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying
on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent
and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East.
Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost.
To be sure the lovefest for Israel in government extends far beyond FDD and AIPAC. It can be found in many dark corners.
National
Security Advisor John Bolton
recently received
the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America.
And
one might suggest that
the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given
events of last Friday
whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian
Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself
or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters
.
Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense
of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state, which will no doubt arrange to richly reward her through
some position in financial services for which she is totally unqualified when she leaves her post in January. And then she will be
well funded to run for president in 2020.
Having Haley in charge, one might just as well vote for Benjamin Netanyahu.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
Trump is presently Israel's man in the Oval Office and if he should not be available or bets need to be hedged for 2020, nikki
likudnik is a sensible substitute.
After all (as Giraldi rightly points out), she appears to serve not as U.N. ambassador for her own country, but for the Jewish
State of Israel.
The only "deep end" is Trump allowing the United States to be controlled by and have its national interests subverted by a
tiny client state via the out-sized lobbying bucks of Israel-firsters like Sheldon Adelson and his cabal.
Giraldi has consistently made this point and its clear who is unhappy about it.
' In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has
never been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working
closely with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests '
I think you've failed to grasp that Israel is not subject to gentile law.
" . . . but it is also due to the fact that the organizations are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews,
not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately made by the groups themselves to demonstrate that they are not being
directed by the Israeli government."
I am not sure given the scope of the references that it matters. it appears that anyone advocating for any foreign entity is
included.
"(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts
within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant
for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses
contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United
States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States."
These "by the way, that includes" list makes it very clear what organizations are bound to register.
Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a
million human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Ludwig Watzal
, November 20, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
Geraldi's article shows how the Zionist Israel lobby holds the US public in choke cold and to put Israeli political goals
into the throat of the people and the US administration. Besides their power, there have to be many useful idiots who put up
with it and to support their bad goals. Their penetration of all walks of life renders it impossible to get FDD, AIPAC or all
the hundred other Israeli lobby groups registered as foreign agents. As Al Jazeera has demonstrated, these folks are working
foremost for Israeli interests. Their loyalty belongs primarily to Israel. If people would know, perhaps something could
change. But people are not allowed to tell because the Zionist controlled media are making sure of that.
@DESERT FOX
Dual citizenship has now been allowed in most (((Western liberal democracies))). There are two old adages on
the subject with slightly different views:
1) A slave cannot serve two masters; and 2) A slave with two masters is truly free.
All of the Jewish lobby groups fit into these views, but their magical mental gymnastics absolves them. In
the first instance, it is true that they cannot serve two masters, so they only serve one – Israel. In the
second instance, they are free, as they are not bound by allegiance to either master, they voluntarily serve
Israel.
Removing dual citizenship would be a step. Another step would be revisiting Chapter 115 on
Sedition. The definition under law, does not correlate with the normal legal definition.
The law contemplates force, the legal definition does not. Aligning the law with the legal concept of
sedition would put the "educational" groups would place them on less solid ground.
And finally, given that the US Constitution contemplates the government being "We, the people", all aid
to Israel is harvested from "We, the people" without consent. The famous Davy Crockett story covers it
nicely
"... In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the United States. ..."
"... "I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF ..."
In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an
alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi
Arabia. Why that is so is not clear to me. Saudi Arabia has no armed forces that possess
real combat power to do anything but bomb civilians and oppress the Shia of the Eastern
Province. Possession of military equipment does not equal combat power. A more convincing
feature of theTrumpish view is the economic bit. DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US
economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market
share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that
SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite
considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the
United States. pl
**********
Old Post
"I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu
to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday
speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when
President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF
--------------
OK, Yisrael Katz, the intelligence minister of Israel has asked the present king of Saudi
Arabia to invite Benjamin Natanyahu to a state visit in Riyadh. What a great idea! (irony) IMO
there is nothing that would be more likely to trigger a revolt within and without the SA royal
family against King Salman and his son, the new crown prince. People just don't understand that
the Saudi population and the royal family (thousands of people in various factions) continue to
regard Israel as the ultimate enemy. For all these carefully indoctrinated Wahhabis, Israel is
an abomination that occupies a portion of the territory of the 'umma, God's territory
on earth. To invite Israel's prime minister to Riyadh for a state visit or, indeed any kind of
visit, would be to recognize Israel as a state legitimately and perpetually occupying
Palestine. The behind the scenes machinations of various acculturated princes like Muhammad bin
Salman mean nothing to the people of the Saudi kingdom. What we are talking about in such a
demand is an invitation to blasphemy and apostasy. It is typical of the vast majority of
Israelis that in their contempt for non-Jews and especially their neighbors, they remain
ignorant of such realities. A truce would be possible but not permanent recognition. pl
" ... it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so
drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the
heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent,
President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US
still maintains major military presence in that country."
... the nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism." SF
----------
Saudi Arabia is a larger sponsor of Sunni jihadi movements than Qatar. That has always been
true. The "kingdom" is a state built on Sunni fanaticism. There are no churches, no synagogues,
no legally resident ministers of other faiths than Islam in the country. Mukhtar
(appointed head man and tax farmer) Donald Trump swore allegiance to his Saudi pals in Riyadh.
He did that before an army of witnesses from across the Islamic world. The Saudis have always
sought to impose their sphere of influence upon all Muslims within their reach. They
understandably think that mukhtar Trump gave them an extended reach as their henchman.
The air base at al-odeid in Qatar is a Qatari base in which the US has been allowed to
position the forward element of US CENTCOM's headquarter, the US air operations center for the
whole region and ten thousand bird men. (and women). Arabs do not do things like that from
altruistic love. The Qataris expected protection from Iran and Saudi Arabia and have not gotten
much of anything in return. Now Turkey , pursuing its Turanian destiny (on hold since the
Ottoman collapse) is building a military position as an ally of the al-than i family
rulers of Qatar. SA and its pipsqueak Gulfie allies are now threatening Turkey with - what?
Unhappiness if it does not abandon Qatar.? Did mukhtar Trump understand any of this
before he swore fealty to King Salman? I doubt it. pl
it is unlikely in the extreme that
Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme
that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme
that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here.
In a sense, that could be reversed. Indeed, none of the presidents since Bill
Clinton has done ALL that Netanyahu's Israel has demanded, since none of them have gone to
war against Iran.
Obama, it is said, couldn't stand to be in the same room as Bibi. He and
SOS Kerry negotiated the multi-party Iran Nuclear Deal against Bibi's wishes, which our
current POTUS irrationally tore up. Was Trump carrying out the will of Israel, or was it
because he could not bear to allow one of the few good things that Obama accomplished to
stand? Perhaps both.
Sixteen years ago Wesley Clark said that the PNAC plan was for the US to take out 7
countries in 5 years, with Iran being the coup de gras. Hasn't happened yet. And is Trump
really that crazy? Let's hope that Bibi, who may be on his way out of office for corruption,
never gets his war.
@ChuckOrloski
Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first
choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who
were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in
2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were
rolling in surplus money again.
Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the
perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the
Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already
underway
By Alison Weir
[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French
citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli
authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and
retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international
efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to
Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions
into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and
ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a
government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.
A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a
billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is
predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."
A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often
major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers,
publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud,
French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a
get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)
Victimizing French business owners & churches
The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of
small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost
their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.
Both share an implacable sense of Islamophobia. And, the deep sense of racial
inferiority complex which the hindoos feel, fits well with the cursed ideology of their
supremacist white-skinned Zionist masters. Them hindoos are willful lickspittle of the
Jooscum.
Man you really hit the bull's eye with this astute observation of yours (or is the golden
cafe we have here?? ;))
What I think is that, these hindoos (at least the ones who are on the top of the totem
pole) have what robert lindsay used to describe as, a very deep sense of inferiority complex
intertwined with a very superficial sense of superiority on the outside. Deeper the
inferiority complex, stronger the (external) superiority complex to offset the deep sense of
shame they have on the inside. I wonder why that is?
However it would be wrong to paint the whole country of India with the same brush. A
massive percentage of people there are bearing the brunt of toxic hatred and violence
emanating from the likes of 'zionist lickspittles' you mentioned. One can only surmise what
they must be enduring. These low caste and other minorities there would be a very patient and
stoic people as otherwise India would've erupted into a full blown civil war by now.
As for the 'jooscum', I take issue with that. There certainly are Jews, like Unz, Atzmon
and Shamir who defy the stereotype and become champions of real free speech and truth. So
again one must NOT go down that slippery slope of putting each and everyone to the guillotine
just because they happen to be cohen or ahmed or rahul or whatever. We are better than
that
@ChuckOrloski
Its much more than that .we have a lot of cost for Israel than just the yearly 3 billion, it
more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs
for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.
Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
December 9, 2002
By David R. Francis ,Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
[MORE]
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by
today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades,
his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the
Israel lobby.
For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its
backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he
figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli
officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs
of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion
in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.
Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by
the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't
pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both
principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.
Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed
early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion
in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting
$3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240
billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and
Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total
package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle
East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the
University of Maine.
These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well
spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if
Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden,
are little known.
One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the
US after Israel-Arab wars.
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories
Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms,
triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.
That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in
2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost
another $450 billion.
Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
Other US help includes:
• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds
worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the
United States economy, says Stauffer.
• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600
million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to
cover these.
• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile
projects.
• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says
these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.
• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid,
ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has
won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made
equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to
Israel.
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier.
Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often
resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.
• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion
a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use
its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.
• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi
Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.
@JC1
Asian-Americans are not brainwashed. When the LA riots occurred in part because a Korean
woman shot a black girl in the back of the head in her store, the Korean shopkeepers simply
got out their guns and started shooting black rioters like dogs which of course they
privately regard them to be. Blacks paid cash in their liquor stores but once this was no
longer a factor they simply started shooting at them-with much greater accuracy, too. The
average ghetto black was no match for a Korean with an SKS rifle.
Iranian Muslims are not brainwashed. When Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League who had
previously been known for brawling with Metzger and the Klan on talk shows tried to blow up
the mosque and congressman Issa after 9-11 (I guess he did not get the memo that the Z were
behind it) he was imprisoned. His death was suspicious and probably the result of Aryan gangs
on the inside. At any rate, so much for Jewish domination of the Muslims.
Hindus are supposedly cooperating with Jews in their takeover of the tech industry. I
cannot be sure of that. However, they are not brainwashed.
And as our Italian-American posters have noted here, the Italians who long resided in the
same cities with Jews don't give a "rat's culo" for Israel.
Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What
it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about
Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.
So it is the rural white prole who is brainwashed. He comes home from a hard day's work
and watches some film like BLACK PANTHER where a bunch of effete British character actors
play the baddies and the black Mandingo walks around in a costume and they want him to screw
their sister.
The Korean or Iranian or Italian in the city does not want to imitate blacks. Few of them
are whiggers. It is the rural white prole who wants to "keep it real". Italians who do choose
to be gangsters do not go to jail for the petty crimes that whiggers do.
I must say that the white is something of a fool. And I should add, I am one. Whites
seemed smarter in the 1990′s. But somehow they declined after Bush was elected.
Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one
Ethnostate supposedly created by God ? What's in it for me ?
You get to pay for it.
Why Israel Will Never Repay US Loans
Dr. Israel Shahak
[MORE]
"All conceivable questions have been discussed about scheduling and conditions of the $10
billion in loan guarantees requested by Israel from the US government except one: How can
Israel possibly repay such a huge sum? After all, if Israel cannot repay these loans, the
burden will fall upon the guarantor, the US government, which in the last analysis means upon
the US taxpayers.
Such a repayment would in fact amount to foreign aid under another name. Because of the
deterioration of economic conditions in the US, no matter what forms of pressure the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may use, the Congress will be reluctant to offer
Israel $10 billion in an extra aid gift.
Given these realities, the best guess would be that both sides already know that since Israel
is not capable of repaying the US guaranteed loans, they regard the guarantees as a gift to
Israel in disguise.
A Gift in Disguise
Yitzhak Shamir and other Israeli government spokesmen, as well as spokesmen for Israel's
US lobby, constantly reiterate that Israel has so far been repaying its debts on time. They
don't mention that the US pays the interest on those loans, and eventually forgives them. If
the US did not do this, Israel's case would soon be comparable to that of the USSR and other
debt-ridden states which used their past good repayment records as justification for
borrowing more and more, until finally they defaulted on all their loans. The situation is
described by Israeli economist Zvi Timor, the editor of Al-Hamishmar, in an article entitled
"Dignified Behavior Under Pressure" in his journal's September 17 issue:
"For years we have been repaying all our debts from what we've been receiving as American
aid. Every year Israel gets $1.3 billion of economic aid, of which $ 1.1 billion goes for
debt repayment."
In other words, 85 percent of American economic aid "is not spent as it is supposed to be.
From private but reliable sources, I know that last year the sum in question reached $1.2
billion, i.e. 92 percent of the received "economic aid." It means that the American taxpayers
have been, without their knowledge, repaying the Israeli debt for years. Ordinary Americans
would be overjoyed if they learned that their debts were being repaid by somebody else. If
Israeli debt repayment goes under the name of "economic aid," it is to conceal from the US
public the knowledge that they are repaying somebody else's debts.
The deception is nevertheless obvious for the simple reason that the expenditure of
between $11 and $12 billion over 10 years would otherwise have produced some visible effects
in Israel. None, however, can be seen.
According to the Congressional Research Service issue brief, "Israel: US Foreign
Assistance Facts" by Clyde R. Mark (updated May 8, 1991), Israel also benefits from periodic
US government waivers. From 1974 to 1984, the United States waived repayment of part of
Israel's annual FMS (Foreign Military Sales). Since 1985, the US has waived repayment of the
total FMS. The waiver avoids establishing a program and personnel to oversee the program, as
would be required if the same amount were given as a Military Assistance Program grant.
What this means is that since the entire value of the enormous military aid the US has
granted Israel over the years is in fact a gift, Israel does not owe the US very much. The
brief states further that "the United States gives all ESF (Economic Support Funds) directly
to the Government of Israel rather than under a specific program. There is no accounting of
how the funds are used. " No other recipient of American aid benefits from such conditions,
which seem almost to have been designed to beget fraud. And fraud they did beget.
In fact, fraud and deceit have pervaded Israeli utilization of US support. Even the magnitude
of this support has been misreported. Contrary to the data routinely cited by the Western
press, combined US military and economic support to Israel has amounted not to $3.1 billion
yearly, but, as Timor stated, "in sum total, without counting the guarantees, the US
government helps Israel financially to the extent of about $5 billion."
In this sum he includes the value (to Israel) of "deductions [from US income tax] accruing to
funds raised by the United Jewish Appeal. " Incidentally, the bulk of these funds, although
they are put at the disposal of the Israeli government, remain in the US. They are used by
AIPAC and other segments of the Israeli lobby in the United States. In this way, the US
administration actually subsidizes lobbying power used against itself.
Other forms of covert American aid cited by Timor are discussed by Yossi Verter and Yigal
Laviv in an article headlined "The American financial aid to Israel is much higher than
previously known" in Hadashut of September 20. Their estimate of the total amount of support
received by Israel from the US roughly concurs with Timor's.
Relying on "documents leaked by the State Department, which were published in part by the
Wall Street Journal, " and also "on sources in the Congress" (and apparently on Israeli
sources as well), the writers conclude that "financial aid which Israel receives from the US
is much higher than published figures indicate, largely because Israel uses the received
money for complex financial speculation schemes which are without exception detrimental to
the interests of the American taxpayer."
They also assert that "between 1974 and 1989 Israel received from the US over $16 billion in
the form of military aid, but no one in the US really expected that any part of this total
would ever be repaid."
Asking About the Future
But let us leave the past aside, and ask about the future. Right now, the US pays existing
Israeli debts to commercial banks and allows their recycling. The question that therefore
remains is, how can Israel repay the additional principal and interest on the $10 billion in
loans? Or, alternatively, can Israel renounce the guarantees and impose an austerity regime
in their stead?
The latter option is already advocated by such Israeli ministers from the extreme right as
former Chief of Staff and present Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan. After all, in order
to repay this sum each year, Israel would have to increase its exports by at least $4
billion, or more if the profits from such exports did not reach 50 percent.
The last officially recorded value for Israeli exports was some $9.4 billion in 1988. The
value of imports was $12.3 billion, yielding a trade deficit of 23.2 percent, according to
the "Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1989." Since Israel is now in recession, the value of
its exports could not have increased much since then.
In fact, one particular export, that of weaponry, has collapsed since 1988. The value of
exported weapons, one-third of which went to Colombia alone, amounted in 1988 to $1.5
billion. The forecast for the next fiscal year was that this particular export would decrease
to $213 million.
Two major markets for the Israeli exports now are North America ($3.1 billion, of which $3
billion goes to the US) and the European Common Market ($3.2 billion). Israeli exports to the
US were composed chiefly of polished diamonds ($1.2 billion), medicines and chemicals ($180
million), and clothes and textiles ($125 million).
Only the gullible can expect that Americans, under present economic conditions, can be
influenced by AIPAC to buy more Israeli diamonds in quantifies sufficient to cover the
repayment of the new loans, to be borrowed at the rate of $2 billion per year for five years.
An increase of Israeli exports by $4 billion, or some 43 percent in a single year, is, as
Timor clearly recognizes, absolutely impossible.
Timor is right in pointing out that without the US guarantees, "a state like Israel, which
already has an enormous foreign debt per capita, enormous defense budget, enormous budgetary
deficit, and quite sizable trade deficit, would not be considered an attractive borrower on
the international financial market. " It can be mentioned in passing that an Israeli
budgetary deficit exists when the notyet granted American guarantees are already counted on
its revenue side! All these facts only reinforce disbelief in Israel's ability to ever repay
the loans guaranteed by the US.
The Austerity Alternative
The alternative option of renouncing the guarantees and imposing an austerity regime would
also have dire consequences. The proposed reduction of all salaries by 10 percent would yield
the equivalent in Israeli shekels of $2 billion. In addition to the social consequences of
this proposal, a hefty proportion of Israeli wage-earners would thus rapidly land below the
poverty line.
Nor would these sacrifices yield the intended economic effects. As Timor reminds his readers,
Israeli shekels are worthless outside of Israel. His conclusion, backed by some additional
arguments not mentioned here, is: "Any savings in shekels are bound to be quite ineffective,
because shekels are not dollars."
The prediction that Israel cannot possibly repay the loans which the US is requested to
guarantee rests on firm grounds. The data upon which this prediction is based, although not
publicized by the media before the current clash of the US administration with the Israeli
government and with the Israeli lobby in the US, were surely known to the advocates of the
guarantees from the start. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that the guarantees were
originally conceived as a grant in disguise. It would have been more honest to call them a
gift.
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or
housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents,
the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when
Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means
the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow
from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an
additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel
(or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.
"The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States may be planning to reduce
Israel's loan guarantees to account for any money the country spends constructing a
"security perimeter" that will divide its citizens from Palestinians. What are these loan
guarantees, and how important are they to Israel?
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment,
or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your
parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower
cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this
year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that
Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal
Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they
would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without
backers.
The $9 billion in loan guarantees (along with $1 billion in direct aid) comprise a
special post-Gulf War II aid package, awarded to Israel on top of the $3 billion in other
assistance that the United States gives annually. But with loan guarantees, it's never
clear how much money is actually "given": In a perfect world, they wouldn't cost the United
States a cent. Israel -- or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees
as postwar rewards -- could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans
completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already
received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while
it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in
part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with
a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.
When borrowing on the United States' good credit, the Israeli government can use the money
for any purpose. However, Congress attached a series of stipulations to the recent package,
including one that reserves the right to reduce the guarantee amount to counterbalance any
money Israel spends creating new settlements in contested territory. This caveat is exactly
what Bush may use now to pressure Israel to cease construction on its "security perimeter"
-- if the caveat is employed, Israel would find itself fully responsible for part of its
loan (and thus with higher interest rates). And because Israel's annual revenues top out at
$40 billion, any tweaks to a $9 billion aid package could shake up the country's
economy.
Experts say it's far from clear that the Bush administration will follow through with this
plan. But simply threatening to reduce the guarantees can also be effective because Israel
needs the U.S.-backed loans to keep debt payments under control. In 1991, Israel was in a
similarly desperate financial situation, and the United States used the threat of limiting
loan guarantees to force then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to attend the Madrid peace
conference and suspend settlement construction while he was there
"The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94
percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.
The $13 million disbursed last week brings to $151 million the amount disbursed since the
program started in 2005, most of it to Jewish institutions "
The USA is not a sovereign nation, America is a sovereign nation, could that be what you
meant to say?
The USA is a corporation organized to govern; it owners are not investor-shareholders
but robber-barren bandit stakeholders. The USA was established to mitigate and tame down
the Democracy Americans had bleed red blood to achieve. Take a look at the corporate bylaws
(constitution) of the USA, they consist of seven articles.
The Executive, Article I. (pres. vp,), the Congress Art. II. (board of directors), the
Judiciary ( to settle difference) (Article III), Articles IV clarifies relations between
the different generally lesser governments (states), Article V, invents a way to make it
possible for the constitution to terminate the Confederation (that invention is called
Ratification) It was ratification that transferred the power of government from the
continental "democracy-practicing" masses right back into the hands of the few caretakers
who were beholding to, or in service to, private banking and foreign interest. America
governed itself for 11 years . After that the pre -evolution Oligarchs (wealthy or
highly educated elites) managed to get ratified their constitution and to use it to put
themselves right back into the positions of political and autocratic power they enjoyed
before the revolution. The constitution eliminated the right of Americans to a say
in the affairs of their government. (the government, and the affairs of government, were
separated from the masses of the people. The USA was used to protect and enhance the
aristocrats from the needs, wants and plight of the masses and to extract from the masses
the funds that support USA operations. To accomplish that transition feat, the banksters
used ( or invented and used) a process called ratification (Article VII). Ratification
eliminated the American Democracy overseen by the Articles of Confederation (as
administered by the American democratic continental government).
Read Constitution Article VI [2] and [3].. you will see.. authority..shall be supreme..
Judges Senators and Representatives ,.. Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several States [shall be bound
by it].
Constitution Article VI [1] ..engagements entered into, before the
Adoption[ratification] ..shall be valid against the US [<=meaning in spite of the
democratic wish of those who fought the British , the US corporation (USA) would "recognize
as valid" deeds to real estate obtained by Land grant from a foreigner. Millions of acres
of America would remain in a very few private hands. It meant many other similar things..
to numerous to mention here. Had the Confederation continued slavery most likely would have
not survived.
Why bother with writing Article VI{1}? These few words allowed wealthy Washington
Aristocrat types to retain their vast personal ownership in their humongous-stretches of
real estate (land holdings) given (land granted) to them or to those from whom they
acquired them by a foreign power (on behalf of the Banksters who in those days controlled
everything). Democracy itself was the threat that produced the US Constitution ;
the US constitution eliminated democracy ; the constitution replaced America's
democracy by confederation with a republic (meaning no one but the elected few are to be
permitted any say in anything (go back to work and shut the **** up).
Why was democracy a threat ? The Confederation (government by agreement) was
being urged by its war vets to make good on its promises to give every vet a homestead and
a pension for their service in the war. The vets were demanding all land in America
belonged to Americans. they were insisting to refuse to recognize claims (deeds) to real
estate that predated the American revolution; we don't recognize deeds from foreign kings.
British, French or Spanish land grant owners turn the ownership of your land over to
America (the confederation), such land does not belong to you. We Americans do not
recognize land grants from foreign governments; these lands never belonged to foreigners so
they could not give them to you. Needless to say, land grant owners (Washington and family
owned most of Virginia and a great part of West Virginia <=reason George was appointed
general of the continental army, he was so rich everyone would know who he was and
volunteer to help fight the British).
It must be remembered that the Confederation (Articles of Confederation, not the USA)
was the government that defeated the British in the American Revolution, 1776-1778! The USA
did not then exist. Eleven Confederation years between 1776 (Declaration of Independence)
and the ratification of the USA (1789)
Ratification truncated the American Democracy; ratification re-established the British
Bankster appointed Aristocrats as puppets in charge over America.
The US Constitution created an Americanized form of British Parliamentary government, in
virtually the same form as existed in British Colonial times, but without a king or queen
(instead a President and Vice President); so the USA was the banker's government that would
control America, its just that most Americans did not know it. Most Americans cannot name
one of the 11 presidents of the Confederation (AOC government) because misleading
propaganda has been substituted in their school taught histories. Most Americans don't
understand federalism, nor do they have any idea the angry controversy that forced the USA
into existence.
I have written this several times and each time I understand more about what happened.
If you see I am wrong please say so.. I am really interested to sort out the truth and that
was a long time ago.
With all due respect to Philip Giraldi I do not buy this reasoning. Outsize influence of Israel in the US politics and
especially in foreign policy is a direct result of correlation of the goals of Israel and USA on the Middle East. In a way
Israel acts as yet another (informal) US state. The moment Israel tries to pursue independent foreign policy (for example by
booting Likud from government and electing more reasonable party and deviating from the USA goals) it will face consequences,
Israeli lobby or no Israeli lobby. Israel also acts as yet another lobbyist for the US military industrial complex.
The fact that media is owned by large corporations does no imply that it is owned by Israeli interests. And if MSM conduct
pro-Israeli propaganda they do so reflecting interests of the the US elite -- financial oligarchy. And a large
percentage of financial oligarchy support Zionism.
But the fact of interference of Israeli government in the USA election are reprehensible and those involved should be
prosecuted. Possibly using RICO act.
Discussion of the article is much more interesting then the article itself, revealing many additional aspects of the power of
Israeli lobby to influence the US elections. As well as the list of US politicians they managed to send to the dustbin of
history.
Notable quotes:
"... While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests. ..."
"... It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next? ..."
"... The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you. ..."
"... Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. ..."
"... The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. ..."
"... The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc. ..."
"... The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"? ..."
"... You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities. ..."
"... Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law. ..."
It is particularly ironic that as the midterm campaigns were drawing to a close there
appeared some serious investigative journalism that demonstrates precisely how Israel and
Jewish groups corrupt the political process in America to provide virtually unlimited support
for anything and everything that the despicable Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war
criminals seek to do. How the process has succeeded is best illustrated by the current Israeli
government's policy of "mowing the grass" in Gaza where it is using army snipers to kill
unarmed Palestinian protesters. Washington not only does not protest against the in-your-face
war crime, it aids and abets it with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman justifying the military
response as measured and appropriate.
Another area where Washington chooses to look the other way is regarding Israel's nuclear
arsenal, believed to consist of two hundred warheads. Under U.S. law, any country that has an
undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal cannot obtain American-made weapons and cannot received aid
of any type. Congress and the White House pretend that the Israeli nuclear arsenal does not
exist, in spite of the fact that the Israelis themselves have more than once implicitly
acknowledged it and instead of cutting aid to Israel have instead increased it. It is currently
$3.8 billion per year guaranteed for the next ten years, with extra money also available if
needed. No other country benefits from such largesse and gives in return so little.
To be sure, the groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John
Mearsheimer, which appeared in 2007, pulled no punches in describing how the Israel Lobby
operates in the United States. It also made clear that the relationship with Israel serves no
United States national interest whatsoever and exists solely because of the corruption of the
political system and the media by principally Jewish individuals and groups that are dedicated
to that task.
While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about
something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of
Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera
commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in
Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of
meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who
were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the
organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests.
The British expose, in two parts, aired in January, and was based on discussions and
interviews that took place between June and November 2017. It demonstrated how the Israeli
Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and
government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed
how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli
interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).
The secret recording revealed how an Israeli Embassy diplomat/spy named Shai Masot connived
with a senior civil servant to get rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as
a supporter of an independent Palestinian state. To Masot's additional query "Can I give you
some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?" the civil servant suggested " if you look
hard enough, I'm sure there is something that they're trying to hide a little scandal maybe."
Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified and confirmed
to be on a "hit list."
It was also learned that Masot had been secretly
subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative
Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express
concern that Israel's control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be:
"For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They're not doing that any more
in the Labour Party. CFI, they're doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in
the last elections did it automatically."
The documentary was initially a sensation in Britain but then, predictably, it went away as
Israel's loyal host of media scriveners took charge. Masot was recalled to Israel and Prime
Minister Teresa May, as good a friend to Jewish money and power as one is likely to find,
decided to do nothing. Her characteristically toothless reaction to the suggestion that her
government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country was:
"The Israeli ambassador has apologized the U.K. has a strong relationship with Israel and we
consider the matter closed."
The four-part series by al-Jazeera on the Lobby in the U.S. was meanwhile
temporarily spiked because the Qatari government was seeking to obtain the mediation of
prominent American Jews to pressure the White House to help resolve its outstanding conflict
with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The documentary has remained in limbo but in the past two weeks it has surfaced and
is now available . Its undercover investigative journalist, a British Jew named Tony
Kleinfeld, quickly charmed his way into the inner circle of Israel's supporters where he
discovered a network of organizations that act as fronts for the Israeli government. Their
activities include spying on supporters of Palestinian rights and disrupting demonstrations,
with a particular focus on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which Israel
has particularly targeted. They also resorted to tactics like smearing critics by generating
false accusations of sexual and personal misconduct, all of which was coordinated by Israel's
Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The ministry's director general is Sima Vaknin-Gil , a
former senior officer with Israel's military intelligence , and is staff consists mostly of
former spies drawn from Israel's various security agencies.
Later, Kleinfeld became involved with The Israel Project , which is a U.S. based
Israeli government backed propaganda organ that claims to be "a non-partisan American
educational organization dedicated to informing the media and public conversation about Israel
and the Middle East."
In a recorded conversation, Project employee Jordan Schachtel, explained the
objectives and extent of a secret Facebook operation. "We're putting together a lot of
pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren't The Israel Project's
channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate
with. That's why it's a secretive thing, because we don't want people to know that these side
projects are associated with The Israel Project."
In another episode, the Israel on Campus Coalition's
Jacob Baime, who claimed to have a $2 million budget, described coordinating with the Israeli
government, with an approach "modeled on General Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency
strategy in Iraq copied a lot from that strategy that has been working really well for us,
actually" using "offensive information operations." Baime described putting "up some anonymous
website" along with targeted Facebook ads so that critics "either shut down or they spend time
responding to it and investigating it, which is time they can't spend attacking Israel. It's
psychological warfare, it drives them crazy."
Kleinfeld also met with other groups. Foundation for Defense of Democracies was revealed as yet
another
agent of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, its directors meeting regularly with
Israeli Embassy staff in Washington. In spite of that the Treasury Department has not compelled
it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is also registered
with the IRS as a tax exempt 501(c)3 "charity." Indeed, no Jewish organization active on behalf
of Israel has ever had to register under FARA and most are classified as tax exempt charities
or educational foundations. Interestingly, however, the FDD's Jonathan Schanzer lamented in his
recorded conversation with Kleinfeld that "anti-Semitism as a smear is not what is used to
be."
In another bizarre episode, Kleinfeld visited the neocon dominated Hoover Institute in
California where he participated in a demonstration together with a group of bored young
conservative think tankers compelled by their professors to protest against a Students for
Justice in Palestine conference. The think tank fellows admit that they were "astroturfing"
– rent-a-crowd activism to make a small demonstration appear much larger.
Another segment
includes Israeli Lobby financier Adam Milstein, who is reported to be the principal funder
of Canary Mission, which has targeted some
1,900 students and academics in its profiles
since 2015 , smearing them as "racist," "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic." Jacob Baime,
executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, boasts in the film that "Canary Mission
is highly, highly effective to the extent that we monitor the Students for Justice in Palestine
and their allies."
In his recording, Milstein also talks about the need to "investigate" and "expose" critics
of Israel, who Milstein claims are anti-Semites, as well as "anti-Christian" and "anti-freedom"
activists who "terrorize us." His foundation also funds numerous anti-Palestinian organizations,
including the Israel on Campus Coalition ,
StandWithUs ,
CAMERA , the
AMCHA
Initiative and the FDD . Milstein also
funds and is chairman of the board of the Israeli-American Council. An Israeli-born California
based real estate developer, Milstein reportedly
served time in federal prison after a 2009 conviction for tax evasion.
An
Israeli spy at the University of California at Davis, Julia Reifkind also described to
Kleinfeld how the system worked at the campus level. She used multiple fake Facebook accounts
to monitor the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine. "I follow all the SJP accounts.
I have some fake names. My name is Jay Bernard or something. It just sounds like an old white
guy, which was the plan. I join all these groups." The information she obtained was then passed
on to her contact in the Embassy for forwarding on to Israel to be entered into their data base
of enemies.
So, Israel was engaging in interfering in legitimate political activity and also generating
fake news on the social media in both 2016 and 2018, the same accusation that has been leveled
against Moscow, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems curiously uninterested. And beyond the
al-Jazeera revelations, there is also the evidence that it was Israel that sought favors
from the incoming Trump Administration in 2016, not Russia. So who was actually corrupting
whom?
And then there are the more overt Israeli front groups like the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its $100 million annual budget and 200 employees, as well as the
other special arrangements to pander to Israel and the powerful American Jews who have made it
their mission to use the U.S. government as a mechanism to protect and nurture Israel. Last
week in Los Angeles $60 million
was raised by Hollywood's finest for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), "Their Job is to Look
After Israel. Ours is to Look After Them," the website proclaims.
Last month, an additional $32 million was raised for the IDF in New York City. Donations are
tax exempt, to support the armed forces of a country that is currently engaged in war crimes
and that has a secret nuclear arsenal.
So, Israel was technically speaking not running in the 2018 election, but it was very much
in the race. Jewish Democrats are
already boasting how the presence of a couple of Israel critics in the House, who will be
"reeducated" on the Middle East, will make no difference, that the party will be solid for the
Jewish state with more Jewish congressmen than ever before. Indeed, the "special relationship"
bond will be stronger than ever.
Five committee chairmanships in the House of Representatives will be in the hands of
passionate Israel firsters, including Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel
at Foreign Affairs. On the Republican side, the House is already 100% in Israel's pocket. And
as part of the White House team we have John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Donald Trump's Ambassador
to Israel David Friedman expressed the dual loyalty phenomenon best in a
recent speech . The United States is his "country of citizenship" but Israel is the country
he "loves so much."
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Gosh, I don't know where to start.
By God, Giraldi, you said a mouthful. Even two mouthfuls.
Where do we begin? I don't know. I am not a 'anti-Semite' or anti-Jew. As a matter of fact my
girlfriend for four years was Jewish. That's another story.
There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies
to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first
to go. Next?
While I don't live in Va I was hoping for wins from congressional candidates Abigail
Spanberger and Leslie Cockburn. Unfortunately Cockburn was handed a defeat and while she was
probably always a longshot it undoubtedly didn't help that the journalist was questioned
about a book she co-authored in the 90′s (which I read).
The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it
simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US
(Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all
Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for
you.
Sadly Crispin Blunt was taken down as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and
replaced by execrable arch neocon and descendant of German Jews Tom Tugendhat. Blunt had
authored reports criticising government actions in Libya and Syria and was looking to
investigate the influence of lobbies on British policy in the Middle East.
The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy, and includes
Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger
Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey.
I'm trying to think of a more recent example to make this point more relevant today and I
can only come up with Chuck Hagel even if it was done with velvet gloves.
No matter what sort of war crime Israel commits, no matter what level on interference crypto-Israeli donors and partisans
inject into America's political landscape, the Zionist nexus inside our civilization is now so embedded and untouchable that
its operatives can openly suborn US lawmakers while other Zionists initiate war (or use US power to do so) against rising
Mideast countries that Israel wants weakened, divided, or crushed.
Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria and Khadaffy's Libya discovered this the hard way.
Despite these slick machinations, there are few public protests, (((Media))) examinations, or movements inside America that
effectively oppose/thwart Israeli violence or the shrewd interference by Zionists in every US election since LBJ.
Why?
No one dares.
This, despite 1) Israel's possession of a rogue nuclear stockpile along with 2) Israel's multi-decade campaign to expel or
subjugate its native population of non-Jews, 3) Israel's ongoing acquisition of territory by force and 4) Israel's
trigger-happy propensity to annihilate (or harness US power to do so) any surrounding non-Jewish peoples (or nation) which
poses a potential "existential threat"to the Jewish state. (Palestine, Lebanon, Iran are you listening?)
Not only do American taxpayers subsidize and protect affluent Israel above beyond every other nation in world history, but
this oddball US commitment to the Zionist State is granted without precondition. That's right. It's unconditional. Israel's
extraordinary political privilege is astoundingly unique and uniquely dangerous.
Despite this political anomaly, in no US election (including the last one) is Zio-Washington's 'special relationship' with
nuclear-ready Israel ever an issue. Not one. Compare this to Washington's wild, unhinged obsession with Iran's non-nuclear
stockpile of weapons. America's irrational fear of Iran is an exotic delusion that's been cooked up by Zionists. Like Iraq and
Libya before it, Iran is slated for dismemberment. So stay tuned to your TVs for the latest news!
America's arranged but artificial marriage to the Zionist cause benefits Israel. Immensely. At the same time, it's cost us
trillions. Trillions. Oil embargos, annual billion-dollar aid packages, along with winless, trillion-dollar wars do gradually
add up. Yet political dissent remains muted. Taboo.
Anti-Semitism! (hush.) Meanwhile, America's pro-Zionist news and entertainment industries simplify, amplify, enable, and
solidify Israel's near-sacred status. No accident. You've heard the stories. You've heard the speeches. You've seen the films.
You've visited the museums.
Israel's unique untouchability allows it to rise above international constraints (with the assistance of Zio-Washington and
(((Big Media))) as it conducts military operations (and acts of war) that violate US laws, the UN Charter, as well as the
Geneva Conventions. Shouldn't this matter?
Certainly. But supreme victims enjoy supreme privileges.
Today, a tiny foreign power steers and shapes the policies and mindset of the world's most powerful civilization. No small
feat. No small threat.
Yep, Indian-Americans have not read it and do not seem that interested in Jews. Neither do Iranians. Catholics, which means
Irish and Italians on the East Coast and Latinos everywhere, do not seem to much care about Israel either.
Blacks in the US do not seem to much love Jews or care about Israel at all with the Muslim lunatic fringe of Farrakan etc.
deeply disliking them.
Apparently Evangelical Protestants of various sects love Jews for theological reasons and these people seem to have the
smallest piece of the pie these days.
Chinese, Indians, Iranian Muslims etc either are indifferent or detest Israel and yet they seem to be doing better than the
whites in the "bible belt".
Though a good number of rednecks who grew up singing old testament hymns would say that Jews deny their savior and don't
worship Jews.
@Z-man Charles
Freeman. His nomination to the NSC blocked by the Israeli lobby. Brilliant guy, career
foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador.
American politicians love Israel because it legitimizes their own corruption. They can be
bought and paid for political whores without having to hide it. As soon as anyone points out
that they are selling out their own country, they can recite the magic "anti-semitism"
incantation to make the criticism go away.
Judaism is nothing more than a "service-to-self" ideology, characterized by negative concepts
(e.g. greed, selfishness, etc.) and incapable of forgiveness. It's absolutely immiscible with
any form of a "service-to-others" ideology.
Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix
ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial
law and that was that. Congress degenerated into a crooked pedo playpen with a single
function: deciding matters beneath CIA's notice with legalized peculation.
The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting
development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in
Syria. This latest, possibly terminal, failure has spurred a frenzy of finger-pointing. When
CIA wrecked Vietnam they blamed the Pentagon (see Prouty's The Secret Team) and everybody
fell for it. But now with Syria, CIA pretended the Jews made them do it. That failed the
laugh test, so now they're framing Amway shitstain Eric Prince.
Another words walk up to any Chinese-American (The ones in California have been in the US
longer than most East Coast ethnic whites like the Italians) or Indian-Americans and ask them
what they know or care to know about Jews or Israel. They will say zero.
You'd get something genuinely negative from the Iranian Muslim community out in Los
Angeles. And also a good number of blacks.
Hispanics know little about Israel. Did not stop Cubans from taking over Miami.
I don't know what you define as a "real American".
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part
undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United
States.
I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc.
@Baxter It's
more than just a moneyed lobby that has pulled this off for the past 100 years in america.
Much more. The Jewish mafia was heavily involved from the earliest days of the 20th century.
I highly recommend you all listen to this interview with Jeff Gates, someone who has as many
qualifications as any of the authors on Unz.com to talk about the Jewish lobby. The youtube
interviews with Jeff Gates are essential listening:
I wish I could find the quote but Jeff Gates thinks Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is light weights. Somewhere he makes the
comment "anyone who compares the Jewish Lobby to other lobbies [like the dairy lobby] as if
the Jewish Lobby happens just to be a little more effective than the rest is missing the
point of the exercise here."
lol @ this article and these comments. Love the tears! Never was there a more deserving group
of people to feel dejected and demoralized.
I think the most hilarious part though was this one:
In fact, Americans have never had the option of voting on the "special relationship"
that Israel enjoys with the United States as no Congressman would dare run against it lest
they be smeared in the media and find themselves running against an extraordinarily well
funded opponent benefitting from large donations coming from out of state sources.
Public opinion polls have consistently, over decades, shown that Americans are pro-Israel.
The only exceptions are blacks, far leftist whites, and Muslims, and even the first two are
not overwhelmingly anti. The needle has hardly moved in decades.
Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential
election for going on 40 years now, on whether US policy should be more pro-Iran and less
pro-Israel, and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other
issue in that time period, to side with Israel. Complaining that there are -gasp-
organizations with money involved in this issue, even some from -gasp- out of
state , is hilarious and pathetic. Every issue in American politics has lobbyists and
national money flying around like crazy – guns, abortion, you name it. And every side
that loses in the court of public opinion says that they did so because of 'out of state'
money, even when they have more of it. Giraldi worked in government so he knows it, but why
have an honest perspective when you can enrage the hive?
You really can't come up with a more thorough rejection by the American people of a
political position than they have delivered, decade after decade, to the anti-Israel side.
The only side less popular than Iran lackeys in American discourse might be NAMBLA,
and even that is a close call.
America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix
of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and
Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.
@Anonymous
Bullshit. Americans are only "pro-Israel" because that is all they hear from the media and
the politicians. And that is because Jews control the media and the politicians.
The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a
definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came
from none other than Hillary Clinton. I especially liked this line:
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded
of any other democratic nation
They may want to rethink that one, as Israel fails pretty much all tests of the behavior of a
democratic nation, starting with being a democracy in the first place.
To think that Hillary, along with her fellow travelers like Victoria Nuland, are the
arbiters of what is or isn't anti-Semitism is quite a laugh.
Israel is just getting itself deeper and deeper into a quandary about what to do with the
Arabs in the occupied territories. They cannot be given full rights and there is not the
unsettled land to give them the state everyone including America pretends is going to be the
outcome of a temporarily stalled process. Israel is greasing the skids to disaster.
Indeed, bullshit! Why do you love Palestinians so much or conversely, dislike/hate Israelis
in equal measure?
Is it really the treatment of Christians of Arab origin in Judea and
Samaria that really galls you but won't say it out loud? If Jews are as powerful as you claim
they are, then why not just give them the Southern Lebanon, the Bekka Valley, the Gaza strip
and the Sainai Peninsula and ten billion dollars a year, which would be just a drop in the
bucket, to live us alone?
Why not resettle the most educated of all Arabs, the Palestinians,
in other Arab nations, and there're so many lands to choose from, but especially, Saudi
Arabia to help those gluttonous Afro-Semitic morons? Why egg on the Palestinians without
hope, to the discomfort of all humanity by giving the Jews the very excuse to hammer the
world with the exaggerated accusations of anti-Semitism? Why prolong what is inevitable and
how does it benefit, the people on whose behalf you are fuming?
As I said above, maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers, Borats,
Farrakhans, and blue-hairs. Look at who your articles attract – do you think
Americans like those people?
Most Americans are totally ignorant of the evil that has been done to their nation and the
West by Zionist Jews.
Most Americans are completely ignorant about the extent Zionist Jews control the
government of the United States and the media.
Most Americans know nothing about the role played by Zionist Jews in the mass murders
perpetrated by the communists in Russia and China.
Most Americans take the holocaust as gospel and believe the Jews have never harmed anyone
but have been the victims of the worst genocide in history.
Do not use the ignorance of the average American to claim that criticism of Zionist Jews
is irrational.
@Philip Giraldi
It is slightly amusing is it not to find that specious intervener illustrating part of your
case by appearing as Anonymous [272] and Anonymous [279] just a breath apart ..?
What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a
resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of
Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have
ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?
@RobinG He is known to be an Islam hater thus
unconditional support for Israel. This remark in itself is a proof how Israel is used to inflict havoc on the Islamic
civilization. Jews are the biggest beneficiaries of demonization of Islam. The mercenary terrorist army of CIA/Mossad is
called Islamic state.
@Z-man Liberal
Republican Senator Chuck Percy's takedown was particularly egregious and revealing.
He lost his position despite his popularity in Illinois politics. The deep pockets of The
Lobby and its control of the media (and the Republican Party) were simply too much for him to
counter.
After his senatorial defeat in 1985, The Lobby must have felt that an example must be made
of him. He then became a total nonperson both in politics and in the Washington DC social
scene which he chose to continue to reside in. He never spoke again (to my knowledge) before
any significant Republican Party event. In fact, his very name became a virtual dirty word in
Republican circles, right up there with the names of convicted child molesters or embezzlers.
Arch-Zionist Ronald Reagan enforced this shunning up until the end of his presidency.
Percy was no longer invited to appear in the mainstream media or speak before business or
academic groups. He simply disappeared.
Poof, like he had never been there in the first place.
When he died in 2011, many people In Washington were surprised. They had assumed he has
died decades before because of his blacklisting and the resulting invisibility.
Senator J. William Fulbright, a one-time icon of the left wing because of his opposition
to the Vietnam War was also quickly disposed of after he tried to oppose The Lobby and found
his left wing "friends" (along with their contributions) deserting him in droves.
Al this happened because they tried to be very slightly impartial about Israel.
Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and
Presidential election for going on 40 years now, , and they have constantly chosen, with
more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with
Israel.
If that's true, then why are they spending such enormous sums of money to buy all of
Congress ? If the thing runs by itself, then why on God's green earth, does it need such
constant greasing of the skids ? Grant Smith of IRmep, who studies the financial pooling of
something like 200 Jewish organizations in the US, estimates I that together, they're
collecting money on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars from their diaspora and
lunatic Christian sects. This money is then used to buy Congress lock stock and barrel and
then to force it, among other things, to sign over billions in "aid" to Israel.
You poor child, were you not aware of any of this ? And you just thought the sniveling
prostrations and groveling our elected "leaders" perform each year at the AIPAC conference or
on their campaigns is all spontaneous ? Dear, dear, there is better quality acting at the
AIPAC conference than there ever was at any Oscar show or in any therein nominated film.
Face it, Israel is no different. Both sides are mustering money and influence, and you
lost fair and square in the court of public opinion.
Oh, but you might have the perspective a tad off; the fight may be just beginning.
It may be that in the past, Israel's friends might well have exercised power which easily
swung in their direction, but there may not have been much at stake for everyone else. Maybe
the fight wasn't worth it if you disagreed, but there could come a time when the balance
sheet of liabilities might begin to swing in the other direction. I sincerely hope you'll
maintain your sportsmanship attitude when that time comes, as it inevitably always does.
It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-Semitism even against those who don't
deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the
Anglosphere.
I don't recall the chief beneficiary of any other lobby helping to lie America into a war
with muslims that has since metastasized into pandemic proportions. I also don't recall any
other lobby beneficiary running interference for one of its compatriots who happened to
inflict the worst damage to American intelligence in its history. Come to think of it, this
very same beneficiary has been caught repeatedly committing espionage against America ~ a
crime which, if committed by any other actor, would warrant severe punishment ~ yet received
no punitive consequences for it.
@exiled off mainstreet But, as you admit, they
are FACTS. And, as such, must be disseminated to the uninformed and ignorant Americans.
If it does cause anti-Semitism, which is becoming as meaningless term as racism, how are the Anglos at fault? Whose
behavior is going to cause this resentment and blowback? Its certainly not the British! The British haven't been colonial for
quite awhile.
However the USA has become a colonial vassal for Israel. So who is the imperial power now?
You
are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that
"foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation"
agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their
nuclear facilities.
Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as
"agents of a foreign government" as required by American law.
Be sure to watch The Lobby USA to see how treacherous our illegitimate govt. has become.
It gives you an idea of how these 6,000,000 Jewish lobbies work around the clock spying on,
blackmailing, subverting our govt. here in occupied America. They're letting these agents of
a hostile and repressive govt. (Israel) run around the US spying on Americans, using
blackmail, extortion, threats, violating their Constitutional rights. Nobody in Washington
seems to care. How long before Israel is assassinating American citizens for exercising their
rights?
Sheldon Adelson was at the White House watching the results of the midterm elections with
his puppet Trump, eating pizza, "mini" hotdogs, and burgers. No joke. He's started his own
lobby called IAC – Israeli American Council, thats even more extreme that AIPAC.
All traitors, all loyal to Israel. Republicans are owned by the Zionists and war
profiteers folks. Democrats not any better. All traitors.
As the British were bankrupted by an unnecessary war with Germany, the "New American Century"
isn't shaping up very well two decades in. 6T in additional debt from fighting Middle Eastern
wars for Israel is the biggest reason why, and there is no end in sight.
I actually don't think Israel has that much genuine organic political support among
Americans. It is all held together with media-fed illusions and threats.
@Cal Eyefornia'I agree with you. Lots of anti-Semitic nonsense on this site, e.g. "where are all the
millions buried?" (How about: all over Europe and Russia, cretins.) While the number of Jews
murdered by Nazis may be, say, half of the "official" figure (still horrific), the lunatic
fringe here won't provide their own figure (likely because they think it's zero). They
actually believe Hitler was a nice guy and every Jew in the world is a member of the "Jew
Illuminati." They think Israel bosses the USA around, and is the world's big dog that wags
the tail. They laughably point to people like Henry Ford and anti-Semitic sites like
codoh.com as "unbiased" sources for debate. They all need to "get a life."'
Well, Israel does boss the US around, and is inarguably one of the world's 'big dogs,'
which, for a nation the size of Honduras or Togo, does call for an explanation.
@exiled off
mainstreet'It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-semitism even
against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial
nature of the Anglosphere.'
Nu? The Holocaust increased bigotry directed at Germans, and Pearl Harbor didn't do much
for the popularity of Japanese.
Compared to these two groups, Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of their chosen evil.
It'd be damned strange if they didn't wind up having to pay.
@Tyrion 2 Jews
don't possess military power. They possess the benefit of a verbal dexterity and business
savvy that allows them to network in order to control banks and media.
You cannot conquer. You can only manipulate.
It is the difference between Mike Tyson threatening to kick your ass and Charles Manson
hypnotizing you.
The Unites States of America is effectively owned and controlled by Jews
How about The US of A is effectively colonized by the Zionists ?
All the noise and nonsense about Russian interference in American elections pale in
comparison to decisions on America's elected reps right to the President requiring Zionist
approval before they can win their seats. The control is total and absolute. This coming from
a country which depends on our tax dollars to maintain their criminal activities. And now the
push is on for WWIII forcing us to brinkmanship with the Russians in Syria and Europe. This
is an unprecedented abdication of US sovereignty.
I can't read all the responses, but I caught yours.
Look at it this way. 537 politicians in Washington, DC know 9-11 was a zionist jewish
operation and not a word out of any of them. Maybe a few are slow or hopelessly naive about
israel, so bump that number down to, say, 530. And again, not a peep.
537 of our "leaders" know israel was behind 9-11 yet they gave Netanyahu the record for
standing ovations during a speech. Think of how profound that fact is. Pure traitors.
Chistopher Bollyn once mentioned the point that not one college or high school has a
course or class on what subject is the 9-11 attacks. Suspicious, isn't it?
@Anonymous When
do you EVER see Jewish missionaries trying to convert people? I've seen Mormons and Catholics
overseas trying to convert people. But not Jews. When Jews do convert locals it is for
pussy-some ancient handful of males settle somewhere like Ethiopia or Italy and marry local
women. But it is not for salvation. Only for their pussies.
Part of this is empathy. The Christian sees the poor and disenfranchised and wants to
assist. The Korean shopkeeper in a black ghetto does not give a shit what the blacks believe
in and just wants his money.
@Anonymous "
maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers.."
– Why don't we start with the "optics" of Jewish Bolsheviks and their murderous
hatred towards Russians and Russian culture? Millions died in the labor camps (run and
"improved" by the Jewish administrators, see Naftali Frenkel), in the chambers of secret
police (see Yagoda and Berman), and in the villages of Ukraine and Kazakhstan during
Holodomor (courtesy of certain Kaganovich).
The most important "deniers" of today are Nuland-Kagan (the organizer of pro-neo-Nazi
putsch in Ukraine), Knesset (the provider of Ukrainian neo-Nazi with Israel-made rifles), and
the zionized US Congress that has been supporting the neo-Nazi-infested Ukranian
government.
And do not forget the profiteering and amoral ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center that both
refused to support the Conyers amendment: "If passed, Conyers' amendment would have
explicitly barred those found to have offered "praise or glorification of Nazism or its
collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar
symbols" from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense. The ADL and
Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers' proposal."
https://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis
P.L. 115-141, the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following
for Israel:
· $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore
procurement;
· $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92
million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3
million for Arrow 2;
· $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
· $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
· $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and
water technologies;
· $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation
(BIRD) Energy program; and
· The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through
fiscal year 2019.
For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting an additionl $3.3 billion in Foreign
Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year
of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.
Israeli and American Jewish actions detailed in the article make perfect sense when you come
to realize that the US is no longer a sovereign nation at its core. The US only has a facade
of being one.
The facade is starting to crumble both because of the internet and Jewish arrogance.
Consequently, the goys are the beneficiaries of more censorship of bad thoughts. The plan is
to use increased censorship to prevent the facade from crumbling sufficiently to expose the
reality to the masses. Any empire wants to keep its colonies in line
America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix
of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers,
and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.
It seems apparent that you took exception (a sudden high blood pressure alert is making
you post this response?) to my expose on the role of Jewish slavery [as the videos of Dr.
Louis Farrakhan, who also happens to be AGAINST usury and in conjunction with PEACE--like
most of Christindom] (and I did not even include the Roman/Greek periods and the hand that
was attributed to the Jewish predominant role in slavery). But do continue because .
it will expose this inhumane dominance of slavery–just like it still exists today.
RE (original reference included here):
Why do the supremacist Jews refuse to take accountability in their role for slavery?:
"What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right
to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those
contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?"
Not sure what you are on about. Iraq was a secular state until invaded by the USA, which churned things up politically .
Syria has traditionally been a tolerant state that was home to one of the oldest Christian commujities, and a number of
different Islamic groups. Libya was a secular state–no state religion in Libya that I know of.
It is the US and Zionist ally, Saudi Arabia, that is the most religiously intolerant state in the ME and also the biggest
exporter of religious fanaticism.
Israel is the only [Religious designation] State in the ME -- no, in the whole world. I am unaware of the existence of a
Christian State, an Islamic State (except the caliphate), a Buddhist State, a Zoroastrian State. Israel is the most intolerant
state on the planet.
Ben Norton & guys like you give me hope that our country could still become saved by
"facts and a timeline."
As you know, Israeli crimes foisted upon upon the divided-Homeland, including unnecessary,
immoral, & ruinously expensive wars against "rogue/foes," for example, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Yemen, and likely soon Iran, NEVER NEVER NEVER require presentation of solid
evidence to dumb-goyim trained 'Merkins.
Disgusting. Embarrassing. A Yinon Plan underway for the USA! Ycch. I am pissed.
Along with partner Corporate Media-conspirators, The New York Times editorial board
deserves instant "regime change" because of their theatrical complicity with our treasonous
Zio Congress and Executive Branch.
What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a
resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of
Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have
ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?
How typically ridiculous.
The reaction we should see would be to the statement that we will not support Israel as
long as it occupies Palestine and discriminates against non Jews in Israel.
Israel is a midget Nazi state not a democracy.
OK, so, that was a close one. For a moment there, I was starting to worry that the Democrats
weren't going to take back the House and rescue us from " the brink of
fascism ." Which, if that had happened, in addition to having to attend all those horrible
stadium rallies and help the government mass murder the Jews, we would have been denied the
next two years of Donald Trump-related congressional hearings and investigations that we can
now look forward to
I'm going to go ahead and call them the Hitlergate Hearings.
Staging these hearings has always been a crucial part of the Resistance's strategy. As
history has proved, time and time again, when literal fascists take over your democracy, outlaw
opposing political parties, and start shipping people off to concentration camps and revoking
journalists' White House access, the only effective way to defeat them is to form a whole
buttload of congressional committees and investigate the living Hitler out of them. This is
especially the case when the literal fascists who have commandeered your democracy are
conspiring with a shifty-eyed Slavic dictator whose country you have essentially surrounded
with your full-spectrum dominant military forces, and who your media have thoroughly demonized,
but who is nevertheless able to brainwash your citizens into electing his fascist puppet
president with a few thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.
Once you've determined that has happened (which it obviously has), the gloves have to come
off. No more prancing around in pussyhats, not with Russian Hitler in office! No, at that
point, you really have no choice but to wait two years until your opposition party (which
Hitler somehow forgot to ban) regains control of the House of Representatives (which Hitler
somehow forgot to dissolve), wait another two months until they take office, and then
immediately start issuing subpoenas, auditing Hitler's financial records, and taking affidavits
from former hookers. I realize that may sound extreme, but remember, we're talking about
literal fascists, backed by literal Russian fascists, who are going around emboldening literal
fascism, and making literal fascist hand gestures on television, and doing all kinds of other
fascist stuff!
Photo of a typical Trump rally. Trump himself designed the grandiose, operatic setting and
cast himself in the male lead as fiery, spittle-flecked orator/savior of his nation.
OK, so, that was a close one. For a moment there, I was starting to worry that the Democrats
weren't going to take back the House and rescue us from " the brink of
fascism ." Which, if that had happened, in addition to having to attend all those horrible
stadium rallies and help the government mass murder the Jews, we would have been denied the
next two years of Donald Trump-related congressional hearings and investigations that we can
now look forward to
I'm going to go ahead and call them the Hitlergate Hearings.
Staging these hearings has always been a crucial part of the Resistance's strategy. As
history has proved, time and time again, when literal fascists take over your democracy, outlaw
opposing political parties, and start shipping people off to concentration camps and revoking
journalists' White House access, the only effective way to defeat them is to form a whole
buttload of congressional committees and investigate the living Hitler out of them. This is
especially the case when the literal fascists who have commandeered your democracy are
conspiring with a shifty-eyed Slavic dictator whose country you have essentially surrounded
with your full-spectrum dominant military forces, and who your media have thoroughly demonized,
but who is nevertheless able to brainwash your citizens into electing his fascist puppet
president with a few thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.
Once you've determined that has happened (which it obviously has), the gloves have to come
off. No more prancing around in pussyhats, not with Russian Hitler in office! No, at that
point, you really have no choice but to wait two years until your opposition party (which
Hitler somehow forgot to ban) regains control of the House of Representatives (which Hitler
somehow forgot to dissolve), wait another two months until they take office, and then
immediately start issuing subpoenas, auditing Hitler's financial records, and taking affidavits
from former hookers. I realize that may sound extreme, but remember, we're talking about
literal fascists, backed by literal Russian fascists, who are going around emboldening literal
fascism, and making literal fascist hand gestures on television, and doing all kinds of other
fascist stuff!
Photo of a typical Trump rally. Trump himself designed the grandiose, operatic setting and
cast himself in the male lead as fiery, spittle-flecked orator/savior of his nation.
This article in The Intercept provides incontrovertible proof that Zionists wanted Trump
to win the election and that Chuck Schumer, their representative in Congress used the DNC and
Facebook to help him. It also demonstrates how Chuck Schumer supports Republican Presidents
and policies denying the will of many in his party even a Democratic President and betraying
millions of voters on the Left to forward the Zionist agenda in each and every case. I would
call this collusion and subversion of Democracy. Everything else Schumer does not to lose his
choice position as Senate minority leader is window dressing, lip service and a charade.
Trump often refers to his "leverage" in approaching geopolitics as a business negotiation,
and yet he is effectively hamstrung with two countries (Israel and KSA) where US leverage
should be overwhelming due to security guarantees. The complex web of influence and court
politics will prevent coherent decisive moves, which presumably he refers to when stating he
would rather "stay out" of the Middle East. It's a teachable moment, an opportunity for the
sort of truth-telling necessary to promote a draining of the swamp - the chance to publicly
acknowledge that nothing can be done because the interests of power blocs within the two
countries are embedded directly in the US political system itself.
Obama had the opportunity for truth-telling early in his administration when he could have
acknowledged that a single-payer health care system is not possible in America at this time -
not because it isn't rational and effective but because powerful domestic interests will not
allow it.
May I ever so slightly differ from one of your points?
You stated; "The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100 U.S.
'defense' contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, because then
all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other feudal and
fascist regimes, will greatly decline."
I would suggest that these top US defense contractors sales will decline for the simple
reason that they would then have to compete with the rest of the world. One of these US
defense strategies had been to sell their products, or rather say force their products on
NATO no matter how inferior they were. If my memory serves me correctly the UK had a good
fighter jet in the Lightning, but the US forced NATO to buy the vastly inferior American
product which had many crashes and killed quite a few pilots.
But in the situation of a multi-polar world the US would have to really compete with the
likes of Russia and China, which as we know are already producing superior products and the
US has never really been able to compete in such an atmosphere.
There is one other statement which I would also like to differ upon: " a mono-polar world
is a world in which one nation stands above international law" and this statement is
flawed.
A mono-polar world' has never given the right for one nation to be above international
law. America did though start calling itself the International 'policeman', modelling itself
on something similar to a New York policeman stealing apples from a greengrocer's stand. Once
the US realised that there were no voices to be heard, they automatically progressed from the
uniform policeman to the likes of 'Al Capone', which I've noted many bent policemen do.
The trick for such policemen is to know when to retire and get out of the game, but the US
has never been able to retire, and now its fruits are coming back to haunt them.
The proposal I would like to see introduced at the United
Nations would be one to remove a nation that systematically violates the UN Charter. If not
totally remove them, then at least bar them from being on the Security Council, and of course
thus removing their veto.
The UN Charter is the treaty that any nation must adopt to join the United Nations. The very
purpose of the UN when it was formed after WW2 was to prevent war. Thus, the UN charter has
clauses that say a nation can only attack another nation under the authority of the UN Security
Council. It has a clause that says that it violates the UN Charter to even mass forces on
another nation's borders and to then threaten to attack in order to coerce another nation.
The USA has of course frequently been in violation of the UN Charter. Certainly what it has
been doing in Syria is in violation of the UN Charter. The US has been in violation of the UN
Charter for some time. At least back as far as when Clinton couldn't get the UN Security
Council to support his attack on Serbia and he went ahead and did it anyways. There is of
course a long list of such violations. Israel is of course also in violation of the UN Charter
with its constant attacks on its neighbors.
From there, the course would follow basically what Mr. Zuesse says. America's poodle, the UK
would certainly veto a resolution seeking to discipline the USA for breaking the very core
notion of the UN, which is to prevent another worldwide catastrophe like what the world
experienced during WW2. It was a world that was horrified by what had occurred during WW2 that
formed the UN to prevent that from happening again.
To me, its hard to see how the UN accepts the leadership of a nation that violates the Charter that every nation had to
agree to in order to join the organization. Of course, mob bosses have their own ways of breaking the rules of civilized
society. Still, it seems like a place to try to rally the world about.
Dear "Anonymous": Your comment is extremely well-informed and relevant, but the U.N. has been
highly dependent upon the U.S. financially, and therefore the initiative cannot come from the
U.N. itself, but only from particular nations. What I was summarily describing in concern to
the U.N. as it actually exists (not to the U.N. as it should exist, which maybe we'll get to
some day) is an ongoing PR stunt, to be staged at the U.N., to draw the public's attention to
the fact that the U.S. Government has been functioning blatantly, for many years, as a
fascist power. This truth needs to be rubbed constantly into the face of today's America's
Government so as to isolate that Government internationally to become the pariah-Government
that the people who founded the U.N. would puke to see. What won WW II was physically the
Allies, but what has since taken over in spirit is Hitler's spirit, but with different
priorities of whom the 'enemies' are, not Jews especially but this time Russians especially.
Instead of the 'vast Jewish conspiracy', we've got the 'cunning Russian conspiracy' now
having supposedly chosen the evil Trump and made him become America's President, etc, and
it's based on lies now just as it was based on lies in Hitler's time. But it's now the
American aristocracy, instead of the German aristocracy. I was proposing there a PR campaign,
to expose them as what they are.
The wealthy owners of America were always in favor of Hitler's idea of world domination, butt
hey wanted to be in charge of it instead of the Germans. After WWII they saw their chance to
take the lead and have been working to enslave the world ever since. Of course they hate the
UN, or anyone who does not bow to their will to power.
Thank you for this important article. I do not see the development of PESCO or any homegrown
European military as something positive. I think this is simply a re-branding exercise on
behalf of those who control NATO. These " new" proxy militaries will continue to buy US
military equipment as NATO did before. My fear is that the re-branding effort may result in a
revised military doctrine which may actually be more aggressive than NATO..
Laugh if you will, but I think the Eurocrats want to attempt to (re)take the North American
continent (probably with DC's blessing.) Did you see Putin and Trudeau huddle together at the
WWI commemoration meeting?
(And another thing ) We (the people of the West) should remember that the European, English
and American aristocracies (as Zuesse refers to them) keep a boot to each others throats, and
if one lets up, the other grabs a knife from the back pocket and goes for the jugular.
Because they are like that.
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who
join in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one
in which the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can
impose it only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this
case is the United States.
Might I suggest a viewing and listening to a Dr. Navarro speech:
America is not only the true "evil empire," but it is also a very sick and deluded evil
empire.
The Trump Regime is unhinged, as it desperately tries to Make the American Empire Great
Again by attacking its opponents such as Russia, China, or Iran; waging financial and
economic wars on the world; and projecting its own imperial insanity onto others one twitter
tweet at a time.
But this is true of America in general, regardless of whatever malign regime is in
Washington DC.
The more that America lashes out and seeks to maintain its pretensions as the
Exceptionalist nation, the more it only accelerates its own decline and destruction, as well
as its Day of Financial Reckoning with the collapse of the Ponzi Scheme US economy and Wall
Street.
Indeed, it's not a secret that another Wall Street implosion is coming, one that will make
the 2008 version triggered by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy seem like a tea party in
comparison.
Given Donald Trump's own record of multiple business bankruptcies, perhaps it's only
appropriate that he is the current ruler of America. LOL.
The real issue is when America itself will shatter into a several separate nation states.
Indeed, the prospect of a Second American Civil War is increasingly on the minds of US
foreign policy experts and even the American masses themselves.
According to Dmitry Orlov, America is fast closing the "collapse gap" with its former Cold
War nemesis, the USSR.
Food scarcity and malnutrition of children under the age of 5, places the Ukraine in
percentage terms lower than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iraq .the Ukraine welcomes the Cookie
Monster (stats National Geographic)
Obama forever denigrated Nobel Peace Price, making it a cruel joke.
Notable quotes:
"... That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful, egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya. ..."
"... He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence. ..."
That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the
Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful,
egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and
initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya.
He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its
Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear
arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American
hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence.
The other sides (defined as enemies solely by Washington, not themselves) are treated with
disdain and disrespect, as Barry flaunts his trash talking skills, obviously learned in his
self-admitted days of street hustling and tripping on the drug du jour.
Trump has also been a master of insults, but it was Obama who unilaterally unveiled the
skill as a favored American diplomatic tactic.
I'm sure it has Putin, Xi, Kim and Rouhani shivering and willing to swallow any insult to
avoid unbridled Neocon wrath [sarc.]. Fools like the guys the American aristocracy routinely
put in the White House are gonna get us all killed one of these days.
Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama proudly, even imperially, described it when
delivering the Commencement address to America's future generals, at West Point Military
Academy, on
28 May 2014 :
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is
therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über
alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else
will...
Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's
economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle
classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future U.S. military leaders that they
are to fight for the U.S. aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] ...
In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern
Europe. But this isn't the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. [He was proud of the U.S. Government's effectiveness at
propaganda, just as Hitler was proud of the German Government's propaganda-effectiveness
under Joseph Goebbels.] Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned
Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our
commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine's economy;
OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
No other nation regularly invades other nations that never had invaded it. This is
international aggression. It is the international crime of "War of Aggression" ; and the only
nations which do it nowadays are America and its allies, such as the Sauds, Israel, France, and
UK, which often join in America's aggressions (or, in the case of the Sauds' invasion of Yemen,
the ally initiates an invasion, which the U.S. then joins). America's generals are taught this
aggression, and not only by Obama. Ever since at least George W. Bush, it has been solid U.S.
policy. (Bush even kicked out the U.N.'s weapons-inspectors, so as to bomb Iraq in 2003.)
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join
in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which
the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it
only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the
United States. Furthermore, because the U.S. regime reigns supreme over the entire world, as it
does, any nations -- such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba, and Ecuador -- that the U.S. regime (which
has itself been scientifically proven to be a dictatorship ) chooses to treat as an enemy,
is especially disadvantaged internationally. Russia and China, however, are among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and therefore possess a degree of international
protection that America's other chosen enemies do not. And the people who choose which nations
to identify as America's 'enemies' are America's super-rich and not the entire American
population, because
the U.S. Government is controlled by the super-rich and not by the public .
If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council would table at the U.N. a
proposal to eliminate the immunity that the U.S. regime has, from investigation and prosecution
for any future War of Aggression that it might perpetrate, then, of course, the U.S. and any of
its allies on the Security Council would veto that, but if the proposing nation would then
constantly call to the international public's attention that the U.S. and its allies had
blocked passage of such a crucially needed "procedure to amend the UN
charter" , and that this fact means that the U.S. and its allies constitute fascist regimes
as was understood and applied against Germany's fascist regime, at the Nuremberg Tribunal in
1945, then possibly some members of the U.S.-led gang (the NATO portion of it, at least) would
quit that gang, and the U.S. global dictatorship might end, so that there would then become a
multi-polar world, in which democracy could actually thrive.
Democracy can only shrivel in a mono-polar world, because all other nations then are simply
vassal nations, which accept Obama's often-repeated dictum that all other nations are
"dispensable" and that only the U.S. is not. Even the UK would actually gain in freedom, and in
democracy, by breaking away from the U.S., because it would no longer be under the U.S. thumb
-- the thumb of the global aggressor-nation.
Only one global poll has ever been taken of the question "Which
country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" and it found
that, overwhelmingly, by a three-to-one ratio above the second-most-often named country, the
United States was identified as being precisely that, the top threat to world-peace . But then,
a few years later, another (though less-comprehensive) poll was taken on a similar question,
and it produced
similar results . Apparently, despite the effectiveness of America's propagandists, people
in other lands recognize quite well that today's America is a more successful and
longer-reigning version of Hitler's Germany. Although modern America's propaganda-operation is
far more sophisticated than Nazi Germany's was, it's not entirely successful. America's
invasions are now too common, all based on lies, just like Hitler's were.
On November 9th, Russian Television headlined "'Very insulting': Trump bashes
Macron's idea of European army for protection from Russia, China & US" and reported
that "US President Donald Trump has unloaded on his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, calling
the French president's idea of a 'real European army,' independent from Washington, an insult."
On the one hand, Trump constantly criticizes France and other European nations for allegedly
not paying enough for America's NATO military alliance, but he now is denigrating France for
proposing to other NATO members a decreasing reliance upon NATO, and increasing reliance,
instead, upon the
Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) European military alliance , which was begun on
11 December 2017, and which currently has "25 EU Member States participating: Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden." Those are the European nations that are now on the path
to eventually quitting NATO.
Once NATO is ended, the U.S. regime will find far more difficult any invasions such as of
Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2016-, and maybe even such as America's bloody coup
that overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a racist-fascist or
nazi anti-Russian regime there in 2014 . All of these U.S. invasions (and coup) brought to
Europe millions of refugees and enormously increased burdens upon European taxpayers. Plus,
America's economic sanctions against both Russia and Iran have hurt European companies (and the
U.S. does almost no business with either country, so is immune to that, also). Consequently,
today's America is clearly Europe's actual main enemy. The continuation of NATO is actually
toxic to the peoples of Europe. Communism and the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirroring Warsaw
Pact military alliance, all ended peacefully in 1991, but
the U.S. regime has secretly continued the Cold War, now against Russia , and is
increasingly focusing its "regime-change" propaganda against Russia's
popular democratic leader, Vladimir Putin, even though this U.S. aggression against Russia
could mean a world-annihilating nuclear war.
Europe's desire to create its own army and stop relying on Washington for defense is not
only understandable, but would be "positive" for the multipolar world, Vladimir Putin said
days after Donald Trump ripped into it.
" Europe is a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be
independent and sovereign in the field of defense and security," Putin told RT in Paris where
world leader gathered to mark the centenary of the end of WWI.
He also described the potential creation of a European army "a positive process," adding
that it would "strengthen the multipolar world." The Russian leader even expressed his
support to French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently championed this idea by saying that
Russia's stance on the issue "is aligned with that of France" to some extent.
Macron recently revived the ambitious plans of creating a combined EU military force by
saying that it is essential for the security of Europe. He also said that the EU must become
independent from its key ally on the other side of the Atlantic, provoking an angry reaction
from Washington.
Once NATO has shrunk to include only the pro-aggression and outright nazi European nations, such as
Ukraine (after the U.S. gang accepts Ukraine into NATO, as it almost certainly then would
do), the EU will have a degree of freedom and of democracy that it can only dream of today, and
there will then be a multi-polar world, in which the leaders of the U.S. will no longer enjoy
the type of immunity from investigation and possible prosecution, for their invasions, that
they do today. The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100
U.S. 'defense' contractors , such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon,
because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other
feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to
keep the Sauds to the agreements he reached with them back in 2017 to buy
$404 billion of U.S. weaponry over the following 10 years . If, in addition, those firms
lose some of their European sales, then the U.S. economic boom thus far in Trump's Presidency
will be seriously endangered. So, the U.S. regime, which is run by the owners
of its 'defense'-contractors , will do all it can to prevent this from happening.
This critique is pretty superficial. The truth is that Ukraine drifted to Baltic model (not without help from Western Europe
and the USA) for a long time. And the process started in 2001 not in 2014. That means that February 2014 coup d'état by far right
nationalist forces was just quantity turned into quality. With the dissolution of the USSR, it is clear that the result of WWII
and Yalta conference will be revised.
While it is true that it was the greatest geopolitical victory of Barack Obama and the USA against Russia, it made
the world more dangerous. The fact that it saws the teeth of dragon escaped those great US neocon strategists, like
Victoria Nuland. She looks pretty medictre person to me, judging from her public appearances. Far below the level of
position she occupied. Out of depth. Kind of early variation of Nikki Haley theme.
The USA established itself as a world power at the end of WWI, and the No.1 nation after WWII. So apparance of the USA on
world scene happened a century ago and the period of the USA primacy started around 1945 or 72 year ago. But after
dissolution of the USSR the US elite lost the countervailing power that kept it in check (and Sober) and now neocons which came to
power after the crash fo the USSR are destroying the USA pretty fast. They are real national cancer. So sad...
Neocons policy of fighting and challenging the rest of the world essentially guarantee that its dominant position will not last
more one century.
In
March 23rd, Gallup headlined
"South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering" , and the Ukrainian part of that
can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014
imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see above), which he and his press misrepresented (and
still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a 'democratic revolution',
but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship
and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such
misery, it's now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire
world.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama
regime began planning
for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside
the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or
nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social
Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or
"Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing
the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed),
under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the
Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption,
even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end
Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
The head of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor said it was
"the most blatant coup in history" but he couldn't say that to Americans, because he knows
that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to
George W. Bush's equally unprovoked invasion of
Iraq -- for which America's 'news' media suffered likewise no penalties).
When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was "I told the
business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the
most blatant coup in history," but he was lying to say this, because, as I
pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in
his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view "the most blatant coup in history," no
conditionals on that.
Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton , and Sarkozy, did to Libya -- in
their zeal to eliminate yet another nation's leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar
Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state
and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the
Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar
al-Assad, another ally of Russia) -- but the 'news' media have continued to hide what Obama
(assisted by America's European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by
America's apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.
I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain ("bomb, bomb, bomb Iran") and the creepy
Romney ("Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe") were denounced by
the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions,
which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had
ended long ago (in 1991) (
but only on the Russian side ). I since have learned that in today's American political
system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American
democracy no longer exists. (And the
only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic
found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy
Carter later said on 28 July 2015 :
Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting
the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to
governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members."
But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of 'American
democracy', and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to 'justify' invading (or,
in Ukraine's case, overthrowing via a 'democratic revolution') their lands (allies of Russia)
such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.
Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine's
plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:
Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac
University poll published on March 22nd reported, "A total of 51 percent of voters say they
can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right 'almost all of the time' or 'most of
the time'" (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten
politicians), even after the CIA's rubber-stamping Bush's lies to invade Iraq, and after the
FBI's shameless performance on Hillary Clinton's privatized State Department emails even after
her
smashing their cell-phones with hammers , etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with
no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the
American public. Besides: ever since the CIA's founding, it has had an "Operation Gladio" that specializes in
organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they
existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American
dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?
For the people of
Iraq , and of Syria
, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives.
Trusting the 'intelligence' services of a dictatorship doesn't make any sense at all. They're
all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires -- not for any public, anywhere; not here,
not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can
produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.
So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it,
because it is very rare -- and the system operates to keep it that way.
Overthrowing Ukraine was an attempt to end Russia being the major power on the Black Sea and
establish it as a NATO lake to stop Russia from using the sea to aid Syria or Iran. That was
ruined when Putin seized Crimea, keeping the Russian naval base.
In fact, the destabilization of the Ukraine occurred at the dawn of the new century in 2004.
The Presidential election of that year between Victor Yuschenko and Victor Yanukovich
resulted initially in the victory of Yanukovich. However serious allegations regarding
electoral fraud were raised. This resulted in mass demonstrations in Kiev and other cities
throughout Ukraine.
A re-run was ordered and the second time around Yushchenko took the Presidency with 52% of
the vote to Yanukovich's 44%. Suffice it to say that prior to the re-run a number of shadowy
foreign NGOs – including the National Endowment for Democracy – were active in
promoting civic disobedience in a number of Ukrainian cities in west and central Ukraine.
Independence Square in the middle of Kiev was occupied after the first election which was
declared invalid. These events became known as the 'Orange Revolution'.
It would be misleading to assume that significant numbers of the protestors did not have a
valid case against Yanukovich in terms of corruption and self-serving. However, it was
equally true that many of the demonstrators' motives were somewhat less noble. Prior to the
election Yushchenko had promised his running mate Yulia Tymoshenko the position of Prime
Minister should he win the election. Thus throughout, the disturbances were a struggle
between the eastern and western oligarchs.
On the crucial question of the nature of these events, 'Peoples power' or 'revolutionary
coup' the issue remains undecided.
This notwithstanding the British historian David Lane of Emmanuel College Cambridge argued
that
"The 'Orange Revolution' in Ukraine was widely considered to be an instance of the
'coloured revolutions' of 1989 engendered by democratic values and nascent civil societies in
the process of nation building. The extent to which the 'Orange Revolution' could be
considered a revolutionary event stimulated by civil society, or a different type of
political activity (a putsch, coup d'état), legitimated by elite-sponsored 'soft'
political power. Based on public opinion poll data and responses from focus groups, the
author contends that what began as an orchestrated protest election fraud developed into a
novel type of political activity -- a revolutionary coup d'état. It is contended that
the movement was divisive rather than integrative and did not enjoy widespread popular
support."
Which is about the nearest we will get to an authentic answer.
What followed, however, was a complete and corrupt shamble of opportunism, corruption and
self-serving misrule of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko who, after becoming involved in some dubious
energy deals was to become known as the 'Gas Princess'. These two paragons of democracy
eventually became bitter enemies and saw the return of Yanukovich after the Presidential
contest between her and Yanukovich in 2010 which Yanukovich narrowly won.
It's long been a truth that democracy in the US died a long time ago and the wealth and
power behind the POTUS, irrespective of who that might be, are mere puppets. Obama won his
presidency on outright lies and the crooked Clintons and Sarkozys of the US corrupt elite
serve no-one's interests but their own at the cost of the lives of Ukrainian Russian ethnics
and the Libyan, Iraqi and Syrian people. "Saving Syria's children" would require the removal
of the source of their suffering, which can be firmly laid at the door of murderous
Washington War Hawks, rent-a-gobs like Samantha Powers and Victoria Nuland(nee Kagan)and
corrupt MSM supporting the rogue state that is the USA.
Just
days into a ceasefire with Gaza, the Israelis sent commandos in to assassinate a Hamas
leader. Hamas then surprised Israel with more than 400 rockets in retaliation, leading to
another ceasefire agreed by Netanyahu. But this time his defense minister was having none of
it. He wants a conflict and is threatening to bring down the government if he does not get
one. What's next? Tune in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report:
The brutal warlord understood how to govern shrewdly and even humanely.
Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill, even Barack Obama: there are many
historical figures who Americans have turned to for inspiration in this political distemper.
That's especially true with the midterm elections only a week in the books. But I've recently
found an even more surprising leader who offers a number of political lessons worth
contemplating: Genghis Khan.
I'm quite serious.
As a former history teacher, I picked up Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern
World because I realized I knew relatively little about one of the most influential men in
human history. Researchers have
estimated that 0.5 percent of men have Genghis Khan's DNA in them, which is perhaps one of
the most tangible means of determining historical impact. But that's just the tip of the
iceberg. The Mongolian warlord conquered a massive chunk of the 13th-century civilized world --
including more than one third of its population. He created one of the first international
postal systems. He decreed universal freedom of religion in all his conquered territories --
indeed, some of his senior generals were Christians.
Of course, Genghis Khan was also a brutal military leader who showed no mercy to enemies who
got in his way, leveling entire cities and using captured civilians as the equivalent of cannon
fodder. Yet even the cruelest military geniuses (e.g. Napoleon) are still geniuses, and we
would be wise to consider what made them successful, especially against great odds. In the case
of Genghis Khan, we have a leader who went from total obscurity in one of the most remote areas
of Asia to the greatest, most feared military figure of the medieval period, and perhaps the
world. This didn't happen by luck -- the Mongolian, originally named Temujin, was not only a
skilled military strategist, but a shrewd political leader.
As Genghis Khan consolidated control over the disparate tribes of the steppes of northern
Asia, he turned the traditional power structure on its head. When one tribe failed to fulfill
its promise to join him in war and raided his camp in his absence, he took an unprecedented
step. He summoned a public gathering, or khuriltai , of his followers, and conducted a public
trial of the other tribe's aristocratic leaders. When they were found guilty, Khan had them
executed as a warning to other aristocrats that they would no longer be entitled to special
treatment. He then occupied the clan's lands and distributed the remaining tribal members among
his own people. This was not for the purposes of slavery, but a means of incorporating
conquered peoples into his own nation. The Mongol leader symbolized this act by adopting an
orphan boy from the enemy tribe and raising him as his own son.
Weatherford explains:
"Whether these adoptions began for sentimental reasons or for political ones, Temujin
displayed a keen appreciation of the symbolic significance and practical benefit of such acts
in uniting his followers through his usage of fictive kinship ."
Genghis Khan employed this equalizing strategy with his military as well -- eschewing
distinctions of superiority among the tribes. For example, all members had to perform a certain
amount of public service. Weatherford adds:
"Instead of using a single ethnic or tribal name, Temujin increasingly referred to his
followers as the People of the Felt Walls, in reference to the material from which they made
their gers [tents]."
America, alternatively, seems divided along not only partisan lines, but those of race and
language as well. There is also an ever-widening difference between elite technocrats and
blue-collar folk, or "deplorables." Both parties have pursued policies that have aggravated
these differences, and often have schemed to employ them for political gain. Whatever shape
they take -- identity politics, gerrymandering -- the controversies they cause have done
irreparable harm to whatever remains of the idea of a common America. The best political
leaders are those who, however imperfectly, find a way to transcend a nation's many differences
and appeal to a common cause, calling on all people, no matter how privileged, to participate
in core activities that define citizenship.
The Great Khan also saw individuals not as autonomous, atomistic individuals untethered to
their families and local communities, but rather as inextricably linked to them. For example,
"the solitary individual had no legal existence outside the context of the family and the
larger units to which it belonged; therefore the family carried responsibility of ensuring the
correct behavior of its members to be a just Mongol, one had to live in a just community." This
meant, in effect, that the default social arrangement required individuals to be responsible
for those in their families and immediate communities. If a member of a family committed some
crime, the entire unit would come under scrutiny. Though such a paradigm obviously isn't ideal,
it reflects Genghis Khan's recognition that the stronger our bonds to our families, the
stronger the cohesion of the greater society. Politicians should likewise pursue policies that
support and strengthen the family, the
"first society," rather than undermining or redefining it.
There are other gems of wisdom to be had from Genghis Khan. He accepted a high degree of
provincialism within his empire, reflecting an ancient form of subsidiarity. Weatherford notes:
"He allowed groups to follow traditional law in their area, so long as it did not conflict with
the Great Law, which functioned as a supreme law or a common law over everyone." This reflects
another important task for national leaders, who must seek to honor, and even encourage, local
governments and economies, rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions.
He was an environmentalist, codifying "existing ideals by forbidding the hunting of animals
between March and October during the breeding time." This ensured the preservation and
sustainability of the Mongol's native lands and way of life. He recognized the importance of
religion in the public square, offering tax exemptions to religious leaders and their property
and excusing them from all types of public service. He eventually extended this to other
essential professions like public servants, undertakers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and
scholars. Of course, in our current moment, some of these professions are already well
compensated for their work, but others, like teachers, could benefit from such a tax
exemption.
There's no doubt that Genghis Khan was a brutal man with a bloody legacy. Yet joined to that
violence was a shrewd political understanding that enabled him to create one of the greatest
empires the world has ever known. He eschewed the traditional tribal respect for the elites in
favor of the common man, he pursued policies that brought disparate peoples under a common
banner, and he often avoided a scorched earth policy in favor of mercy to his enemies. Indeed,
as long as enemy cities immediately surrendered to the Mongols, the inhabitants saw little
change in their way of life. And as Weatherford notes, he sought to extend these lessons to his
sons shortly before his death:
He tried to teach them that the first key to leadership was self-control, particularly
mastery of pride, which was something more difficult, he explained, to subdue than a wild
lion, and anger, which was more difficult to defeat than the greatest wrestler. He warned
them that "if you can't swallow your pride, you can't lead." He admonished them never to
think of themselves as the strongest or smartest. Even the highest mountain had animals that
step on it, he warned. When the animals climb to the top of the mountain, they are even
higher than it is.
Perhaps if American politicians were to embrace this side of the Great Khan, focusing on
serving a greater ideal rather than relentless point-scoring , we might achieve the same level
of national success, without the horrific bloodshed.
Changing the direction of American politics from the continued descent into degeneracy and
ahistoricity will be a dynastic task requiring us to teach our youngest generations about
civics and civility and U.S. history all the way from the intellectual and historical events
that led to the formation of the U.S. to the varied movements over the years that have either
strengthened the social cohesion of our melting pot nation or provoked rot from the inside
out.
Swallowing one's pride is the most difficult task of any political leader who tastes power
even once. At that point the politician frequently craves the citizenry to get on bended knee
and swallow the the arrogant decisions of the politician who has grown turgid from the
lustful exceses of the governmental trough.
I realize this "American Conservative" author is trying to point out strengths of someone
who he admits was also a tyrant, but there's a little too much much tyrant love for my taste.
Maybe strong leaders are exactly the problem, and maybe one of the reasons conservatives
often have their pants on fire is their claim that they love freedom as they beg for law and
order at the end of someone else's gun.
"... One of the characteristics of fascists, such as the self-confessed fascist, and Republican party icon, Leo Strauss, is to return philosophically to an earlier age when despotism ruled, and present that as a purer form of politics, before ideas of democracy arose, like Mr. Chalk's article suggests. ..."
"... A brief historical note: the conquests of Russia, the Middle East and southern China happened under Genghis' successors ..."
Mr. Chalk writes: The best political leaders are those who, however imperfectly, find a way
to transcend a nation's many differences and appeal to a common cause, calling on all people,
no matter how privileged, to participate in core activities that define citizenship.
The Great Khan also saw individuals not as autonomous, atomistic individuals untethered to
their families and local communities, but rather as inextricably linked to them. For example,
"the solitary individual had no legal existence outside the context of the family and the
larger units to which it belonged; therefore the family carried responsibility of ensuring
the correct behavior of its members to be a just Mongol, one had to live in a just
community."
The guy who wrote this couldn't have said it better: The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito
Mussolini. He wrote, in pertinent part:
"In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process
to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in
function of history to which all nations bring their contribution."
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State
and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State,
which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity."
"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room.
It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In
such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only."
My only exposure to Mr. Chalk's educational institution, Christendom College, was with a
friend's son who went there, and came back to Minnesota and argued with me, as an Army
Officer, that, of course torture was permissible, Aquinas said so.
A Catholic priest whom I knew pointed out later that there had been some further
developments in Catholic doctrine since Aquinas's pronouncements, even if he was a
"Saint."
One of the characteristics of fascists, such as the self-confessed fascist, and
Republican party icon, Leo Strauss, is to return philosophically to an earlier age when
despotism ruled, and present that as a purer form of politics, before ideas of democracy
arose, like Mr. Chalk's article suggests. This is not to ascribe fascist thought to Mr.
Chalk but only to suggest he doesn't need to go all the way back to Genghis Khan for his
political theory, the first half of the 20th Century was replete with similar ideas, in
places like Germany, Italy, and Japan, to name three, all of whom were featured in numerous
TV shows this past weekend in celebration of Veteran's Day.
I've had experience with Christendom College, too. One of my children graduated from there
& received a wonderful education & made lifelong friends.
The little I know about China & other cultures in the East sounds similar to: "and the
larger units to which it belonged; therefore the family carried responsibility of ensuring
the correct behavior of its members to be a just Mongol, one had to live in a just
community."
I think if you just replaced "Mongol" with "Chinese" here you might get the same idea.
That concept is a harder sell in the West where everything is about the individual but I
think we could benefit from adapting that idea a little to our culture.
Jack Weatherford is an apologist for Genghis Khan and should not be the sole source life
lessons that Genghis Khan offers. Go to primary sources to read about Mongol invasions from
the vantage of the victims and their efforts to get out from under the Mongol yolk.
Genghis Khan was from a nomadic people that made their living by grazing and raiding their
neighbors. He raised that up a notch by conquering much of the known world of the day.
I have my doubts about Genghis Khan putting much value on the lives of public servants,
undertakers, lawyers, teachers, and scholars. Perhaps doctors but medicine was not all that
advanced in the 13c. He definitely prized craftsmen who could work with leather, fabric, and
metal and particularly engineers whom he incorporated into his military campaigns.
This enlightened environmentalist may have spared the lives of animals but wantonly killed
peasants and destroyed farmland.
Genghis Khan military strategy involved rapine, destruction, terror, torture, enslavement,
and mass extermination, with death tolls unmatched by any other single person.
He destroyed civilizations leaving fields of bones where once there were buildings,
libraries, churches, mosques, temples, and hospitals. A partial list of cities destroyed by
Mongol conquest listed in in Wikipedia includes Balkh, Bamiyan, Herat, Kiev, Baghdad,
Nishapur, Merv, Urgench, Lahore, Ryazan, Chernigov, Vladimir, and Samarkand.
Mr. Chalk would have it that Genghis Khan created one greatest empires the world has ever
known. This was an empire of vassals, subject to communal punishment, and subject to periodic
acts of savagery to test loyalty. It is not a model that the US should emulate.
Perhaps we can learn much more from Cyrus the Great (580-529 BC) the Persian benevolent
emperor who declared the first charter of human rights in the history.
Contrary to Genghis Khan, he was very generous and kind to the conquered, who recognized him
as a liberator and "Law-giver".
He respected their religion and culture. Genghis was the opposite of Cyrus. When he conquered
Persia, he was extremely brutal.
"Weatherford notes: "He allowed groups to follow traditional law in their area, so long as it
did not conflict with the Great Law, which functioned as a supreme law or a common law over
everyone." This reflects another important task for national leaders, who must seek to honor,
and even encourage, local governments and economies, rather than applying one-size-fits-all
solutions."
I guess the Great Khan was a very fortunate man he did not have to deal with an
uncontrollable globalized financial network serving banks and multinational corporations
only.
The people over elites, yep. Is that not what the Great Trump promised?
Interesting article, though its relevance to our current unpleasantness is a bit hard to
swallow. MacArthur considered Timujin/Genghis Khan to be the greatest military genius of all
time. Can't argue against that assertion. To my knowledge, he never lost a single battle, and
his Mongol empire became the largest in history, controlling over 60 percent of the Eurasian
landmass (including China under his grandson, Kublai).
Nevertheless, as Marcus Aurelius might have written "Where is Genghis Khan now?" And his
empire? After he died, his descendants (Timujin's progeny was enormous) fell into quarreling
among themselves. When another grandson, Mangu Kahn, was defeated by the great Sultan Baybars
and the Egyptian Mamluks at the Battle of An Jalut, the empire began its slow recession.
Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler succumbed to the "Arrow of Time"–along with their
empires. And in the latter case, the United States will suffer the same fate, as difficult as
it may be for us to envision.
As Peter O'Toole's T.E. Lawrence said "Nothing is written." And nothing–is
forever.
In fairness one should take account of the responsibility of some of the conquered for the
westward expansion of the Mongol Empire. The rules of diplomacy we expect today probably
descend from the practice of the ancient Persian empires, but they had been adopted by the
steppe dwellers long before the days of Genghis Khan.
His most powerful neighbor to the west was the Khwarezmian Empire. The Shah of Khwarezmia
gave ample casus belli to Genghis Khan, and not long after died a refugee on an island in the
Caspian and had to be buried in his servant's shirt as he had none of his own. There were
further consequences.
The Shah's mother was a princess of the Qipchak nomads, who dominated the western steppe,
and they thus became enemies of the Mongols. After the fall of Khwarezmia, Genghis Khan sent
a reconnaissance force to scope out the western steppe and neighboring regions, two divisions
led by two of his best generals but with no mission to conquer anyone or to fight unless
necessary.
They needed to cross the Caucasus Mountains from south to north, but were impeded first by
the Georgians (who had suffered greatly at the hands of the Khwarezmians but did not regard
the Mongols with gratitude) and then by a Qipchak contingent who blockaded the pass. So the
Mongols first destroyed the Georgian army, and then tricked thi Qipchaks with bribes, which
they promptly took back once they were through the pass.
They then sent ambassadors to the major cities of Rus', each ruled by its own prince, to
assure them that they wanted peace with Rus' and intended to stay on the steppe. Many of the
princes, however, had taken wives from the Qipchak nobility (in addition to political
advantages secured by such unions, it seems that Qipchak girls were regarded as knowing how
to treat a fellow right), and Qipchaks in the princely courts told them that the Mongols were
dangerous enemies.
Thereupon the princes had the Mongol ambassadors thrown from the city walls (probably by
the Qipchaks). This gross violation of diplomatic norms put Rus' on the Mongols' fecal
register permanently. Worse yet, the Princes of a number of major cities were incited by the
Qipchak to take their armies and drive off the Mongols.
The latter staged a feigned retreat and led the Rus' forces a merry chase until they had
them with their backs to the River Kalka. Then they did what the Rus' princes could hardly
have expected (the Qipchaks should have, but were blinded by thirst for revenge)–they
turned and slaughtered the Rus' armies.
Then they went back and reported to the Great Khan, fulfulling their orders exactly. When
under his successor Ögödei the Mongols returned to Rus', they regarded the Rus'ians
as a low-life lot who violated basic rules of decency in international relations, had no
grasp of such military basics as unity of command, and had needlessly made themselves enemies
of the Great Khan and of the Blue Heaven.
The Khwarezmian Shah, Queen Tamara of Georgia, and the princes of Rus' could at least have
treated the Mongols politely. It might have saved them a lot of trouble.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Yeah, it can be very intimidating and disruptive on a personal level. And you know, there are certainly stories
of students feeling that in the film, and that we've also reported on for many years. But I think people should look at the big picture;
that this operation the film reveals, that Israel has been spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on, Israel and its lobby
groups, and people like Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump's biggest campaign donor, and people like Adam Milstein, who is named in the
film as- he's an Israeli-American financier, a convicted tax dodger who is named in the film as one of the main funders and founders
of the anonymous smear site Canary Mission, which tries to destroy the reputations of college students so that they can't get jobs.
It is very scary for individuals. But the big picture here is that Israel is losing the support of progressive segments of society,
big time. We see that in poll after poll. Just last month there was a poll by YouGov for the Economist that showed a collapse in
support for Israel among progressives, among liberals, among younger people, among people of color. And that the strong support for
Israel now looks exactly like Donald Trump's base. It's white, it's male, it's very right wing.
And so I think the film should be seen not so much as a testament to the success of the Israel lobby, but of its failure. The
fact that they have had to mount this massive operation, and it has not been able to staunch the hemorrhage of support for Israel,
I think really should encourage people that speaking out is the right thing to do. The more normalized that it becomes to talk about
Palestinian rights, the less power the smear and intimidation tactics have. So the message I think people should take away is speak
up more, not less, because we're winning.
BEN NORTON: Well, we'll have to end it there. We were speaking with Ali Abunimah, who is the co-founder and editor of The
Electronic Intifada. The Electronic Intifada is an award-winning news website that published this censored Al Jazeera documentary
with an undercover reporter investigating the Israel lobby in the United States. Thanks for joining us, Ali.
Transparency and knowledge is the key to dis-empowering the power elite and empowering everyday people. Israel's suppression
of this film is a clear example of information control. Thank you Ali Abunimah and The Electronic Intifada for helping relieve
the yolk of information asymmetry with regards to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Israel's manipulation of American policy.
I wrote a letter to my U. S. senator, critical of accepting "contributions" from an ardently pro-Israel government lobbying
group. The FBI showed up in the neighborhood and called to interrogate me. This for holding my (so-anointed "liberal") senator
accountable to act in the "best interests" of constituents!
Totalitarianism and fascism are creeping forward, and the governments
of Israel and its US collaborators -- in every branch and level of government -- are its leading proponents. What the Zionists
do is not only unconstitutional, it's seditious.
A lot of us in the human race don't look lightly upon truly seditious behavior,
such as that carried out every day by the U. S. government on behalf of multinational corporations and foreign agents in direct
violations of U. S. laws. Indeed, a lot of us consider sedition a capital crime, with all its attendant accountability implied.
Series Content Al Jazeera's undercover film The Lobby –
USA, censored by Qatar, has finally been published by The Electronic Intifada. Editor Ali
Abunimah discusses the documentary's explosive revelations, exposing Israel-backed attacks on
US activists
My study of Jewish ID politics suggests that America isn't just influenced by one Jewish
lobby or another. The entire American political-cultural-spiritual spectrum has been
transformed into a internal Jewish exchange. Most American do not see the true nature of the
battle they participate in and, for the obvious reasons, their media and their academics do not
help. It is more convenient to keep Americans in the dark.
America is rapidly moving towards a civil war. The divide isn't only ideological or
political. The split is geographical, spiritual, educational and demographical. In a
Vox article titled, "The Midterm Elections Revealed that America is in a Cold Civil War,"
Zack Beauchamp writes, "This is a country fundamentally split in two, with no real room for
compromise." Of the midterm election Beauchamp reports that "American politics is polarized not
on the basis of class or even ideology, but on identity One side open to mass immigration and
changes to the country's traditional racial hierarchy, the other is deeply hostile to it." He
correctly observes that "Republicans and Democrats see themselves as part of cultural groups
that are fundamentally distinct: They consume different media and attend different churches;
live in distinct kinds of places and rarely interact with people who disagree with them."
Despite this American schism, Israel and its Lobby are somehow able to influence both sides,
managing to finding pathways to the secluded corridors of both parties. Although Democrats and
Republicans can no longer talk to each other, it seems that both are happy to talk to Israel
and the Lobby. And it is at AIPAC's annual conference that these political foes compete in
their eagerness to appease a foreign state. This anomaly in American politics demands
attention.
As a former Israeli, I had not observed the effects of the Israel/ Jewish Diaspora dilemma
until I had my experience at the Student Union Hall in Britain. Israel was born with the
Zionist desire to eradicate the identity of Jews as cosmopolitans. Zionism promised to bond the
Jew with the soil, with a territory, with borders. Thus, it is consistent with the Zionist
paradigm that Israel is notorious for its appalling treatment ofasylum seekers, immigrants and,
of course, the indigenous people of the land. Israel has surrounded itself with separation
walls. Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a
'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been putting
into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump supporter, Israel's
politics is a wet dream. Maybe Trump should consider tweaking his motto in 2020 into 'Let's
make America Israel.' This would encompass building separation walls, bullying America's
neighbors, the potential to cleanse America of the 'enemy within,' and so on. It is not
surprising that in 2016
Trump beat Clinton in an Israeli absentee exit poll . The Israelis do love Trump. To them,
he is a vindication of their hawkish ideological path. Although during the election Trump was
castigated as a vile anti-Semite and a Hitler figure by the Jewish progressive press, once
elected,
Fox News was quick to point out that Trump was actually the 'First Jewish President.'
We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant anti
immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in borders. When
alt right icon Richard Spencer described himself on Israeli TV as "a White Zionist" he was
actually telling the truth. Israel puts into practice the ideas that Spencer and Trump can so
far only entertain. But the parallels between Israel and the Trump administration's Republican
voters is just one side of the story.
... ... ...
The story of Jewish political strength in America doesn't end there. A New York Jew can
easily metamorphosize from an hard-core Identitarian into rabid Zionist settler and vice
versa, but such a manoeuvre is not available to ordinary Americans. White nationalist
Richard Spencer can not make the political shift that would turn him into a progressive or a
liberal just as it is unlikely that a NY transsexual icon would find it possible to become a
'redneck.' While Jewish political identity is inherently elastic and can morph endlessly, the
American political divide is fairly rigid. Jewish ideologists frequently change positions and
camps, they shift from left to right, from Clinton to Trump (Dershowitz), they support
immigration in their host counties yet oppose it in their own Jewish State, they are against
rigid borders and even states in general, yet support the two state solution in Palestine
(Chomsky). Gentiles are less flexible. They are expected to be coherent and consistent.
It was this manoeuvrability that made PM Netanyahu's 2015 speech in front of a joint session
of Congress a 'success,' although it might well have been considered a humiliation for any
American with an ounce of patriotic pride. As we wellknow, Bibi can communicate easily with
both Republicans and Democrats just as he cansimultaneously befriend Trump and Putin. ....
Reading the article the thought came up 'when will the USA, the majority of USA citizens,
(begin to) realise that the era of USA foreign politics for internal political reasons, is
over, no longer affordable ?'
The 19th century USA Civil War was horrible, as with all civil wars it was, to a large extent
a foreign war.
If indeed again a USA civil war starts, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of
preventing it, not much of the present USA will still be there at the end, fysically.
And, will there still be a political USA when the fighting stops, or will it end as Germany,
the foreign victors creating the USA they want ?
A USA, as Germany now under Merkel, intent on destroying itself culturally ?
So good to see Gilad Atzmon here at Unz. I have read his two books, The Wandering Who?
and Being in Time , and can thoroughly recommend them.
These Jewish bodies tend to preach inclusiveness while practicing exclusivity.
But of course! They first begged for inclusion into our powers structures, then once we
complied, they returned the favor by taking them over and excluding us from them.
This is a bit reductive. This commenter does not recognize himself in the dichotomy above.
When forced to choose a race on bureaucratic forms, this commenter enters 'human.' Letting
them call you an American opens you up for intensely manipulative statist propaganda. And
when you know your rights – your human rights, as opposed to your bullshit half-assed
revoked constitutional rights – your race is incidental. You know that
nondiscrimination underpins your ethics and the law.
This sort of identity is certainly ferociously suppressed by the Israeli fifth column.
Falk is this kind of guy too, a Jew but so what, and look what they did to him. Ajamu Baraka
too. This overwhelming tidal wave of immigrants from the global south: they grew up with
human rights, including the crucial right to solidarity, which negates all the invidious
aspects of identity politics. Basically, as a human you side with underdogs worldwide:
Okinawans, Palestinians, landless Latin Americans, Africans, you name it. Cohesive social
forces are not confined to ethnic groups.
Tensions behind the Iron Curtain inside the US are incidental. The real conflict is us
humans versus overreaching states. Given the downtrodden nature of the US subject population,
this conflict is playing out mainly outside US borders. The left/right continuum has always
been a CIA construction. Statists and humanists array on an orthogonal axis, and that
contention continued when CIA rolled the old left up. Cosmopolitans have not gone away.
Israel may be infecting the US with statist divide et impera, but humanist institutions
are penetrating Israel too. Look what's happening as the HRC and other human rights treaty
bodies review Israel.
Israel is formally accused of interpreting its commitments in bad faith. This allows
treaty bodies to gang up and apply international criminal law to Israeli torture, murder, and
extermination. It's already happening to criminal US officials. Israel's next.
Atzmon is right re "New York Jews", them being potentially mutable. But, Israelis, being
normal nationalists, cannot show the same level of "shape-shifting". A multiculturalist
minority in one country can become other nation's nationalist majority. Just, Israeli
nationalists cannot become Israeli open borders advocates, multiculturalists, globalists etc.
Only a minority population, basically strangers in another country, can practice various
ways of behavior. Host, dominant culture in a country- cannot. Dershowitz can change
positions; just, both Netanyahu & any Israeli labor politician can not.
It's the hypocrisy that pisses everyone off with Jews. Few people, especially on the right,
have any issue with a nation defending itself. It's that the same Jews who are trying to
shove diversity/multiculturalism/refugees 49.Reuben Kaspate says: November 14, 2018 at 3:42
pm GMT Civil war? How soon are we talking here? Perhaps, the status quo will be the
foreseeable future just humming along. down our throats are either supportive or silent when
it comes to Israel making itself into a pure ethnostate behind barbed wire.
But at a certain point in my life, around my thirties, I started to find all of it too
exhausting. I wanted to simplify things. I demoted myself into an ordinary human being.
A lot of people want this, but ordinary humans beings also have to live in societies
– and quite sophisticated ones at that. Elected representatives (or leadership) need
responsibility and integrity for it to work.
THE US JOINS THE 3RD WORLD
Government responsibility and integrity are not guaranteed (notably in places like Africa
and S.E. Asia), but the United States is probably the leading example of a government failure
in an advanced society. In the US, like much of the 3rd world, special interests (minority
ethnic and commercial) loot the public through a corrupt bargain with the holders of
political power. Hillary Clinton was the classic example, with the same "Pay to Play"
philosophy as the usual leadership of the Philippines or the Congo.
The 3rd world antidotes are Nationalism and Populism, but having gained power, political
leaders usually sell out (sounds familiar). Also the public of the US have learnt to be
trusting, and find it hard to believe that they've been hit by a classic 3rd world
problem.
In the US, Zionists have looted $ trillions in support of their Special Interest (Israel)
and corporations have extracted many more $ trillions through the mass outsourcing of entire
industries, complete with their technology and supply networks to Asia. It's not engraved in
stone that US industry, had to relocated to Asia or Indians have to be recruited for its IT
work. Germany and Japan for example, have held onto their industrial leadership in recent
decades and the US could have done the same. At one time the US was the world leader in US
based automobile production (Detroit), steel, aluminium, camera and film, industrial
chemicals, communications equipment, computers and electronics, aircraft and aerospace (still
partly) etc. With what's left in mostly in services and retail (often looted by Hedge Fund
asset strippers).
In other words, under a genuine post WW2 "America First" policy involving top quality
national education, research and government support of leading industries, the US could still
be the world's leading industrial and economic power and not have to worry about debt,
deficits and social decline, and also find plenty of jobs for Latino migrants.
However, the US got instead its present 3rd world style corrupt elite who know that
nationalism is their Nº1 enemy.
Only Anglos can mount a nationalist challenge, hence the paranoia when Trump arrived on
the scene with his "America First" dialogue and Anglo base. In contrast, the whole apparatus
of the Zioglob/ deep state/MSM defence is Identitarian, and aimed at destroying the
foundations of Anglo society, with LGBT, "White guilt dialectics", multiculturalism,
exclusion from Ivy League universities, Hollywood slime, speech laws, statue demolition,
in-your-face Africanization, massive debt, political corruption, open frontiers and exporting
middle class jobs.
CHINA JOINS THE 1ST WORLD
The Chinese seem to be doing it right.They have an explicit national policy to gain and
hold top positions in key world industries and make it a joint national effort to succeed
(especially in national human development/education). Also when they find corrupt government
officials (even at high levels) they quickly put them on trial and shoot them.
Winston Churchill talked about this/these divisions in the Jewish people in the 1930s, back
before Israel became a Jewish ethnostate – he presented the main 2 divisions between
ethnic Jews who fell down in to the worst forms of Communism, Bolshevism, Anarchism in Russia
and Eastern Europe and those other ethnic Jews who were sort of doing OK being loyal to their
European/American countries especially England they lived in while also promoting a healthier
form of Zionism working for some eventual Jewish national state somewhere probably in then
British administered Palestine.
Zionism vs Communism – a struggle for the Jewish Soul:
Churchill didn't present the extremely bad alternative we had today:
Jews in the diasapora everywhere from Russia to Poland to Germany, France, England,
Canada, Sweden Australia, few left in South Africa our USA doing this:
Promoting Israel over everything as an exclusively Jewish ethno state with endless US, UK
other wars against Israel's neighbors and .
Promoting the worst forms of multi culturalism, open borders immigration in to the West,
Jewish media mafia domination/monopoly of the mainstream media, social media in USA, UK,
Sweden etc promoting the worst forms of porn, rap music, fake news, endless movies and TV
shows demonizing all White European men as evil Racists, rapists – promoting the worst
Jewish feminists/lesbians to the US Supreme Court, Rachel Maddow type news commentary
etc.
I have long admired your noble efforts on behalf of the Palestinian people. You often
write in ways that resonate with me, and I'm glad to see you here at The Unz Review.
Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a
'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been
putting into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump
supporter, Israel's politics is a wet dream.
But I have to tell you, you're waaayyy off with this characterization of Trump
supporters.
There are, I'm sure, a lot of brain-dead "Christian" Zionists who drool at the prospect of
slaughtered Palestinians, because murdering Christ's modern day relatives living in his lands
are the only way to force Jesus to return and give them their rapture. And I suppose there
are perhaps a fraction of a percentage point of people who actually want Trump to throw out
(or murder) all non-whites to create the kind of racial purity Bibi and his crew of
psychopaths are demanding for Israel.
But from what I've seen, and being one of them, as to the vast majority of what you call
"Trump supporters", the idea of murdering people in order to steal their land, is a monstrous
absurdity.
For the record, we voted for Trump to end the demonic reign of terror and mass
murder in the Middle East. The very kind of mass-murder and daily atrocities that were
cackling Hillary's ("we came, we saw, he died) and Bill's ("it's worth it") trademark.
We voted for Trump as a repudiation of those evils, that had long stained our national
soul, and indeed had made America the kind of place Bibi was pleased with.
We did not vote for Trump to murder and steal, or otherwise do anyone harm. We voted for
Trump to do the opposite, and end the Eternal Wars for Israel. No one on the Alt-right likes
the wars. We simply want to be left alone, to pursue our humble lives unmolested by
globalists and their nefarious designs for us. Is that so terrible?
. In fact, Israel has become a prime model for American nationalists.
with all due respect, that is a vile smear, Sir.
Where are these 'white nationalists' who're demanding we terrorize and murder and steal
other people's land? Eh?
For the record, white nationalists are today's Palestinians. What they're demanding is
that they don't have to give up the lands they have, and were born on, and be forced out to
make room for unlimited others. Or forced to assimilate to an Hispanic or Muslim culture and
way of life. Is that so egregious? To want to persevere as an American in an American
culture, with hostility to none, and trade with and good relations with all and any who
respond in good faith?
Why is it that all white people, from Europe to N. America and everywhere else, are all
expected to invite every non-white, non-Western, often hostile armies of (especially military
age young men) into our lands, and then treat them better than the indigenous, white second
class citizens?
What is it with that?!
Either Germans and Swedes and Americans hand over their nations or we're all going to be
called "Nazis" or "racists" or God help us, "Zionists".
WTF?
We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant
anti immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in
borders.
well, only the stupidest imbecile on the planet doesn't believe in borders. (or, an
ideologue that wants to see *certain* nations destroyed by armies of immigrants –
hostile or otherwise).
No one wants recognized borders more than the Palestinians. It is Israel that refused to
state its border, because it want to steal more land. How many Trump voters do you hear
talking about stealing other people's land? (I'm not talking about lunatics like Bolton.
American nationalists despise Bolton and McCain and all the rest of the Zionist, globalist
scum)
And I don't personally know of any reasonable American nationalist who 'hates Muslims'.
They just don't want them all here. Have you ever heard of Kosovo, Mr. Atzmon? There
are neighborhoods in Michigan that were Polish Catholic for generations. And they liked it
that way. They never hated Muslims or anyone else. But they do hate having their communities
taken over by alien peoples with alien cultures and now have to listen to 'calls to prayer'
at five in the morning every day. And demands for Sharia and other clashes with their former
way of life.
Are these people rabid Zionists demanding to murder people and steal their land, just
because they don't want throngs of Muslims coming in and transforming their community into
something they don't recognize or have any predilection for. Are they simply too racist and
hateful, and need to learn to assimilate? Eh?
I don't know who this Spencer guy is, and he sound like controlled opposition to me.
It would be wrong to equate nationalism with the frothing's of some so called
"white-Zionist". The only white Zionists I know of are the lunatic "Christian" Zionists.
The nationalists I know of simply want to be left -the fuck- alone!
Stop demanding that we hand over our country to people who don't appreciate it. (Indeed,
often hate it) Stop demanding that we doom our children to living in a nation that puts them
last in every way, behind every single non-white immigrate that can get to these shores. It
is insane to want to have people come to your nation who will be a burden, who often hate you
and yours, not to mention your culture, and want to displace you. It is insane to insist that
millions of people come in and compete with your children on an un-level playing field. Every
non-White immigrant that comes here gets Affirmative Action promotions and jobs and
university preference over the white children who were born here. Unless you hate white
people, that state of affairs is insane.
And yet here we are being badgered as thieving, psychotic murderous goons (Zionists)
simply for wanting what every single sane person on the planet wants: to preserve our way of
life and hand it down to our progeny – for them to have a decent life and hope for
theirs in turn.
And yet somehow, if we have white skin, wanting this is the most evil and wicked and
racist thing imaginable!
@Rurik White nationalists are a mixed bunch, going from the very bad (as Atzmon) sees
them to, maybe, the peaks of sainthood you attribute to them.
The whole idea of legit owners of land is a rationalization: everybody (meaning: every
group) took from someone else the land where they are, and did so by combat and might.
Sure, in our more civilized times we'd like such things to be relegated in the past, borders
to become stable, and ethnic cleansing and warfare to be a closed chapter.
These are wishes and words about said wishes, though.
Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all of
the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to include
a bit more than mine. Being the first stripe allowed, they'd go on, until I were left with no
land at all, all of this while seeing themselves as honest.
Whoever owns land, and whoever doesn't have a need to believe Jews worse than other people
knows what human nature is like when it comes to property, borders, and expansion.
Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all
of the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to
include a bit more than mine.
I doubt your neighbors have attacked you, burned your land, cut off or poisoned your water
and then confiscated your house and land ..as is the case of Israel's theft of Palestine.
This is the 21 century, not the 17th or 18th century.
When we interrupt our travels to take a break, I approach a group of young Israeli soldiers,
themselves waiting for a bus. Anyone speak English, I ask? Sure, answers one good-looking kid.
His accent is familiar.
Where are you from?
Connecticut.
He turns out to be an Ohio State grad, serving a tour as a "lone soldier" -- a Jew but not
an Israeli -- in the IDF. There are thousands of them.
I have never been comfortable with this phenomenon. If a young American hankers to defend a
country, it strikes me that he ought to defend his own rather than someone else's. But this
Buckeye from Connecticut is obviously a fine upstanding fellow so I don't press him to
explain.
"... Israel's newly won "friends" in the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE proved to be unstable and of little value. ..."
"... The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. ..."
"... The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed to occur long ago. ..."
"... If the 1973 War were to be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment. ..."
"... This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw ..."
"... The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be. ..."
"... I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat ..."
"... Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself. ..."
"... What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community? ..."
"... I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance. ..."
"... Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO. ..."
"... Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value, bias and use of victimization. ..."
Last week a ceasefire was
agreed upon between Palestinian factions in Gaza and Israel:
The aim of the change, in a plan mediated by Egypt and with money supplied by Qatar, is to provide much-needed relief for Gaza,
restore calm on the Israeli side of the border and avert another war.
On Sunday night Israeli special forces
broke the ceasefire by invading
Gaza under disguise. Such incursions happen
quite often but are
usually left unreported. The invaders wore civilian clothing and some were cloaked as women. Their cars arrived at the house of a
local Qassam commander but suspicious guards held them up. A firefight ensued in which 7 Palestinians and 1 Israeli officer were
killed. It is not clear what the intent of the Israeli raid was. A car left behind held what appeared to be surveillance equipment.
The intruders fled back to Israel.
It is likely that rivalry within the Israeli government was behind this provocation:
[T]he perception that Israel, by allowing the fuel and cash shipments into Gaza, was paying off Hamas set off acrimonious wrangling
between two rival right-wing members of Israel's security cabinet.
Earlier Sunday, Education Minister Naftali Bennett called the cash infusion "protection money." Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman
accused Mr. Bennett of having supported such payments and of having opposed in recent weeks the more aggressive military reprisals
against Hamas that Mr. Lieberman favored.
...
By night's end Mr. Netanyahu had cut short his trip [to Paris] and was flying back to Israel in response to the Gaza hostilities.
Did Lieberman order the incursion to undercut Netanyahoo ceasefire and his rival Bennet?
The breach of the ceasefire by Israel set off another round of tit for tat strikes. A commando unit of Hamas' Qassam brigade launched
an attack against a bus that had carried Israeli soldiers to the border. To avoid further escalation the shooter waited until the
soldiers were out of the way before hitting it. Only the driver was injured. Then the Israeli air force destroyed the al-Aqsa TV
station in Gaza city after notifying the Palestinians of its intent. It also damaged a university building. Rocket volleys from Gaza
followed and the Israeli air-force hit several buildings. After 48 hours the ceasefire was renewed.
During the conflict the Palestinian side demonstrated a series of new capabilities:
The Palestinian command published a video of the
strike against the bus by a Kornet anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). Since it lost dozens of tanks to ATGM attacks in the 2006
war against Hezbullah in Lebanon, the Israeli army is extremely afraid of such missiles. The arrival of these weapons in the besieged
Gaza will be a serious concern.
The Palestinians also
launched
over 460 artillery missiles and mortars within 25 hours. This by far exceeds the firing rate during Israel's 2014 war on the Gaza
strip. Some of these missiles had a larger range then previous models. Israel's Iron Dome missile defense systems fired some 100
missiles but their accuracy is questionable and the price high. Each Iron Dome missile costs some $65,000 while a mortar round
or rocket costs a few hundred dollar. Many of the Palestinian rockets reached their targets in the Zionist settlements Ashkelon,
Netivot, and Sderot.
Israel announced only two hits on missile launching cells. It seems that the Palestinians have perfected their camouflage
and remote firing capabilities.
The rival Palestinian groups in Gaza -Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others- operated under a central command. No group claimed
missile strikes for itself. In the past each volley of missiles was followed by a news statement in which this or that group claimed
responsibility. This time all groups worked from a common operations room. None released responsibility claims or other information
that would help Israel's intelligence.
Earlier Tuesday, the Political-Security Cabinet meeting that convened following the escalation in the south came to a halt after
seven hours. After hearing the army's and the security establishment's assessments, the cabinet instructed the IDF to continue
to operate in Gaza as necessary.
All the officials from the defense establishment who participated in the cabinet meeting -- IDF chief of staff, the head of
Military Intelligence, the head of the Shin Bet, the head of the Mossad, and the head of the NSC -- supported the Egyptian request
for a cease-fire .
...
" If we had intensified the attacks, rockets would have been fired at Tel Aviv ," senior cabinet officials said.
Since 15:30 local time today the situation is again quiet and calm. But the squabbling within the Israeli cabinet immediately
resumed:
All the ministers -- including Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Minister Naftali Bennett -- did not object to a cease fire.
Following this report, the Defense Ministry said that Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman's support of a cease-fire deal were
"fake news." The statement said that the Defense Minister's position was consistent and had not changed. Ministers Naftali Bennett,
Ayelet Shaked and Ze'ev Elkin also said they did not support a cease-fire deal with Hamas.
In total 13 people were killed in Gaza and at least 2 on the Israeli side. A Hamas spokesperson
accused Lieberman of being responsible for the breach of the ceasefire and demanded that Netanyahoo fires him.
The short conflict demonstrated that:
Israel is deterred. It does not want to launch another war on Gaza.
The siege of Gaza, by Israel, Egypt and by the Palestinian authority under Mahmoud Abbas, failed. The reputational cost of
the siege became too high after Israel killed some 160 Palestinians during weekly protests along the demarcation fence. It had
to allow diesel fuel and money from Qatar to reach Gaza.
The siege failed to prevent that Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other groups acquired a larger number of missiles and other new
capabilities.
The Palestinians in Gaza are united. The resistance against the occupation is alive and well.
For decades the Zionist entity was able to attack its neighbors as it pleased. That changed. It no longer dares to step into Lebanon
for fear of Hezbullah's reprisal. Syria's western airspace is closed for Israel thanks to the new S-300PMU2 air defense Russia delivered
to the Syrian army. Israeli special forces botched their incursion into Gaza and the Iron Dome missile defense proved to be to faulty
to protect Zionist settlements. The resistance in Gaza has new capabilities and surprises for Israel should it again attack.
The short conflict in Gaza only demonstrated that Israel is weak and that its downward trend continues.
Posted by b on November 13, 2018 at 02:52 PM |
Permalink
Comments The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their
lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. That probably had something to
do with the failure of the original raid - they left behind their (specially equipped) car, did they? Only the air force is any good,
and, lo and behold, it had to be brought in to recover the situation.
This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly
does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
The sooner Israel returns to being Palestine, where Jewish folks who want to live in the ME can do so in peace with their neighbours,
the better. The violent murderous destructive settler ethnics please go home, ta.
The hornet attack on the bus is in all likelyhood faked, around 26 seconds in your tube video at least 8 IDF are at the front of
the bus chatting, at around 46 seconds they are gone. We hear the sound of the missile being fired but are unable to see it tracking
the target as it moves in.
If fear for Tel Aviv was a motivation, an additional conclusion might be the Israeli's have little real faith in their Iron Dome
-- no?
Where is Iran in this story, that Lieberman is so keen on?
There is a difference. The cameraman in the Abrams shot is close to the launcher and to the line of fire so the ATGM rocket
motor exhaust is clearly visible. In the IDF shot, the cameraman could be well away from the launch, even at right angles to its
line of flight, totally hiding the rocket motor. That said, it would be even more gutsy to have placed an IED where the IDF was
likely to gather and much cheaper. The ATGMs are more valuable against IDF armor. $1 million of US taxpayer money going up in smoke just like that.
The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed
to occur long ago. The Zionist's response to perform a War Crime fits their behavioral norm to a Tee.
If the 1973 War were to
be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within
Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid
and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment.
This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly
does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
Posted by: LJ | Nov 13, 2018 3:24:00 PM | 2
I agree, I think this was an Israeli False Flag to justify an invasion and I agree it is a bomb beneath the bus.
A Kornet has a distinctive undulating pattern and leaves a smoke trail, for example:
here is what a Kornet looks like hitting something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8
thanks b... it sounds like none of the Israeli politicians want to own up to wanting a ceasefire.. why is that? is the idea of
projecting strength and aggressiveness the only posture Israel can take for the majority Israel religious orthodox voting public??
@6 john... i am curious... it sure looks to me like the usa is israels bitch... it's not just usa either.. one could include
canada, australia, uk and all the western poodles too... how does this event appear to make it look any different to you? thanks..
The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's
still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be.
I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat. I am on the side of Israel. However it seems increasingly a losing
side. To survive they have had to adopt increasingly harsh and embarrassing measures. The only way to achieve victory is to ethnically
cleanse Arabs from the Middle East.
The Heart of Darkness
Rabbit Bomb Blues.
PeacefulProsperity , Nov 13, 2018 8:13:21 PM |
link
#18 - Gerard Butler hosted that event. His Malibu(?) house was just burned to the frame. Coincidence? I think not. He is all over
social media whining about it and people are actually calling him out. Maybe there's some hope for us after all.
Palestinians already know that Israel plans a genocide. Palestinians know that they will not be helped by the west or any other
country. Palestinians know that they have no voice and no way of countering the Israeli lobby. But where has this success really
got you and Israel?
I suggest that you are pursuing a path that means doom for both Palestinian and Israeli. You imagine that you can get rid of
Palestinians but lack the commonsense to see that this is impossible. You are building a future of (ever more) death and destruction.
There is another option (which you won't be interested in) and that is to change Israel from an apartheid state and grant equality
to Palestinians (including the right of return and restitution of property).
That you two could post such loathsome views indicates that you are completely unaware that you are staring into an abyss that
will consume both Palestinian and Israeli.
Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may
deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself.
You need to wake up to the idea that Palestinian and Israeli might have a future together and consider that the path you are
following will bring a great tragedy to both sides.
My thoughts were identical - the single biggest development is the exhibited unity among the Palestinians. It does not spell
good for the expansionist apartheid bankrupt state (just like all its bankrupt Western bitches).
I also support renaming Gaza into Auschwitz, that was a brilliantly symbolic idea.
I am against renaming Gaza as Auschwitz. It is a transparent attempt to appeal to western/European sensitivities (which will not
work), will be nothing more than a publicity stunt, and is a denial of the unique Palestinian experience.
Probably more people in the world know of Gaza than they do of Auschwitz.
Thank you for putting that into words. The two entities are joined in an intimate embrace of destiny from which it seems that no single side can emerge alone. How
futile that Israel cannot see that its best chance to emerge as a nation, or at least as a people, is now, and that every day
it seeks to further reduce Palestine it furthers its own diminishing.
What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply
proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community?
@19 pp.. trump is no different.. hollywood and trump - 2 sides of the same coin.. both subservient to israel..
Posted by: james | Nov 13, 2018 8:21:21 PM | 20
Well that's wrong.
Trump can read the Zio-Jews like a book. They're so-o predictably evil and stupid. His unlawful and MEANINGLESS recognition of
Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" encouraged them to put their mass-murdering skills on display while the
civilized world watched
in horror and revulsion.
As b points out, Lebanon has long been too dangerous for their peculiarly wussy brand of courage, Syria is now off-limits,
and now the Powerless Palestinians have made them re-think their aggressive idiocy. The fact that they've always been their own
worst enemy is rapidly coming home to roost...
Israel is the land of Ivanka and Kissinger. I think US vetos at the UNSC will continue. US embassy is now at Jerusalem and
Trump has declared it the capital of Israel.
@27 hw... we have to disagree then... israels mass-murdering skills have been on display prior to and during trumps position..
nothing has changed with regard to Israel's attitude, trump or no trump.. and frankly trump could give a shit.. The money continues
to flow to Israel and usa subservience continues... i wish it was different, but i am not into some pipe dream in thinking trump
has made any difference.. he hasn't.. you have much greater faith in trump then i..
I'm about 6,000 miles away from the current excitement, and can't read any of the languages. So I've got to rely on second and
third hand reports of everything . What I'm hearing through those slender grapevines is that there are bitter faction fights
within the government of the apartheid Jewish State. Another factor is that none of the 'leaders' known to me are exactly oozing
competence. When your major propaganda outlet starts whining about the stupidity, things aren't going well.
1) The S-300 air defense missiles Russia has deployed to Syria. Netanyahu's brief chat with President Vladimir Putin in Paris
on Sunday yielded no concurrence for the resumption of Israeli air strikes against Iran. It is now up to him to decide whether
to take this as a Russian embargo on Israel overflights, or to go ahead and risk resuming those air strikes. In the worst case,
the Israeli air force might have to operate on two fronts: Syria and Gaza.
No, that's not the worst case. Dozens of Russian cruise missiles skimming the treetops while heading for the air and naval
bases of the Apartheid State is worse than that. Frankly, I doubt if the murderous and thieving little nation is capable of overcoming
both the jamming and the S-300 systems. But what do I know? - if they manage to do it without killing any Russians, the Syrians
will probably be reinforced with even heavier air defenses. Right now Syria is a lose/lose proposition.
2) Israel has tied its hands with an ultimatum to Beirut to shut down Iran's workshops in Lebanon for adding precision-guidance
to Hizballah's surface missiles, or else face Israeli attacks to destroy them. There was no date on the ultimatum. But to carry
it through, every ounce of Israel's air force capabilities will be required. The question is how did Israel's policy-makers
failed to avoid a situation which paralyses its ability to operate against strategic foes in Syria and Lebanon?
Notice the despair. Who on earth was running his mouth with a promise to destroy those Hezbollah shops? Yet even that's a losing
proposition, for Hezbollah is doubtlessly running many fakes and decoys, and keeping everything on such a small scale they'll
be barely scratched, if touched at all. But could the pilots of the apartheid Jewish State do even this? I ask because I don't
know the range of those Russian jamming devices. Hezbollah has every opportunity to set an ambush for incoming aircraft attacks.
The F-35 may be low visibility in terms of radar, but it represents an enormous infra-red beacon. There are anti-air missiles
in existence which are optimized for IR.
The final wild card is the Trumpster. He has been mighty erratic of late, and while he might do something wild and crazy, could
the Jewish State rely on whatever-it-is he might do helping them? Could be just the opposite.
@ Grieved with the internet interaction insight and wisdom....thanks and hope many read and understand your words.
@ Zachary Smith with the comment and question about Trump.
I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain
of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance.
Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes
deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO.
Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite
the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of
global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value,
bias and use of victimization.
For me the only question is how long will the transition take and how ugly will it be?
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much
worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
CIA intercepted Congressional emails about whistleblowers in 2014
The Inspector General expressed concern about "potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality" and "chilling effect"
Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.
The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures
are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept
secret until now.
In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during
"routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and
the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to
whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might
have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."
The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch,
is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence
agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.
"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats
and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type
of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but
"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive
Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community
Inspector General 2014
The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The
fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers
raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,"
wrote Grassley in a statement.
According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with
"bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."
Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence
officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
History of alleged surveillance abuses
Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the
possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's
response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be
saved or reported up to CIA management.
"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring
user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported
to agency leadership under an insider threat program."
However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:
"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually
shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy
Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."
Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency
(NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden.
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance,"
said
Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.
"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."
Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.
Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S.
citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured
in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only
allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed
that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.
Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of
President Trump.
Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!
All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against
our Constitution would be in full swing!
When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter.
Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged
and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance
and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a
horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.
Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties
before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump
won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas
as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.
From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's
US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy"
closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."
Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And
the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified
material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing
incriminating evidence.
Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew
the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since
our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when
(((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.
The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive
order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.
America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.
A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an
increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the
master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.
What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would
they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something
very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to
testify before congress.
That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his
people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in
at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic
he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you
inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 (
http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in
the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort
of thing that undermines their position with me!)
Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.
But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch
change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time
you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie,
the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."
There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce
its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise
is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just
want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee."
- BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women
The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies
to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in
the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.
Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of
colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources
and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."
In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another
'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite
an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of
its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months.
The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war.
We are in an age of new mccarthyism
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction
they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told
to!
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are
capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count
on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they
let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy
theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great
failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no
time at all and executed..
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without
them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11
events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry
out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada
on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast
US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying
the response, among other things.
Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes,
coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or
since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse
first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?
It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the
front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then
"disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.
For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new,
including:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised
structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim
ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged
in a 767 crash). "
Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized
by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel
specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.
All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there
was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention
that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos
or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then
"disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called
it as soon as the buildings imploded!
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly
and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel
and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to
the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they
are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better
off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory"
of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the
the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most
effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party
Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party
are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form
a "Political Revolution against Empire"
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is
concerned.
There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing
grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they
would have been much weaker to counter.
Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality
is maintained.
What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse
to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.
As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch
of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.
She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true
internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans
--- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted
totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE.
As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America,
is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised',
'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!
Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially
ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others
less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear
is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects'
of this monsterous EMPIRE."
Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to
others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin
slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.
HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather
rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a
major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against
the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business
organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out
that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel.
Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions
of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs
major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both
inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.
It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities
that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct
mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into
websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and
funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering
and heavy handed.
The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http:
www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.
The strategy
is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate
slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?
"... Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to disclose their citizenship in another country? ..."
"... Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country. ..."
The Biblical injunction that "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) doesn't apply to
nations. Almost half of the world's countries, including the U.S., recognize dual citizenship--
even when they don't encourage it for the complicated legal issues it often raises.
For example, one who obeys a requirement to give allegiance to a country or votes in a
foreign election may be regarded as having renounced citizenship in the other country. What
happens when the legal claims of one country conflict with those of the second country? Which
of the two countries has an obligation to assist a dual national in distress?
Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk , a
U.S. citizen who voted in a political election in a foreign state would forfeit his or her U.S.
citizenship. From that point on, dual citizens have maintained their right to vote and hold
public office without penalty.
Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top
officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they
required to disclose such dual citizenship.
So what's the problem?
For most dual citizens, having the benefits of citizenship in two countries (including
expedited immigration) outweigh the costs (which may include tax obligations to both
countries).
Yet dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for
policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national
loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such
legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their
second country.
The potential damage to our democracy is the greater when such potential conflicts of
interest are concealed in undisclosed dual citizenship.
Current entries on the Internet contain a number of undocumented assertions as to which
members of Congress and senior officers are dual citizens. Without reliable data, however,
Americans can only speculate on which senators and representatives may have divided national
loyalties.
The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising
credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest
to continue undetected.
When a senator, representative or senior U.S. official speaks out, submits bills or
determines policy on an issue of importance to a foreign country of which that member or
official (or judge) has the tie of citizenship, their constituents and the U.S. public at large
should at least be able to assess whether such views or actions are influenced by the divided
loyalty.
Since they don't involve national loyalty, religion and ethnicity seldom raise conflict
issues. Moreover, they are generally matters of public record.
By contrast, dual citizenship creates conflict of interest through divided loyalties. Thus
it would seem reasonable to require that dual citizen members of Congress, the judiciary and
the executive be required to renounce citizenship in another country as a condition of public
service.
Both Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) and former Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.) recently received wide press coverage when
they renounced their Canadian and Swiss nationalities, respectively.
Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential
conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't
members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to
disclose their citizenship in another country?
Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of
the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in
decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country.
"... If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S. nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to give up their U.S. citizenship. ..."
Applying for citizenship under the Law of Return "is a formal procedure which you could
expect normally to take a number of months except under emergency conditions," said Yoram
Hazony, president of the the Herzl Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. "There is no such thing
as receiving Israeli citizenship without submitting a formal request to the Israeli
government."
... ... ...
It's also worth noting that the
U.S. government doesn't look especially kindly on dual citizenship. The United States
"recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy
because of the problems it may cause," according to the Department of State.
If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S.
nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to
give up their U.S. citizenship.
... ... ...
Sanders' case
So has Sanders ever taken action to claim the Israeli citizenship the would qualify for? He
told Rehm no, and we have no evidence that would call that into question. While Sanders is
Jewish by birth and
spent some time on an Israeli kibbutz, or community farm, in the early 1960s, he would not
have become a citizen without a concerted effort to become one.
We did not hear back from Sanders' office, but a spokesman, Michael Briggs, told
Politico that "Diane Rehm is an excellent radio host. There's a great big Internet out
there with lots of good and bad information. I've never heard the question come up before."
Hazony, an Israeli who studied at Princeton and Rutgers and who has written widely about
both American and Israeli politics, said he's not aware of any American lawmakers with Israeli
citizenship. "In fact, it is common for Jews who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens to renounce one
or the other before serving in official government capacities," he said.
In 1967, the court ruled that the
State Department
had violated the Constitution when it refused to issue a new
U.S. passport to a U.S. citizen who had voted in an election in Israel. The decision overturned a law saying that "a person, who
is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voting in a political
election in a foreign state."
...there is no authoritative tally of how many U.S. citizens possess another nationality. Michael A. Olivas, an immigration
professor at the University of Houston Law Center, believes that the number is well over 1 million and could be several times
that number.
... ... ...
But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more
immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens -- as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with
strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn't possess
citizenship in those countries -- witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when
a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make.
... ... ...
But it's also true that dual citizenship undermines the common bond that unites U.S. citizens regardless of their ethnicity,
religion or place of birth. Dual citizenship places a sort of asterisk next to the names of some U.S. citizens but not others.
... ... ...
Nations vary in their attitudes toward dual citizenship. Some reject the concept outright; others allow their citizens to take
out a second citizenship only in selected countries and some have drawn a distinction between citizenship and nationality.
Yet there's no question that dual citizenship poses practical problems both for those who possess it and for the government.
The U.S. State Department discourages U.S. citizens from retaining or applying for citizenship in another country because "dual
nationality may limit U.S. government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally
has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance." The department also warns that "dual citizenship can present a security issue
whether to permit access to classified information which affects recruitment, employment and assignments." In some cases, dual
citizenship could disqualify an applicant for a sensitive position with the CIA or the State Department.
The complexities and complications raised by dual citizenship are not enough to justify amending the Constitution to overrule
the Supreme Court. But we agree with the State Department that U.S. citizens should think twice about professing allegiance to
another country. Moreover, by reinforcing the doubts that some hold about the loyalty of immigrants -- some U.S. citizens, for
instance, fume when Mexican Americans display the Mexican flag at Cinco de Mayo rallies -- the persistence of dual citizenship may
make it politically more difficult to secure a path to citizenship for immigrants who came here illegally.
>>Johnstone: The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them<<
Preach!
The military defends Money Power Monopolist Mega-Corporate Fascist Global Empire, not
America, and definitely NOT the Constitution. The New Deal effectively wiped out the
Constitution, which was the "Old Deal."
Syria and Iran aren't threats, they are countries that don't have debt-based money systems
controlled by the Money Power Monopolists.
"In a sense, there is no "future". Currently, you note a consolidation of the few
remaining countries without a "central bank" ...and how rapidly this is occurring. Look for
Syria next to fall, and fall quickly.
North Korea has already cut a deal under the aegis of China...feit accompli. Cuba has also
agreed to the North American integration once Fidel "passes".
That leaves IRAN. And biblical prophesy. The fallout from that conflict sets the stage for
the true new world order as has been broadcast in the media for the last 13 years or so."
~Unnamed Rothschild
The establishment of central banks is ALWAYS a necessary first step of subjugation of
geographically congregated bloodlines. Note that Libya's first official act, before even the
corpses turned stiff...was the establishment of a central bank. Those rebel forces were
certainly well schooled by someone!
~Unnamed Rothschild
Amazing how Libyan rebels took time out of their daily war duties to establish a CENTRAL
BANK! Imagine the paperwork in getting that done on the battlefield!
Those rebels are a well educated lot!
Laughing out Loud!
Seriously, don't the serfs notice things like this?
~Unnamed Rothschild
The financier of the military makes it clear they are attacking Western countries -
monetarily and economically.
"Remember, the equity and bond markets exist only to remove fiat from circulation!"
~Unnamed Rothschild
Our soldiers joined, were trained, given orders. The best way to honor veterans is to quit
putting it on them. This is the government we have because it is the government we
want. It's the government we allow. This is on all of us . I think it's time for
people who are dissatisfied with the treatment of veterans, with the voter fraud, with the
lies and theft of elected officials, local, state, and federal, tired of the media lying to
us and creating fake events... perhaps it's time to peacefully strike. Perhaps it's time to
say No to vote fraud, to say No to lies and deceit.
Perhaps it's time to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances. That's
a Constitutional Right guaranteed to Citizens of the United States. That requires an active,
constructive peaceful assembly. Everyone has had it up to the eyes with this ******** and
this con-game we're being fed.
I'd rather get stomped to death than live on with this never ending slow coup against We
The People. We hold the power. Just us. We designate that power. It should be here to protect
us. That social contract deserves respect. You may be watching the only chance in your life
that you could do anything about it, given the current President and his attitude. I really
think that. It's not enough to watch the Proud Boys punch an Antifa in the jaw. That doesn't
do it for me. That's theatre.
My girlfriends father is old army security. I'm paying the bill at Dennys and he says, let
me put my military discount on that. So he's behind a guy in an Operation Iraqi Freedom
jacket. He says, hey; I like your jacket. The guy looks at him and he says, nice hat. Army
Security Agency. The military deserves more than a discount at ******* Denny's. They deserve
a country. So do I. So do you. But there's not going to be any country if we don't peacefully
come together to hang every last traitor scumbag lying trasonous seditious bastard by just
saying NO! Arrest these traitors! I don't want my vote raped. I don't want my speach raped.
Or yours! I don't give a **** about illegals or their kids because I take care of my kids
legally and lawfully and didn't put them in that **** expecting a parent of the century
award.
I don't ******* care what you call yourself. But if it's more important than your right to
call yourself whatever you want, you are my enemy and I tell you no.
If it's legal to vote and legal to be off work to vote, to peacefully assemble, it should
be legal to redress government. It's time to show out. It's time to say we want this ********
to stop. We have paid very well for the lifestyles and presidential libraries and foundations
and kept all the traitors in good health. But we reserve the right to cut you off if you
abuse our sacrifice to you and our votes to you. We reserve the right without prejudice to
say NO. That's our right. And until we say NO! our silence equals consent.
I say NO. I say **** THE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS trying to hold on to rape us of all our
Rights. And I say long live Trump for giving our country back to us at inauguration. That's
what's up. Let's peacefully **** these people up. USE IT OR LOSE IT.
And from a movie that says the futility of it all: "We fight because we are here." Imagine
dying in the trenches of WWI or in a shithole like the trenches of Korea.
The least we could do is to learn what really happened and why. I realize I was taught an
endless string of lies about history, especially US History, WWI, WWII, Vietnam war.
Be very careful and informed before joining the military.
Libtards don't really know much about anything, so it seems. Here's the deal:
As long as there are assholes in the world, there will be wars.
I don't have a problem with that. It's the world that I live in. It's been the case
throughout all of human history. A world without wars is pure ******* fantasy. It will never
happen. It's high time that libtards start accepting the world that they live in.
The problem that we're having , is that we're shooting the wrong assholes instead
of the right ones. But you know what? All of human history shows that problems like that are
always remedied as well. And if you're doing some soul-searching, trying to figure out who
the assholes are, they're probably going to be any group of people, who can't leave other
groups of people the hell alone .
Not surprisingly, the 20th century seems to be characterized by assholes fighting each
other.
Our psychopathic dna as a nation comes mainly from england, one of the most, if not the
most murdering countries in history. england cruelly colonized Asia and Africa, and literally
never stopped murdering the innocents. Now as our ALLY, among the other killing nations, such
as France and Germany, we the USA can kill literally any country or countries for any reason
or no reason.
we as the american people will be blamed for all the monstrous destruction and
innocents deaths. separation of our country and our politicians would be necessary if we are
to have a future. looking dim. why are we still dirty, and killing innocents, why are we
allowing saudi and israel to mass murder innocent women and children ?
no one cares enough
yet. you would think by 2018 we all would have banned war and conflict, we have not. this
makes me sick. I am a vet.
I'm actually thinking of not watching football anymore the war propaganda is constant. I
went to a game and it was like walking into an armed camp. Hundreds of cops and military.
Every five minutes they're marching around and everyone has to "honor" them. It's disgusting.
All the players are told to kiss every soldiers ***. The Army are the terrorists. They all
make me want to puke.
In Australia at the moment the suicide rate is a shocker among those coming back from
Afghanistan, Iraq and places unknown, the solution they are proposing is for priority airport
treatment and more medals and other stuff along the model the US has, which is an insult as it
does nothing to financially support or mentally cure, its a cop out.
Very few wars are even about righting some amazing wrong. They merely tend to be about
treasure i.e. nat gas, oil, rare earth materials, diamonds, water, blah blah blah. And, if
there happens to be some fight, ala WWII, then you can bet your *** on it that all corporate
assholes are funding and benefiting from the war....on both sides of the coin i.e. backing
each side until a peace is called.
I don't have an answer to the human condition or our propensity to be violent and fight
etc., but I sure as **** am not cool with sacking places, and killing kids, over *******
things. We're better than this.
I have 2 kids myself. You can all be on notice that if a bomb were to be dropped on my
house, and if my kids were killed, I would likely devolve and start picking off the low
hanging fruit i.e. the zombies shuffling in and out of said bomb makers companies, and
wasting them 1 person as a time. I'd slowly, if still able, work my way up to the execs.
Hopefully, and along the way, I'd be able to wipe shareholders off of the grid, also.
When you go off to fight for "freedom", and arrive home to find that you have little to no
real freedom and essentially live in a police state, it's a shocking blow.
This sounds like something I would write. And even the damn CHURCHES honor the veteran
"serving" his country. What a crock of ****. I tell the pastor that he will be judged harshly
when his time comes. And I tell Christians that because they support the rampant murder of
millions that when they die and are standing before Jesus for judgement they will be soaked
in the blood of the innocent and he will ask you why did you support this? Why did you not
speak out against it? Then I look at them and say "good luck because you're gonna need
it".
The world is not ruled by pure evil yet. In Brazil A nationalist was elected, in Italy and
much of eastern Europe other nationalists were elected. You think the Chinese protected the
Italian and Brazilian right to free and fair elections? You think Russia is the arsenal of
freedom? You think the EU upheld the votes of the people, allowing Britain to vote on leaving
the EU and Italy and eastern Europe? You think the unelected rulers of the EU respected other
peoples right to vote? Look out onto the world, and recognize that as of today, the nations
of the world have A group to join if they chose to fight for liberty, capitalism and all the
other virtues, and that group is grounded and guaranteed by the United States of America. In
G-d I trust.
Hopeful thinking for a hopeless reality. Truth is tyrants never fall by their own swords.
It always takes someone else's. The modern problem is a bit more complex when we make the
tyrants that we later topple. The toppling is where the bucks are... just ask any of the the
last 4 Presidents and their respective Congresses.
So war is just an American problem, something we just invented? Do we read much history or is it all PBS specials now. War has ALWAYS been fucked up. Violence has been a major contributor to immigration for
all of history. Like it or not, we live in dangerous times. We can ASSUME that if America shrank it's
military and ended all interventions that world peace would magically appear....but it won't.
We can pray that while we retreat behind of big screen TVs that China will end their
territorial expansion and military programs, but they WON'T.
I'm all for reigning in our interventions, but let's not pretend that America is to blame
for human evil and aggressive behaviors....just because we are good at it..
There is an endless stream of history illustrating the absolute brutality and evil that
had persisted since the beginning of time. We should avoid embracing it but we should avoid
thinking we have the power to end it. More arrogance to be used for destructive purposes.
Nah, it is just that USA has made forever war such a profitable and ongoing
mega-business. The degenerate banker and royal families of Europe would only fight every generation or
two. You fight all the time and try to start new ones, before you finish off with the old ones,
and print global toilet paper to pay for it all. Because it is good business. **** laws,
lives and human decency.
And then you have Hollywood make ****-for-brain movies about just wars, war comradery and
heroic sacrifice and spread that **** all over the world.
So yeah, you got all the reasons for being hated for your war business.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make
sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of
evil, stupid, meaningless violence
A bit too close to the Bone for the average American to appreciate. A well thought out & articulated article.
The machine is not the problem. It's like a gun. Guns are just mechanical devices and
can't kill until people aim them and pull the trigger. It's people that kill by forcing the
machine to do their terrible evil bidding.
It's the business and political leaders that build, guide and enable the machine and
facilitate the infrastructure and culture to wage war.
Democrats love War as we saw with LBJ, Bill Clinton (bombing the hell out of and
destroying Yugoslavia), Obama and Hillary Clinton. Democrat McNamara was one of their finest! McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
It's both Republicans and Democrats - George Bush I's Desert Storm, Panama; George Bush II
invading Iraq, Afghanistan; Reagan invading GRENADA!, Nixon in Vietnam, assassinating
Salvador Allende in Chile, bombing Laos and Cambodia; Eisenhower started in Vietnam,
installed a dictator in Guatemala in 1954, installed Batista in Cuba, Kennedy was going to
withdraw from Vietnam and part of the reason he was assassinated; and on and on and on.
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... Which gets you to the astronomical 21 to 50 trillion in missing funds identified by the U of Mich professor and the further work of a woman financier 0T.extrapolated that the total sum missing from the Budget office is over 50T. ..."
"... The MIC is all about sucking the teat dry, and the US taxpayer is rewarded by the biggest uncontrolled defense budget ever, believe to be 1,3 trillion dollars. ..."
I$I$ developed
sophisticated videos and propaganda tools in Britain. It is absurd to claim that a state-less
group somewhere in MENA created these materials and engaged in sophisticated hacking attacks from
some cave in Tora Bora. My guess is the 'sophisticated Jack's of the CIA in 2011 and 2012 and of
the Pentagon in 2012 and 2013, which revealed ALL the personal and banking identity of every
employee, agent, soldier and contractor were Korea-China origin, and China treats I$I$ by mass
detention, force-feeding pork and vodka, and mass chanting Long Live PRC.
"My guess is the 'sophisticated Jack's of the CIA in 2011 and 2012 and of the Pentagon
in 2012 and 2013, which revealed ALL the personal and banking identity of every employee,
agent, soldier and contractor were Korea-China origin."
I think the theft was a false flag, did anyone ever see any of those records? IMO the
purpose of the FF was to then use all of that data to create phony invoices which as the
Pentagon et al are never audited would never be questioned.
Which gets you to the astronomical 21 to 50 trillion in missing funds identified by
the U of Mich professor and the further work of a woman financier 0T.extrapolated that the
total sum missing from the Budget office is over 50T.
The articles below mention that the supporting documentation is now missing from the
Budget office website. The professor had copied all the data before contacting the budge
office and when the budget office didn't return his calls and their website deleted the
information he made the info public.
Posted on Ars Tech in response to the evergrowing militaristic US and demonisation of Russia:
"Beware of the Greeks , when they bring gifts"
I find it rather comical that a representative of the MIC lauds cost saving in the federal
government and their own policies.
The MIC is all about sucking the teat dry, and the US taxpayer is rewarded by the
biggest uncontrolled defense budget ever, believe to be 1,3 trillion dollars.
The US must have some mighty enemies, surely, at this spending. Americans must live in
daily fear; fear of some bogeyman (China, Russia) will invade and pillage; pillage exactly
what?
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's
Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the
same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill
into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."
Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple
years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia
could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that
"There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."
And participants in a
recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a
Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault
for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some
among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario
the realignment implies: a two-front war ."
Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent
years:
China is now Russia's biggest single trade partner.
Since 2015 Russia has been China's top supplier of crude oil, displacing Saudi Arabia.
Early this year Russia ramped up its capacity to pipe crude oil to China, to about 600,000
barrels per day, which is about double the prior capability
Increased coordination at the U.N. Security Council.
Regional coordination in Asia, such as Russia supplying the engines for Chinese-Pakistani
fighter jets, resulting in an increasingly worried India which is seeing Russia move into the
Chinese orbit instead of being an arbiter in Chinese-Pakistani relations
The "bromance" at recent summits between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who meet each
other with increased regularity.
Joint military exercises between the two are now routine.
This year Russia supplied China with its most advanced S-400 air defense system as well
as Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft
Increased willingness on the part of Russia to thwart Washington's argument that China is
a threat to Moscow's aims in the East.
The new "Power of Siberia" natural gas pipeline set to start pumping 38 billion cubic
meters (1.3 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas per year to northern China in December
2019.
Increasingly discovering non-conflicting interests: Europe and China "are two independent
destinations and two independent routes" for gas and oil, Russian Energy Minister Alexander
Novak said in an October interview. "We do not see any need to redirect volumes."
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
"... Union Jackboot: What Your Media and Professors Don't Tell You About British Foreign Policy ..."
"... There seems to be a consensus that we need a strong military because Russia is on the rise. What do you think about that rationale? ..."
"... What about military threats? ..."
"... So we've extended NATO to pretty much the Russian border? But there's a hard border there. Everyone knows we're never going to attack Russia, both for reasons of morality and self-preservation. So maybe this situation is safer than you imply. ..."
"... Brexit White Paper ..."
"... T. J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University's Cognition Institute and the author of several books. ..."
"... Matthew Alford teaches at Bath University in the UK and has also written several books. Their latest is ..."
"... The Rise and Fall of the British Empire ..."
"... Bolshevism and Imperial Sedition ..."
"... Power without Responsibility ..."
"... Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin's Global Plot ..."
"... Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community ..."
"... Vision for 2020 ..."
"... Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future ..."
"... The New Atlanticist ..."
"... The United Kingdom's relations with Russia ..."
Alford: There seems to be a consensus that we need a strong military because Russia is on the rise. What do you think about
that rationale?
Coles: There's no consensus, except among European and American elites. Europe and America are not the world.
There are a lot of issues to consider with regards to Russia. Is it a threat? If so to whom? What kind of threat is Russia? So
let's consider these questions carefully. As far as the British establishment is concerned, Russia is an ideological threat because
it is a major power with a substantial population. It's also self-reliant where oil and gas is concerned, unlike Britain. So there's
lots of potential for Russian political ideology to undermine Britain's status. In fact, there are European Council on Foreign Relations
papers saying that Putin's Russia presents an "ideological alternative" to the EU.
[i] And that's dangerous.
Britain, or more accurately its policymaking elites, have considered Russia a significant enemy for over a century. Under the
Tsar, the so-called Great Game was a battle for strategic resources, trading routes, and so on. The historian Lawrence James calls
this period the first Cold War, which went "hot" with the Crimean War (1853-56).
[ii] Britain had a mixed relationship with
the Tsars because, on the one hand, theirs' were repressive regimes and Britain tended to favour repressive regimes, hence their
brief alliance with Russia's enemy, the Ottomans. On the other hand, Russia was a strategic threat to Britain's imperial interests,
and thus the Crimean War (1853-56).
When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, beginning 1917, the relationship became much less ambiguous – Russians, and especially Bolsheviks,
were clearly the enemy. Their ideology posed a threat internally. So Winston Churchill, who began as a Liberal and became a Conservative,
considered the Labour Party, which was formed in 1900, as basically a front for Bolsheviks.
[iii] That shows the level of paranoia among
elites. The Labour Party, at least at the beginning, was a genuine, working man's political organisation – women couldn't vote then,
remember. So by associating this progressive, grassroots party representing the working classes as an ideological ally or even puppet
of the brutal Bolshevik regime, the Tories had an excuse to undermine the power of organised, working people. So you had the Zinoviev
letter in 1924, which we now know was a literal conspiracy between the secret services and elements of the Tory party to fabricate
a link between Labour and Moscow. And it famously cost Labour the general election, since the right-wing, privately-owned media ran
with the story as though it was real. It's an early example of fake news.
[iv]
That's the ideological threat that Russia has posed, historically. But where there's a threat, there's an opportunity. The British
elites exploited the "threat" then and as they do today by associating organised labour with evil Bolshevism and, in doing so, alienate
the lower classes from their own political interests. Suddenly, we've all got to be scared of Russia, just like in 1917. And let's
not forget that Britain used chemical weapons – M-Devices, which induced vomiting – against the Bolsheviks. Chemical weapons were
"the right medicine for the Bolshevist," in Churchill's words. This was in 1919, as part of the Allied invasion of Russia in support
of the White Army. [v]
So if we're talking about the historical balance of forces and cause and effect, Britain not Russia initiated the use of chemical
weapons against others. But this history is typically inverted to say that Russia poses a threat to the West, hence all the talk
about Novichok, the Skripals, and Dawn Sturgess, the civilian who supposedly came into contact with Novichok and died in hospital
a few days later.
The next question: What sort of threat is Russia? According to the US Army War College, since the collapse of the Soviet
Union and since pro-US, pro-"free market" President Boris Yeltsin resigned in 1999, Russia has pursued so-called economic nationalism.
And the US doesn't like this because markets suddenly get closed and taxes are raised against US corporations.
[vi] That's the real threat. But you can't
tell the public that: that we hate Russia because they aren't doing what we say. If you look through the military documents, you
can find almost nothing about security threats against the US in terms of Russian
expansion, except in the sense that "security" means operational freedom. You can find references to Russia's nuclear weapons,
though, which are described as defensive, designed "to counter US forces and weapons systems."
[vii] Try finding that on the BBC. I should
mention that even "defensive" nukes can be launched accidentally.
The real goal with regards to Russia is maintaining US economic hegemony and the culture of open "free markets" that goes with
it, while at the same time being protectionist in real life. (US protectionism didn't start under Trump, by the way.) Liberal media
like the New York Times run sarcastic articles about Russian state oil and gas being a front for Putin and his cronies.
And yes, that may be true. But what threat is Russia to the US if it has a corrupt government? The threat is closing its markets
to the US. The US is committed to what its military calls Full Spectrum Dominance. So the world needs to be run in a US-led neoliberal
order, in the words of the US military, "to protect US interests and investment."
[viii] But this cannot be done if you have
"economic nationalism," like China had until the "reforms" of the '70s and '80s, and still has today to some extent. Russia and China
aren't military threats. The global population on the whole knows this, even though the domestic US and British media say the opposite.
Alford: What about military threats?
Coles: The best sources you can get are the US military records. Straight from the horse's mouth. The military plans for war and
defence. They have contingencies for when political situations change. So they know what they're talking about. There's a massive
divide between reality, as understood from the military records, and media and political rhetoric. Assessments by the US Army War
College, for instance, said years ago that any moves by NATO to support a Western-backed government in Ukraine would provoke Russia
into annexing Crimea. They don't talk about Russia spontaneously invading Ukraine and annexing it, which is the image we get from
the media. The documents talk about Russia reacting to NATO provocation.
[ix]
If you look at a map, you see Russia surrounded by hostile NATO forces. The media don't discuss this dangerous and provocative
situation, except the occasional mention of, say, US-British-Polish war-gaming on the border with Russia. When they do mention it,
they say it's for "containment," the containment of Russia. But to contain something, the given thing has to be expanding. But the
US military – like the annual threat assessments to Congress – say that Russia's not expanding, except when provoked. So at the moment
as part of its NATO mission, the UK is training Polish and Ukrainian armed forces, has deployed troops in Poland and Estonia, and
is conducting military exercises with them.
[x]
Imagine if Scotland ceded from the UK and the Russians were on our border conducting military exercises, supposedly to deter a
British invasion of Scotland. That's what we're doing in Ukraine. Britain's moves are extremely dangerous. In the 1980s, the UK as
part of NATO conducted the exercise, Operation Able Archer, which envisaged troop build-ups between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries.
Now-declassified records show that the Russians briefly mistook this exercise for a real-world scenario. That could have escalated
into nuclear war. This is very serious. [xi]
But the biggest player is the USA. It's using the threat of force and a global architecture of hi-tech militarism to shape a neoliberal
order. Britain is slavishly following its lead. I doubt that Britain would position forces near Russia were it not for the USA. Successive
US administrations have or are building a missile system in Europe and Turkey. They say it's to deter Iran from firing Scud missiles
at Europe. But it's pointed at Russia. It's a radar system based in Romania and Turkey, with a battery of Patriot missiles based
in Poland. The stationing of missiles there provoked Russia into moving its mobile nuclear weapons up to the border in its Kaliningrad
exclave, as it warned it would do in 2008.
[xii] Try to find any coverage of that in the media, except for a few articles in the print media here or there. If Western media
were interested in survival, there would be regular headlines: "NATO provoking Russia."
But the situation in Ukraine is really the tipping point. Consider the equivalent. Imagine if Russia was conducting military exercises
with Canada or Mexico, and building bases there. How would the US react? It would be considered an extreme threat, a violation of
the UN Charter, which prohibits threats against sovereign states.
Alford: So we've extended NATO to pretty much the Russian border? But there's a hard border there. Everyone knows we're never
going to attack Russia, both for reasons of morality and self-preservation. So maybe this situation is safer than you imply.
Coles: There's no morality involved. States are abstract, amorphous entities comprised of dominant minorities and subjugated majorities
who are conditioned to believe that they are relatively free and prosperous. The elites of those states act both in their self-interests
– career, peer-pressure, kickbacks, and so on – and in the interests of their class, which is of course tied to international relations
because their class thrives on profiting from resource exploitation. So you can't talk about morality in this context. Only individuals
can behave morally. The state is made up of individuals, of course, but they're acting against the interests of the majority. As
we speak, they are acting immorally – or at least amorally – but creating the geopolitical conditions that imperil each
and every one of us.
As for invasion, we're not going to invade Russia. This isn't 1918. Russia has nuclear weapons and can deter an invasion. But
that's not the point. Do we want to de-escalate an already tense geopolitical situation or make it worse to the point where an accident
happens? So while it's not about invading Russia directly, the issue is about attacking what are called Russia's "national interests."
Russia's "national interests" are the same as the elites' of the UK. National interest doesn't mean the interests of the public.
It means the interests of the policymaking establishment and the corporations. For example, the Theresa May government sacrificed
its own credibility to ensure that its Brexit White Paper (2018) appeased both the interests of the food and manufacturing
industries that want a soft Brexit – easy trade with the EU – and the financial services sector which wants a hard Brexit – freedom
from EU regulation. Everyone else be damned. That's the "national interest."
So for its real "national interest," Russia wants to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence because its oil and gas to Europe
pass through Ukraine. About 80% of Russia's export economy is in the oil and gas sector. It's already had serious political tensions
with Ukraine, which on several occasions hasn't paid its energy bills, so Russia has cut supplies. If Europe can bump Ukraine into
its own sphere of influence it has more leverage over Russia. This is practically admitted in Parliamentary discussions by Foreign
Office ministers, and so forth. [xiii]
Again, omitted by the media. Also, remember that plenty of ethnic Russians live in eastern Ukraine. In addition, Russia has a naval
base in Crimea. That's not to excuse its illegal action in annexing Ukraine, it's to highlight the realpolitik missing in
the media's coverage of the situation.
T. J. Coles is a postdoctoral researcher at Plymouth University's Cognition Institute and the author of several books.
Matthew Alford teaches at Bath University in the UK and has also written several books. Their latest is
Union Jackboot(Até Books).
[ii] 'Anglo-Russian relations were severely
strained; what was in effect a cold war lasted from the late 1820s to the beginning of the next century'. The Crimean War seems to
have set a precedent for today. James writes:
[It] was an imperial war, the only one fought by Britain against a European power during the nineteenth century, although some
would have regarded Russia as essentially an Asiatic power. No territory was at stake; the war was undertaken solely to guarantee
British naval supremacy in the Mediterranean and, indirectly, to forestall any threat to India which might have followed Russia
replacing Britain as the dominant power in the Middle East.
Lawrence James (1997) The Rise and Fall of the British Empire London: Abacus, pp. 180-82.
All these strikes and rumours of strikes and threats of strikes and loss and suffering caused by them; all this talk of revolution
and "direct action" have deeply offended most of the British people. There is a growing feeling that a considerable section of
organized Labour is trying to tyrannize over the whole public and to bully them into submission, not by argument, not by recognized
political measures, but by brute force
But if we can do little for Russia [under the Bolsheviks], we can do much for Britain. We do not want any of these experiments
here
Whether it is the Irish murder gang or the Egyptian vengeance society, or the seditious extremists in India, or the arch-traitors
we have at home, they will feel the weight of the British arm.
A settlement of relations between the two countries [UK and Russia] will assist in the revolutionising of the international
and British proletariat, [and] make it possible for us to extend and develop the propaganda and ideas of Leninism in England and
the colonies.
It also says that 'British workmen' have 'inclinations to compromise' and that rapprochement will eventually lead to domestic
'[a]rmed warfare'. It was leaked by the services to the Conservative party and then to the media. Richard Norton-Taylor (1999) 'Zinoviev
letter was dirty trick by MI6' Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/04/uk.politicalnews6
and Louise Jury (1999) 'Official Zinoviev letter was forged' Independenthttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/official-zinoviev-letter-was-forged-1068600.html
. For media coverage at the time, see James Curran and Jean Seaton (1997) Power without Responsibility London: Routledge,
p. 52.
[v] Paul F. Walker (2017) 'A Century
of Chemical Warfare: Building a World Free of Chemical Weapons' Conference: One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment,
Consequences pp. 379-400 and Giles Milton (2013) Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin's Global Plot
London: Hodder, eBook.
[vi] 'The Russian Federation has shown
repeatedly that common values play almost no role in its consideration of its trading partners', meaning the US and EU. 'It often
builds relationships with countries that most openly thwart Western values of free markets and democracy', notably Iran and Venezuela.
'In this regard, the Russian Federation behaves like "Russia Incorporated." It uses its re-nationalized industries to further its
wealth and influence, the latter often at the expense of the EU and the U.S.'. Colonel Richard J. Anderson (2008) 'A History of President
Putin's Campaign to Re-Nationalize Industry and the Implications for Russian Reform and Foreign Policy' Senior Service College, US
Army War College, Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks, p. 52.
[vii] Daniel R. Coats (2017) Statement
for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington,
DC: Office of the Director of
[ix] The document also says: 'a replay
of the West-sponsored coup against pro-Russian elites could result in a split, or indeed multiple splits, of the failed Ukraine,
which would open a door for NATO intervention'.Pavel K. Baev (2011) 'Russia's security relations with the United States: Futures
planned and unplanned' in Stephen J. Blank (ed.) Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future Strategic Studies Institute
Pennsylvania: Carlisle Barracks, p. 170, www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1087.pdf.
[xi] For example, Nate Jones, Thomas
Blanton and Christian F. Ostermann (2016) 'Able Archer 83: The Secret History' Nuclear Proliferation International History Project
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/able-archer-83-the-secret-history
.
[xii] It was reported in the ultra-right,
neo-con press at the time that:
[Russian] President Dmitri Medvedev announced in his first state-of-the-nation address plans to deploy the short-range SS-26
("Iskander") missiles in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad if the U.S. goes ahead with its European Ballistic Missile Defense
System (BMDS). Medvedev told parliament that the deployment would "neutralize" U.S. plans for a missile defense shield based in
Poland and the Czech Republic [now in Romania), which the U.S. claims as vital in defending against missile attacks from 'rogue
states' such as Iran.
Neil Leslie (2008) 'The Kaliningrad Missile Crisis' The New Atlanticist , available at http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-kaliningrad-missile-crisis.
[xiii] For example, a Parliamentary
inquiry into British-Russian relations says of the newly-imposed US-British ally in Ukraine:
President Poroshenko's Government is more openly committed to economic reform and anti-corruption than any previous Ukrainian
Administration. The reform agenda has made considerable progress and has enjoyed some successes including police reform, liberalisation
of the energy market and the launch of an online platform for government procurement
The annexation of Crimea also resulted in a ban on importing products from Crimea, on investing in or providing services linked
to tourism and on exporting certain goods for use in the transport, telecoms and energy sectors.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
"... Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion. ..."
"... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power. ..."
"... The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US. ..."
"... Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election. ..."
"... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence. ..."
"... As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net . ..."
With Jair Bolsonaro's victory in Brazil's presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump's, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.
The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump's election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western "analysts" and "experts" are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.
Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the "free press" – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.
Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:
"The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes."
This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity's id.
Selling plutocracy
There is a kind of truth in Jenkins' argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social
media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not
simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by
their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media
class expected.
Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much
to lose.
But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political
scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have
kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.
Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an
intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.
The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their
unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell
wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction;
the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of
wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts
funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary
austerity; and so on.
A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially
in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like
identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule
dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and
rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.
Fear of the domino effect
Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a
far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They
prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect
their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class
privilege, the real basis of the elite's power.
The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not
control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms
manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that
smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the
US.
Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because
powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the
key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and
without – from the moment of their election.
Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined
to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a
much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.
The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist
governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no
interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of
the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more
violence.
Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to
overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his "reforms". No one will
stop him creaming off Brazil's wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet's Chile,
Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with
neoliberalism.
Immune system
If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media
gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro's political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social
democratic leader of Britain's Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social
media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also
the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years
– since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep
someone like him from power.
The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it
has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.
Within days of Corbyn's election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the
voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it
refused to name, warning that the British army's commanders had agreed they would sabotage a
Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.
We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the
façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies
were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like
Corbyn much earlier.
Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy
the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even
treasonous.
But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success,
the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right's
defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left's
Achille's heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to
erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.
Slash-and-burn politics
Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life,
because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different
way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he
articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over
us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.
The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep
sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you
get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.
It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion
of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself
ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that
the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has
fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser
instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is
impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.
Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their
leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite's enrichment requires their poverty. They
have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our
only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.
Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of
the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media
have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have
taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate
and disillusioned public.
Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper
steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer
society, who prioritises mending what is broken.
The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their
credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him.
Bolsonaro is their monster.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
by Chris Bertram on October 31, 2018 Candice Delmas, A
Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Political obligation has always been a somewhat unsatisfactory topic in political
philosophy, as has, relatedly, civil disobedience. The "standard view" of civil disobedience,
to be found in Rawls, presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious
violations of the basic liberties yet occur and conceives of civil disobedience as a deliberate
act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave
wrong to our fellow citizens. To demonstrate their fidelity to law, civil disobedients are
willing to accept the consequences of their actions and to take their punishment. When Rawls
first wrote about civil disobedience, in 1964, parts of the US were openly and flagrantly
engaged in the violent subordination of their black population, so it was quite a stretch for
him to think of that society as "nearly just". But perhaps its injustice impinged less
obviously on a white professor at an elite university in Massachusetts than it did on poor
blacks in the deep South.
The problems with the standard account hardly stop there. Civil disobedience thus conceived
is awfully narrow. In truth, the range of actions which amount to resistance to the state and
to unjust societies is extremely broad, running from ordinary political opposition, through
civil disobedience to disobedience that is rather uncivil, through sabotage, hacktivism,
leaking, whistle-blowing, carrying out Samaritan assistance in defiance of laws that prohibit
it, striking, occupation, violent resistance, violent revolution, and, ultimately, terrorism.
For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly
just" society, we need a better theory, one which tells us whether Black Lives Matter activists
are justified or whether antifa can punch Richard Spencer. Moreover, we need a theory that
tells us not only what we may do but also what we are obliged to do: when is standing by in the
face of injustice simply not morally permissible.
Step forward Candice Delmas with her superb and challenging book The Duty to Resist:
When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press). Delmas points out the
manifold shortcomings of the standard account and how it is often derived from taking the
particular tactics of the civil rights movement and turning pragmatic choices into moral
principles. Lots of acts of resistance against unjust societies, in order to be effective, far
from being communicative, need to be covert. Non-violence may be an effective strategy, but
sometimes those resisting state injustice have a right to defend themselves. [click
to continue ]
Hidari 10.31.18 at 3:41 pm (no link)
Strangely enough, the link I was looking at immediately before I clicked on the OP, was this:
It would be interesting to see a philosopher's view on whether or not civil disobedience
was necessary, and to what extent, to prevent actions that will lead to the end of our
species.
Ebenezer Scrooge 10.31.18 at 4:52 pm (no link)
Two points:
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher
for nothing but speech acts.
I have no idea who Candice Delmas is, but "Delmas" is a French name. The French have a very
different attitude toward civil disobedience than we do.
Moz of Yarramulla 10.31.18 at 11:23 pm (no link)
civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character,
which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens.
I think that's a pretty narrow view of civil disobedience even if you just count the
actions of the protesters. Often NVDA is aimed at or merely accepts that a violent response
is inevitable. The resistance at Parihaka, for example, was in no doubt that the response
would be military and probably lethal. And Animal Liberation are often classified as
terrorists by the US and UK governments while murderers against abortion are not.
Which is to say that the definition of "nonviolent" is itself an area of conflict, with
some taking the Buddhist extremist position that any harm or even inconvenience to any living
thing makes an action violent, and others saying that anything short of genocide can be
nonviolent (and then there are the "intention is all" clowns). Likewise terrorism, most
obviously of late the Afghani mujahideen when they transitioned from being revolutionaries to
terrorists when the invader changed.
In Australia we have the actual government taking the view that any action taken by a
worker or protester that inconveniences a company is a criminal act and the criminal must
both compensate the company (including consequential damages) as well as facing jail time.
tasmania and
NSW and of course the anti-union
laws . The penalties suggest they're considered crimes of violence, as does the
rhetoric.
Moz of Yarramulla 11.01.18 at 12:13 am (no link)
Jeff@11
one should never legitimize any means toward social change that you would not object to
seeing used by your mortal enemies.
Are you using an unusual definition of "mortal enemy" here? Viz, other than "enemy that
wants to kill you"? Even US law has theoretical prohibitions on expressing that
intention.
It's especially odd since we're right now in the middle of a great deal of bad-faith use
of protest techniques by mortal enemies. "free speech" used to protect Nazi rallies,
"academic freedom" to defend anti-science activists, "non-violent protest" used to describe
violent attacks, "freedom of religion" used to excuse terrorism, the list goes on.
In Australia we have a 'proud boys' leader coming to Australia who has somehow managed to
pass the character test imposed by our government. He's the leader of a gang that requires an
arrest for violence as a condition of membership and regularly says his goal is to incite
others to commit murder. It seems odd that our immigration minister has found those things to
be
not disqualifying while deporting someone for merely
associating with a vaguely similar gang , but we live in weird times.
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius
Streicher for nothing but speech acts.
I do remember that*, but it's not clear to me why you think it's important to remember it
in this context. If somebody who had fatally punched a Nazi speaker were prosecuted for
murder, I doubt that 'he was a Nazi speaker' would be accepted as a defence on the basis of
the Streicher precedent.
*Strictly speaking, I don't remember it as something that 'we' did: I wasn't born at the
time, and it's not clear to me who you mean by 'we'. (Streicher himself probably would have
said that it was the Jews, or possibly the Jews and the Bolsheviks, who were hanging him, but
I don't suppose that would be your view.) However, I'm aware of the events you're referring
to, which is the real point.
Rawls presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations
of the basic liberties yet occur For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where
we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory
People need to stop spreading this misinterpretation about Rawls on civil disobedience, which
I've seen several places in the past few years. Rawls focuses on the case of a nearly just
society not because he thinks it's the only case in which you can engage in civil
disobedience but because he thinks it's the only case in which there are difficulties with
justifying it. He states this very clearly in A Theory of Justice : in cases where the
society is not nearly just, there are no difficulties in justifying civil disobedience or
even sometimes armed resistance. His natural duty account is not put forward as a general
theory of civil disobedience but to argue that civil disobedience can admit of justification
even in the case in which it is hardest to justify.
I'm not a fan of Rawls myself, but I don't know how he could possibly have been more clear
on this, since he makes all these points explicitly.
LFC 11.02.18 at 12:45 am (no link)
J-D @18
The Nuremberg tribunal was set up and staffed by the U.S., Britain, USSR, and France; so
whether Ebenezer's "we" was intended to refer to the four countries collectively or just to
the U.S., it's clear who hanged Streicher et al., and the tone of your comment on this point
is rather odd.
anon 11.02.18 at 4:23 pm (no link)
Resisting by protesting is OK.
However, here in the USA, actual legislation creating laws is done by our elected
representatives.
So if you're an Amaerican and really want Social Change and aren't just posturing or
'virtue signaling' make sure you vote in the upcoming election.
I'm afraid too many will think that their individual vote won't 'matter' or the polls show
it isn't needed or some other excuse to justify not voting. Please do not be that person.
Don Berinati 11.02.18 at 5:06 pm (no link)
Recently re-reading '1968' by Kurlansky and he repeatedly made this point about protests
– that to be effective they had to get on television (major networks, not like our
youtube, I think, so it would be seen by the masses in order to sway them) and to do that the
acts had to be outlandish because they were competing for network time. This increasingly led
to violent acts, which almost always worked in getting on the news, but flew in the face of
King's and others peaceful methods.
So, maybe punching out a Nazi is the way to change people's minds or at least get them to
think about stuff.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. ~William Shakespeare
Notable quotes:
"... Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? ..."
"... One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. ..."
"... "In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs. ..."
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey.
Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic
with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women
acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85
percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed
a letter , along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite
Julian Assange to
stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel
-- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped
cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall
, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.
His Republican rival in the Senate race that will be decided Tuesday is
Bob Hugin , whose reported net worth is at least $84 million. With Hugin as its CEO, the pharmaceutical firm Celgene made $200
million by conspiring to keep generic cancer drugs off the market, according to its critics. Celgene, a model of everything that
is wrong with our for-profit health care system, paid $280 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who accused the firm
of improperly marketing two drugs to treat several forms of cancer without getting Federal Drug Administration approval, thereby
defrauding Medicare. Celgene, over seven years, also doubled the price of
the cancer drug Revlimid to some $20,000
for a supply of 28 pills.
The Senate campaign in New Jersey has seen no discussion of substantive issues. It is dominated by both candidates' nonstop personal
attacks and negative ads, part of the typical burlesque of American politics.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all
you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive
House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department.
Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats.
The securities and finance industry
has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics . Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared
with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given
$174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And
Michael Bloomberg
, weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described
an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of
the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed,
as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and
critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will
still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are
in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his
refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not
to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and
the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic
control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing
on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party
of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump!
This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency
after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast
elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Historians of the now seventeen-year old U.S. war in Afghanistan will take note of this past week
when the newly-appointed American general in charge of US and NATO operations in the country made a
bombshell, historic admission.
He conceded that
the United States cannot win in
Afghanistan
.
Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his
first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank
assessment that that
the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be
achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban
--
the very
terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001.
"This is not going to be won militarily,"
Gen. Miller said.
"This is going to a political solution."
Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the U.S. commander of resolute support, via EPA/NBC
My assessment is the Taliban also realizes they cannot win militarily.
So if you
realize you can't win militarily at some point, fighting is just, people start asking why.
So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the
political piece of this conflict.
He gave the interview from the Resolute Support headquarters building in Kabul. "We are more in
an offensive mindset and don't wait for the Taliban to come and hit [us]," he said. "So that was an
adjustment that we made early on. We needed to because of the amount of casualties that were being
absorbed."
Starting
last summer it was revealed
that
US State Department officials began meeting with
Taliban leaders in Qatar to discuss local and regional ceasefires and an end to the war
. It
was reported at the time that the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not
invited; however, there doesn't appear to have been any significant fruit out of the talks as
the Taliban now controls more territory than ever before in recent years
.
Such controversial and shaky negotiations come as in total the United States has spent well
over $840 billion fighting the Taliban insurgency
while also paying for relief and
reconstruction in a seventeen-year long war that
has become more expensive, in current
dollars, than the Marshall Plan
, which was the reconstruction effort to rebuild Europe
after World War II.
Even the
New
York Times
recently chronicled the
flat out deception of official Pentagon
statements vs. the reality
in terms of the massive spending that has gone into the
now-approaching two decade long "endless war" which began in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Via NYT report
As of September of this year the situation was as bleak as it's ever been after over a
decade-and-a-half of America's longest running war, per
the NYT's numbers
:
But since 2017, the Taliban have held more Afghan territory than at any time since
the American invasion
. In just one week last month, the insurgents killed 200 Afghan
police officers and soldiers, overrunning two major Afghan bases and the city of Ghazni.
The American military
says
the
Afghan government effectively "controls or influences" 56 percent of the country. But that
assessment relies on
statistical sleight of hand
. In many districts,
the
Afghan government controls only the district headquarters and military barracks, while the
Taliban control the rest
.
For this reason Gen. Miller spoke to NBC of
an optimal "political outcome" instead of
"winning"
--
the latter being a term rarely if ever used by Pentagon and officials
and congressional leaders over the past years.
Miller
told NBC
: "I naturally feel compelled to try to set the conditions for a political outcome. So,
pressure from that standpoint, yes. I don't want everyone to think this is forever."
And ending on a bleak note in terms of the "save face" and "cut and run" nature of the U.S.
future engagement in Afghanistan, Gen. Miller concluded,
"This is my last assignment as
a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't think they'll send me back here in another grade. When I leave
this time I'd like to see peace and some level of unity as we go forward."
Interestingly, the top US and NATO commander can now only speak in remotely hopeful terms of
"some level of unity"
--
perhaps just enough to make a swift exit at least.
Tags
War Conflict
Politics
There not going to come out as say, where here because we want
BOMB IRAN a few years down the track and maintain US Military
deployment for Israel's long-term interests. Israel are suspected
of committing 9/11 attacks, if you think about it long term policy
of expansion, getting ride of its surrounding threats it's all
makes sense. scraficing 3000 americans for Israel's longterm
policy's seems to be the pill they were willing to swallow.
US is trying to shift the blame on Russia, as the Talibans went
to Moscow for peace talks.
And with Pakistan aligning with Russia/China and Iran (
Pakistan being the main supply route for the US army in
Afghanistan), the US army is practically f*cked.
Good to know that Trump is not prepared to continue to protect
Deep State opium production at the taxpayers' expense. I hope he's
planning to withdraw US armed forces from all foreign soil.
Based on what? What did he stop? Which wars did he pull out out
of?
Military was a huge contributor to his votes. He's not
going to lift a finger. He would have started by pardoning
Snowden, or closing Gitmo - something Obama lied about when
making campaign promises. Where, here is your chance, Donald.
Do at least one single thing that shows you as anything other
that a MIC puppet. Just one thing! Anything!
Bombing Syria? Yep. Blind eye to Saudi crimes in Yemen? Yep.
Dancing to Zionist demands? Yep.
Trade wars? Oh sure, those things never lead to military
conflict either!
The only reason we were in Afghanistan in the first place was to
protect the heroin trade from acquisition by the Taliban. It's
time to pull out and let the British protect their poppy fields if
they want em that badly.
Notice that Rivera says the Marines just had a visit from
Prince Charles. If you want to know more about why we have
so much heroin in America now and who benefits.. read Dope
Inc.
"... What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like? ..."
"... "You stupid Wap, you just scratched my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." ..."
"... That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned Democrat libtards. ..."
LP: You've recently highlighted that this is a
tricky time for historians and those who want to examine the past, like filmmakers.
Well-intentioned people who want to confront the injustices of history may end up replacing one
set of myths for another. You point out the distortion of history in films like "Selma" which
offer uplifting narratives about black experiences but tend to leave out or alter meaningful
facts, such as the ways in which blacks and whites have worked together. This is ostensibly
done to avoid a "white savior" narrative but you indicate that it may serve to support other
ideas that are also troubling.
AR: Exactly, and in ways that are completely compatible with neoliberalism as a style of
contemporary governance. It boils down to the extent to which the notion that group disparities
have come to exhaust the ways that people think and talk about inequality and injustice in
America now.
It's entirely possible to resolve disparities without challenging the fundamental structures
that reproduce inequalities more broadly. As my friend Walter Benn Michaels and I have been
saying for at least a decade, by the standard of disparity as the norm or the ideal of social
justice, a society in which 1% of the population controls more than 90% of the resources would
be just, so long as the 1% is made up non-whites, non-straight people, women, and so on in
proportions that roughly match their representation in the general population.
It completely rationalizes neoliberalism. You see this in contemporary discussions about
gentrification, for example. What ends up being called for is something like showing respect
for the aboriginal habitus and practices and involving the community in the process. But what
does it mean to involve the community in the process? It means opening up spaces for
contractors, black and Latino in particular, in the gentrified areas who purport to represent
the interests of the populations that are being displaced. But that has no impact on the logic
of displacement. It just expands access to the trough, basically.
I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in the
revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted. The argument is that it's bad because there
are disparities that it doesn't address. In the first place, that's not as true as they think
it might be, but there's also the fact that they can't or won't see how a struggle for
universal health care could be the most effective context for trying to struggle against
structural disparities. It's just mind-boggling.
LP: If politicians continue to focus on issues like race, xenophobia, and homophobia without
delivering practical solutions to the economic problems working people face, from health care
costs to the retirement crisis to student debt, could we end up continuing to move in the
direction of fascism? I don't use the word lightly.
AR: I don't either. And I really agree with you. I was a kid in a basically red household in
the McCarthy era. I have no illusions about what the right is capable of, what the bourgeoisie
is capable of, and what the liberals are capable of. In the heyday of the New Left, when people
were inclined to throw the fascist label around, I couldn't get into it. But for the first time
in my life, I think it's not crazy to talk about it. You have to wonder if Obama, who never
really offered us a thing in the way of a new politics except his race, after having done that
twice, had set the stage for Trump and whatever else might be coming.
Thanks, Yves. For decades now Reed has set the standard for integrating class-based
politics with anti-racism. I only wish Barbara Fields, whom he mentions, could get as much
air time.
Those who argue for identity-based tests of fairness (e.g. all categories of folks are
proportionately represented in the 1%) fail to think through means and ends. They advocate
the ends of such proportionality. They don't get that broad measures to seriously reduce
income and wealth inequality (that is, a class approach) are powerful means to the very end
they wish for. If, e.g., the bottom 50% actually had half (heck, even 30 to 40%) of income
and wealth, the proportionality of different groups in any socioeconomic tier would be much
higher than it is today.
There are other means as well. But the point is that identity-driven folks strip their own
objective of it's most useful tools for it's own accomplishment.
In reading this, my mind was drawn back to an article that was in links recently about a
Tea Party politician that ended up being sent to the slammer. He was outraged to learn that
at the prison that he was at, the blacks and the whites were deliberately set against each
other in order to make it easier for the guards to rule the prison.
It is a bit like this in this article when you see people being unable to get past the
black/white thing and realize that the real struggle is against the elite class that rules
them all. I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole
Trump-supporters-are-racists meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote
the way that they did, then they would find common cause with people that others would write
off as deplorable and therefore unsalvageable.
Howard Zinn, in " A Peoples' History of the United States" makes a similar argument about
the origins of racism in southern colonial America. The plantation owners and slave owners
promoted racism among the working class whites towards blacks to prevent them ( the working
class blacks and whites) from making common cause against the aristocratic economic system
that oppressed both whites and blacks who did not own property.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation owners
from slave revolts.
The entire book is an eye-opening story of class struggle throughout US history.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation
owners from slave revolts.
The militias were the bulk of the military, if the not the military, for large periods of
time for all of the British American Colonies for centuries. The colonists were in fairly
isolated, often backwater, places for much of the time. Between the constant small scale
warfare with the natives and the various threats from the French and Spanish military, there
was a need for some form of local (semi) organized military. It was the British government's
understandable belief that the colonists should pay at least some of the expensive costs of
the soldiers and forts that were put in place to protect them during and after the Seven
Years War that was the starting step to the revolution; the origins of modern American
policing especially in the South has its genesis in the Slave Patrols although there was some
form of police from the start throughout the Colonies form the very beginning even if it was
just a local sheriff. The constant theme of the police's murderous brutality is a legacy of
that. The Second Amendment is a result of both the colonists/revolutionarie's loathing, even
hatred, of a potentially dictatorial standing army of any size and the slave holders'
essential need to control the slaves and to a lesser degree the poor whites.
people gang up (in racial groups – maybe that's just easiest though it seems to have
systematic encouragement) in prison for protection I think. The protection is not purely from
guards. There are riots in which one could get seriously injured (stabbed), one could get
attacked otherwise etc.. Because basic physical safety of one's person is not something they
provide in prison, maybe quite deliberately so.
"I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole Trump-supporters-are-racists
meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote the way that they did, then
they would find common cause with people that others would write off as deplorable and
therefore unsalvageable."
In those for whom poverty caused them to vote for Trump. But some voted for Trump due to
wealth. And whites overall have more wealth than blacks and so overall (not every individual)
are the beneficiaries of unearned wealth and privilege and that too influences their view of
the world (it causes them to side more with the status quo). Blacks are the most economically
liberal group in America. The thing is can one really try simultaneously to understand even
some of say the black experience in America and try hard to understand the Trump voter at the
same time? Because if a minority perceives those who voted for Trump as a personal threat to
them are they wrong? If they perceive Republican economic policies (and many have not changed
under Trump such as cutting government) as a personal threat to them are they wrong? So some
whites find it easier to sympathize with Trump voters, well they would wouldn't they, as the
problems of poor whites more directly relate to problems they can understand. But so
what?
I am glad that Reed mentioned the quasi-religious nature of identity politics, especially
in its liberal form. Michael Lind made a similar observation:
As a lapsed Methodist myself, I think there is also a strong undercurrent of
Protestantism in American identity politics, particularly where questions of how to promote
social justice in a post-racist society are concerned. Brazil and the United States are
both former slave societies, with large black populations that have been frozen out of
wealth and economic opportunity. In the United States, much of the discussion about how to
repair the damage done by slavery and white supremacy involves calls on whites to examine
themselves and confess their moral flaws -- a very Protestant approach, which assumes that
the way to establish a good society is to ensure that everybody has the right moral
attitude. It is my impression that the left in Brazil, lacking the Protestant puritan
tradition, is concerned more with practical programs, like the bolsa familia -- a cash
grant to poor families -- than with attitudinal reforms among the privileged.
Many white liberals are mainline Protestants or former Protestants and I think they bring
their religious sensibilities to their particular brand of liberalism. You can see it in the
way that many liberals claim that we cannot have economic justice until we eliminate racist
attitudes as when Hillary Clinton stated that breaking up the big banks won't end racism. Of
course, if we define racism as a sinful attitude it is almost impossible to know if we have
eliminated it or if we can even eliminate it at all.
Clinton and liberals like her make essentially the same argument that conservatives make
when they say that we cannot have big economic reforms because the problem is really greed.
Once you define the problem as one of sin then you can't really do anything to legislate
against it. Framing political problems as attitudinal is a useful way to protect powerful
interests. How do you regulate attitudes? How do you break up a sinful mind? How can you even
know if a person has racism on the brain but not economic anxiety? Can you even separate the
two? Politicians need to take voters as they are and not insist that they justify themselves
before voting for them.
I thought this reference to the Protestant way of self-justification or absolving oneself
without talking about class in the US is true but was perhaps the weakest point. The
financial elites justify their position and excuse current inequalities and injustices
visiting on the 99% by whatever is the current dominate culturally approved steps in whatever
country. In the US – Protestant heritage; in India – not Protestant heritage; in
Italy – Catholic heritage, etc. Well, of course they do. This isn't surprising in the
least. Each country's elites excuse themselves in a way that prevents change by whatever
excuses are culturally accepted.
I think talking about the Protestant heritage in the US is a culturing interesting artifact
of this time and this place, but runs the danger of creating another "identity" issue in
place of class and financial issues if the wider world's elite and similar self excuse by
non-Protestant cultures aren't included in the example. Think of all the ways the various
religions have been and are used to justify economic inequality. Without the wider scope the
religious/cultural point risks becoming reduced to another "identity" argument; whereas, his
overall argument is that "identity" is a distraction from class and economic inequality
issues. my 2 cents.
Chris Hedges has been warning about the rise of American Fascism for years, and his
warnings are coming to fruition- and still, the general population fails to recognize the
danger. The evils and violence that are the hallmarks of fascist rule are for other people,
not Americans. The terms America and Freedom are so ingrained in the minds of citizens that
the terms are synonymous. Reality is understood and interpreted through this distorted lens.
People want and need to believe this falsehood and resist any messenger trying to enlighten
them to a different interpretation of reality- the true view is just to painful to
contemplate.
The horrors of racism offer a nugget of truth that can misdirect any effort to bring about
systemic change. Like the flow of water finding the path of least resistance, racist
explanations for current social problems creates a channel of thought that is difficult to
alter. This simple single mindedness prevents a more holistic and complicated interpretation
to take hold in the public mind. It is the easy solution for all sides- the tragedy is that
violence, in the end, sorts out the "winners". The world becomes a place where competing
cultures are constantly at each others throats.
Falling in the racism/ identity politics trap offers the elite many avenues to leverage
their power, not the least of which is that when all else fails, extreme violence can be
resorted to. The left/progressives have become powerless because they fail to understand this
use of ultimate force and have not prepared their followers to deal with it. Compromise has
been the strategy for decades and as time has proven, only leads to more exploitation. Life
becomes a personal choice between exploiting others, or being exploited. The whole system
reeks of hypocrisy because the real class divisions are never discussed or understood for
what they are. This seems to be a cyclical process, where the real leaders of revolutionary
change are exterminated or compromised, then the dissatisfaction in the working classes is
left to build until the next crisis point is reached.
WWIII is already under way and the only thing left is to see if the imperialist ideology
will survive or not. True class struggle should lead to world peace- not world domination.
Fascists are those that seek war as a means of violent expansion and extermination to suit
their own ends. Hope for humanity rests in the idea of a multipolar world- the end of
imperialism.
Agressive war is the problem, both on the small social scale and the larger stage between
nations. The main question is if citizens will allow themselves to be swept up into the
deceptions that make war possible, or defend themselves and whatever community they can form
to ensure that mass destruction can be brought under control.
The real crisis point for America will be brought about by the loss of foreign wars- which
seem inevitable. The citizenry will be forced to accept a doubling down on the existing
failures or will show the fortitude to accept failure and defeat and rebuild our country.
Seeking a mythic greatness is not the answer- only a true and sober evaluation will suffice-
it must be a broader accommodation that accepts responsibility for past wrongs but does not
get caught up in narrow, petty solutions that racist recriminations are hallmark. What is
needed is a framework for a truth and reconciliation process- but such a process is only
possible by a free people, not a conquered one. It is only on this foundation that an
American culture can survive.
This will take a new enlightenment that seems questionable, at least in the heart of
American Empire. It entails a reexamination of what freedom means and the will to dedicate
oneself to building something worth defending with ones life. It has nothing to do with
wanting to kill others or making others accept a particular view.
It is finding ones place in the world, and defending it, and cultivating it. It is the
opposite of conquest. It is the resistance to hostility. In a word, Peace.
I don't disagree with many of your assertions and their warrants but I am growing
disturbed by the many uses of the word 'Fascism'. What does the word mean exactly beyond its
pejorative uses? Searching the web I am only confused by the proliferation of meanings. I
believe it's time for some political or sociological analyst to cast off the words 'fascism'
and 'totalitarianism' and further the work that Hannah Arendt started. We need a richer
vocabulary and a deeper analysis of the political, social, philosophical, and human contents
of the concepts of fascism and of totalitarianism. World War II was half-a-century ago. We
have many more examples called fascism and totalitarianism to study and must study to further
refine exactly what kinds of Evil we are discussing and hope to fight. What purpose is served
sparring with the ghosts as new more virulent Evils proliferate.
You have brought up a very important point. The meaning of words and their common usage.
But I have to disagree that "new more virulent Evils" require a new terminology. To my mind,
that plays right into the hand of Evil. The first step in the advancement of evil is the
debasement of language- the spreading of lies and obfuscating true meaning. George Orwell's
doublespeak.
I don't think its a matter of casting off the usage of words, or the creative search to
coin new ones, but to reclaim words. Now the argument can be made that once a word is
debased, it looses its descriptive force- its moral force- and that is what I take as your
concern, however, words are used by people to communicate meaning, and this is where the easy
abandonment of words to their true meaning becomes a danger for the common good. You cannot
let someone hijack your language. A communities strength depends on its common use and
understanding of language.
Where to find that common meaning? Without the perspective of class struggle taken into
account- to orientate the view- this search will be fruitless. Without a true grounding,
words can mean anything. I believe, in America, this is where the citizenry is currently, in
a state of disorientation that has been building for decades. This disorientation is caused
by DoubleSpeak undermining common understanding that is brought about by class consciousness/
solidarity/ community. In a consumerist society, citizens take for granted that they are lied
to constantly- words and images have no real meaning- or multiple meanings playing on the
persons sensibilities at any given moment- all communication becomes fundamentally marketing
and advertising BS.
This sloppiness is then transferred into the political realm of social communication which
then transforms the social dialog into a meaningless exercise because there is really no
communication going on- only posturing and manipulation. Public figures have both private and
public views. They are illegitimate public servants not because they withhold certain
information, but because they hold contradictory positions expressed in each realm. They are
liars and deceivers in the true sense of the word, and don't deserve to be followed or
believed- let alone given any elevated social standing or privilege.
Your oppressor describes himself as your benefactor- or savior- and you believe them, only
to realize later that you have been duped. Repeat the cycle down through the ages.
DoubleSpeak and controlling the interpretation of History are the tools of exercising
power. It allows this cycle to continue.
Breaking this cycle will require an honesty and sense of empathy that directs action.
Fighting evil directly is a loosing game. You more often than not become that which you
fight against. Directly confronting evil requires a person to perform evil deeds.
Perpetuation of War is the perfect example. It must be done indirectly by not performing evil
actions or deeds. Your society takes on a defensive posture, not an aggressive one. Defense
and preservation are the motivating principles.
Speaking the truth, and working toward peace is the only way forward. A new language and
modes of communication can build themselves up around those principles.
Protecting oneself against evil seems to be the human condition. How evil is defined
determines the class structure of any given society.
So much energy is wasted on trying to convince evil people not to act maliciously, which
will never happen. It is what makes them evil- it is who they are. And too much time is
wasted listening to evil people trying to convince others that they are not evil- or their
true intensions are beneficent- which is a lie.
"Sparing with ghosts", is a good way of describing the reclaiming of historical fact. Of
belief in the study of history as a means to improve society and all of humankind thru
reflection and reevaluation. The exact opposite desire of an elite class- hell bent on self
preservation as their key motivating factor in life. If you never spar with ghosts, you have
no reference to evaluate the person standing before you- which can prove deadly- as must be
constantly relearned by generations of people exploited by the strong and powerful.
The breaking point of any society is how much falsehood is tolerated- and in the West
today- that is an awful lot.
"I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in
the revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted "
Check to see how their parents or other relatives made or make their money.
This is quite the challenge. I know a large number of upper middle class young people who
are amenable to the socialist message but don't really get (or don't get at all) what it
means. (I'm convinced they make up a large portion of that percentage that identifies as
socialist or has a positive image of socialism.) But it would be wrong to write them off.
A related point that I make here from time to time: all these UMC kids have been
inculcated with a hyper-competitive world view. We need a systemic re-education program to
break them free.
as a complementary anecdote, i know of economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life.
To them, the academic/ivory tower/abstract idea of equality in class, equality in income
is an idealistic pipe dream versus the dog-eat-dog reality of the world.
Interesting that you mention "economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of [low income?] free-riders,
cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life."
I read a lot of their snarling against alleged low income "moochers" in the local media.
What I find disturbing is their near total blindness to the for-profit businesses,
millionaires and billionaires who raid public treasuries and other resources on a regular
basis.
Just recently, I read a news story about the local baseball franchise that got $135
million dollars (they asked for $180 million) and the local tourism industry complaining
about their reduction in public subsidies because money had to be diverted to homeless
services.
No one seems to ever question why profitable, private businesses are on the dole. The fact
that these private entities complain about reductions in handouts shows how entitled they
feel to feed from the public trough. Moreover, they do so at a time of a locally declared
"homeless emergency".
Yet, it is the middle class precariat that condemn those below them as 'moochers and
cheaters', while ignoring the free-riders, cheaters and grand larceny above them.
There is no class consciousness. The working stiffs admire their owners so the only people
left to blame for their difficult life conditions are the poor below them on the social
hierarchy. Or they blame themselves, which is just as destructive. In the interim, they enjoy
the camaraderie that sporting events provide, so give the owners a pass. Bread and
Circuses.
A capitalist critique is the only way to change this situation, but that would require
learning Marxist arguments and discussing their validity.
There is that, or Charity for the poor, which only aggravates the class conflict that
plagues our society.
The third way is actually building community that functions on a less abusive manner,
which takes effort, time, and will power.
I homed in on your phrase "they deal with 'micro-triggers' of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life" and it landed on fertile [I claim!] ground in my imagination. I
have often argued with my sister about this. She used to handle claims for welfare, and now
found more hospitable areas of civil service employment. I am gratified that her attitudes
seem to have changed over time. Many of the people she worked with in social services shared
the common attitudes of disparagement toward their suppliants -- and enjoyed the positions of
power it offered them.
I think the turning point came when my sister did the math and saw that the direct costs
for placing a homeless person or family into appallingly substandard 'housing' in her area
ran in the area of $90K per year. Someone not one of the "free-riders, cheaters, [or villains
of] petty theft in their everyday life" was clearly benefiting. I am very lazy but I might
try to find out who and advertise their 'excellence' in helping the poor.
A "re-education" program? That usage resurrects some very most unhappy recollections from
the past. Couldn't you coin a more happy phrase? Our young are not entirely without the
ability to learn without what is called a "re-education" program.
The comments in this post are all over the map. I'll focus on the comments regarding
statues commemorating Confederate heroes.
I recall the way the issue of Confederate statues created a schism in the NC
commentarient. I still believe in retaining 'art' in whatever form it takes since there is so
little art in our lives. BUT I also believe that rather than tear down the Confederate
statues of Confederate 'heroes' it were far better to add a plaque comemorating just what
sorts of heroism these 'heroes' performed for this country. That too serves Art.
Tearing the statues down only serves forgetting something which should never be
forgotten.
This was intended as a separate comment to stand alone. I believe Art should not forget
but should remember the horrors of our past lest we not forget.
It occurred to me that centrists demonize the left as unelectable based entirely on tokens
of identity. Long haired hippies. The other. It works because the political debate in America
is structured entirely around identity politics. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal so
of course white people in Mississippi will never vote for the Democrats. Someone like Bernie
Sanders has a message that will appeal to them but he is presented as to the left of even
Pelosi or alternately a traitor to the liberal identity siding with racists and sexists.
Actually, all of these oppressions are rooted in working class oppression. But that is
inconsistent with the framing of ascriptive identity.
This was a great post. Didn't know about Adolph Reed. He gets straight to the point
– we have only 2 options. Either change neoliberal capitalism structurally or modify
its structure to achieve equality. Identity politics is a distraction. There will always be
differences between us and so what? As long as society itself is equitable. As far as the
fear of fascism goes, I think maybe fascism is in the goal of fascism. If it is oppressive
then its bad. If it is in the service of democracy and equality the its good. If our bloated
corporatism could see its clear, using AR's option #2, to adjusting their turbo neoliberal
capitalism, then fine. More power to them. It isn't racism preventing them from doing this
– it is the system. It is structural. Unfortunately we face far greater dangers,
existential dangers, today than in 1940. We not only have an overpopulated planet of human
inequality, but also environmental inequality. Big mess. And neither capitalism nor socialism
has the answer – because the answer is eclectic. We need all hands on deck and every
practical measure we can conjure. And FWIW I'd like to compare our present delusions to all
the others – denial. The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret. The acceptance is visible and powerful. What will the postmortem
statue of neoliberalism look like?
Do you really want 'equality' however you might define it? We are not born equal. Each of
us is different and I believe each of us is therefore very special. [I suppose I echo the
retort of the French regarding the equality of the sexes: "Vive la Difference!".] I believe
we should celebrate our inequalities -- while we maintain vigilance in maintaining the equal
chance to try and succeed or fail. The problem isn't inequality but the extreme inequalities
in life and sustenance our society has built -- here and more abroad. I don't mind being
beaten in a fair race. An unfair race lightens my laurels when I win. But our societies run
an unfair competition and the laurels far too heavily grace the brows of those who win. And
worse still, 'inequality' -- the word I'll use for the completely disproportionate rewards to
the winners to the undeserving in-excellent 'winners' is not a matter solved by a quest for
'equality'. The race for laurels has no meaning when the winners are chosen before the race
and the 'laurels' cost the welfare and sustenance for the losers and their unrelated kin who
never ran in the race. And 'laurels' were once but honors and there is too far little honor
in this world.
Nothing denotes a naive idealistic "progressive" than the demand for near absolute
equality in terms of money and status in their future society.all or nothing i guess.
I have read and appreciated many comments by 'Susan the other'. I would not ever
characterize her comments as those of a naive idealistic "progressive" demanding absolute
equality I should and must apologize if that is how you read my comment. I intended to
suggest equality is not something truly desirable in-itself. But re-reading her comment I
find much greater depth than I commented to --
'Susan the other' notes: "The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret." In answer to her question: "What will the postmortem statue of
neoliberalism look like?" I very much doubt that the post mortem statue of Neoliberalism will
show regret for anything save that all the profits were not accrued before those holding the
reins, the Elite of Neoliberalism, might gracefully die without care for any children they
may have had.
Thanks for this post. I am really surprised these days by black "liberal" media folks who
insist that racism be addressed before inequality/class issues. They are almost vehement in
their discussions about this. Are they protecting neoliberalism because it benefits them
.???
My previous admittedly overlong reply has yet to show. Darn.
But this question is an important one.
Yes, they do very much.
One of the reasons the Civil Rights struggle died was the co-option of the Black elites,
especially of the Civil Rights Movement, by the American elites. After Martin Luther King's
assassination, his Poor People's Campaign slowly died. A quiet quid pro quo was offered.
Ignore all the various social, economic, political and legal wrongs done to all Americans,
and yes blacks in particular, and just focusing on black identity and social "equality" or at
least the illusion of campaigning for it, and in you will be given a guaranteed, albeit
constrained, place at the money trough. Thus the Black Misleadership Class was born.
All the great movements in past hundred plus years have had their inclusivity removed.
Suffragism/Feminism, the Union Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, even the Environmental
Movement all had strong cross cultural, class, and racial membership and concerns. Every
single of these movements had the usually white upper class strip out everyone else and
focusing only on very narrow concerns. Aside from the Civil Rights Movement, black
participation was removed, sometimes forcefully. They all dropped any focus on poor people of
any race.
A lot of money, time, and effort by the powerful went into doing this. Often just by
financially supporting the appropriate leaders which gave them the ability to push aside the
less financially secure ones.
Reading this post in its entirety I feel the author must become more direct in critique.
Old jargon of class or race or a "struggle against structural disparities" should be replaced
by the languages of such assertions as: " the larger objective was to eliminate the threat
that the insurgency had posed to planter-merchant class rule" or "It just expands access to
the trough, basically". Why mince words when there are such horrors as are poised against the
common humanity of all?
Your comment is too brief and too enigmatic. If by Adolf you mean Adolf H. -- he is dead.
New potentially more dangerous creatures roam the Earth these days beware.
I consider currently one of our great intellectuals in that he understands and can use
language to make his case in a layman not necessarily friendly but accessible .
and as a southern born white male I think maybe I should watch Glory I remember a '67 show
and tell when a black classmate had a civil war sword come up in their sugar cane field, and
when I and a friend found a (disinterred yuck) civil war grave just out in the woods in north
florida. People seem to have forgotten that times were chaotic in our country's checkered
past I was in massive race riots and massive anti war protests as a child of the '60s, but
since I was in the single digits at the time no one payed me any mind as a for instance my
dad somehow got the counselors apartment in a dorm at florida state in 68′ and I
remember people in the the dorms throwing eggs at the protesters. It was nuts.
Ferguson's INET paper got me thinking about what triggers racism in us. As a kid, ethnic
pejoratives were usually a reaction to some injury. "You stupid Wap, you just scratched
my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." I tend to agree with the
premise that bailing out Wall Street and letting Main Street lose out offers a powerful
trigger for a racist reaction. People might have been softening on their lifelong covert
racism when they succumbed to Obama's charm. But when you lose your job, then your house, and
wind up earning a third of what you did before the GR, that is the sort of thing that
triggers pejorative/racist reactions. That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy
globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned
Democrat libtards. Then, when a MAGA-hatted Trump echoes those sentiments over a PA
system, the ghost of Goebbels is beaming.
Paul Jay says a significant section of the population supporting far right "populism" is
part of the process of the development of fascism, but the acceptance of gross inequality is
also a necessary condition for this process – From a live recording on October 29th,
2018
What does the question mean: "How is Israel mediating its right-wing nationalistic
ethnocratic political bent with the fact that the Jews massacred in
Pittsburgh were apparently progressive?" One cannot mediate "a bent". I cannot follow a
discussion of a question I do not understand. To mediate means to "intervene between
people (not a bent!) in a dispute in order to bring about an agreement or
reconciliation", according to one good dictionary. I notice that diction is a problem for
many who ask questions, and no one stops to ask them what they mean.
Looks like Iran was "Skripaled". Intelligence agencies are now capable to perform false flag operation in thier
home countries and blame other government with absolute impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe. ..."
"... It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State. ..."
"... The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents. ..."
"... Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested and prosecuted. ..."
"... On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group ..."
"... It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran ..."
"... The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Both are hawks. ..."
"... Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel ..."
"... Iran's foreign minister accuses Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran ..."
"... Times of Israel ..."
"... Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such operations. ..."
"... Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad ..."
"... "Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently. ..."
"... It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?" ..."
Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe.
In September a terror attack killed some 30 people in Iran. Two entities, an Arab separatist movement as well as the Islamic State
terror group ISIS, took responsibility. After an investigation Iran found that it was ISIS which was responsible. It took revenge
against the identified culprits.
Six weeks later Denmark claims, without providing evidence, that Iran tried to assassinate a leader of the Arab separatist movement
over the incident. Iran denies any such attempt. The right wing Danish government uses the claim to urge other European countries
to sanction Iran.
It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over
an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State.
The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination
plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents.
The details:
On September 22 gunmen
killed 29 and wounded
more than 70 participants and onlookers of a veterans day parade in Ahvaz, Iran:
Three of the attackers were gunned down during clashes with the security forces and one other was arrested, news agencies reported.
...
"The terrorists disguised as Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basiji (volunteer) forces opened fire to the authority
and people from behind the stand during the parade," the governor of Khuzestan, Gholam-Reza Shariati, said, according to IRNA.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also referred to the attack as terrorism. Nauert said on Saturday, "We stand
with the Iranian people against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism and express our sympathy to them at this terrible time".
On 22 September 2018, Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility for the 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack in comments to UK-based
Iran International TV. He said that his group Ahvaz National Resistance, a part of Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of
Ahvaz, has "no choice but to resist." On 23 September, a statement made in The Hague, Netherlands, on the ASMLA website, denied
responsibility for the attack, saying that the claim was made by a "group that was expelled from the organization since 2015."
After Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility Iran
accused Saudi Arabia
of involvement in the attack:
IRGC spokesman Ramezan Sharif said the attackers were affiliated with a terrorist group supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran's state-run
Press TV said.
"The individuals who fired at the people and the armed forces during the parade are connected to the al-Ahvaziya group which
is fed by Saudi Arabia," Sharif said. Saudi Arabia has yet to respond to the allegations.
Several years ago ASMLA aka Al-Ahvaziya
committed several
terror attacks in Iran. Its leaders live in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Iran immediately reminded
those countries of their duties:
Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassadors of the Netherlands and Denmark, along with a senior British diplomat on Saturday
to issue a strong protest the attack, Iran's state-run media reports.
Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about
the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested
and prosecuted.
According to IRNA, Ghasemi said "it is unacceptable" that members of a terrorist group be allowed in those countries and not
be included on the European Union's terror list only because they have not committed crimes on European soil.
A few days later though, Iran concluded that the attack was not committed by the Ahvaz movement, but by the Islamic State. On
October 1 it responded with a missile salvo
that hit Islamic State facilities in Syria:
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced they have bombed a site in eastern Syria in retaliation to the terrorist
attack against a military parade in Iranian Ahvaz 10 days ago.
...
The IRGC confirmed that the targeted terrorist group was behind the terror attack that killed over a dozen and injured many
more in the city of Ahvaz.
An additional operation against the planers of the attack
took place on October 15 in Iraq:
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Tuesday they had killed the "mastermind" behind an attack on a military parade in the Iranian
city of Ahvaz last month which left 25 people dead, nearly half of them members of the Guards.
The Guards said in a statement published on state media their forces had killed a man named Abu Zaha and four other militants
in Diyala province in Iraq. One news website run by Iran's state television said Abu Zaha was a member of Islamic State.
That closed the issue for Iran.
On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of
an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group:
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen described the alleged planned assassination by Iran of an exiled separatist leader
in Denmark as "totally unacceptable"
The Iranian ambassador to Copenhagen was summoned to the foreign ministry over the allegations. A Norwegian citizen of Iranian
origin was arrested in Sweden on 21 October in connection with the alleged plan. The man denies the charges. Authorities conducted
a massive manhunt on 28 September which led to road closures, trains and ferries being cancelled, and bridges being shut across
Denmark.
On Tuesday, Danish intelligence chief Finn Borch Andersen confirmed the measures had been taken to prevent the alleged plot.
The Danish intelligence accused the Norwegian citizens of taking pictures of a house where one of the ASMLA leader lives. It provide
no evidence for its claims. Iran rejected the accusations:
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said such "biased reports" and allegations pursued " the enemy's plots and conspiracies"
to harm the developing relations between Iran and Europe , according to Tasnim news agency.
It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to
sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran:
Mr Rasmussen said, after a meeting with his British counterpart Theresa May in Oslo, that he appreciated her support. "In close
collaboration with UK and other countries we will stand up to Iran," he tweeted. Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said Denmark
would discuss further actions with European partners in the coming days.
The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, congratulated
Denmark on arresting "an Iranian regime assassin".
The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current
Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Løkke
Rasmussen. Both are hawks.
Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel:
BREAKING: Israeli Mossad gave Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) the information about the assassination attempt
planned by Iranian intelligence service against the leader of the Iranian opposition organization ASMLA, Israeli official tells
me
Well - if Israeli officials says Iran did something bad that will surely be true. (Not.)
Iran's foreign minister
accuses
Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran :
Denmark's accusations against Iran followed the unveiling of another suspected Iranian plot to target a Paris rally by an opposition
group in June. According to Israeli reports, the Mossad helped thwart that attack as well , which led to the arrest of several
Iranians in Europe, including a diplomat.
The earlier plot
involved two members of the anti-Iranian terror cult MEK in Belgium who were caught with explosives that they allegedly wanted
to use to blow up a MEK conference in Paris:
The allegation that an Iranian operative plotted an attack on French soil is jeopardizing Europe's support for the accord. As
U.S. and Israeli officials ramp up pressure on Europe to sever ties with Tehran, they have cited it as a reason why Mr. Macron
and other leaders should end their support for the deal.
On Tuesday, Denmark announced it had foiled an Iranian operation to kill a dissident, turning up the pressure on Europe to
harden its posture toward Tehran. A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said Iran had no involvement in the case.
The most interesting question about such plots is always "Cui bono?". Who benefits from these incidents?
Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten
its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle
some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such
operations.
Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases
some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad
.
But is it really Israel who set up these incidents? Both serve U.S. interest just as much. It is no secret that the U.S. wants
to prevent European subversion of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
In June 2017 the Trump administration
installed
a new CIA group to plot and launch undercover operations against Iran. It is led by its most ruthless operator:
He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the
hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.
Now the official, Michael D'Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.'s Iran operations, according to current and former
intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the
president took against Iran during his campaign.
Mr. D'Andrea's new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations
under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said.
A year later the same Mike Pompeo, now Secretary of State, created the
Iran Action Group within
the State Department. It is a complementary entity to the CIA group. Little has been published about the action both groups have
taken so far. What has Ayatollah Mike done since he set up shop 18 month ago?
It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad
only in an auxiliary role. The U.S. can hardly admit that it is faking terrorist incidents in Europe while the overrated Mossad loves
to take credit for everything that happens on this world.
Europe has no interest in supporting or escalating Trump's war on Iran. EU countries should demand hard evidence from Denmark
and other accusers of Iran and should not act on the basis of only vague accusations.
Posted by b on November 1, 2018 at 10:30 AM |
Permalink
Comments Iran should sue the puppet state Denmark. End of story
Israel is regarded as a beneficent country with no ulterior motives by western governments and media. Every time, you can count
on like clockwork, no matter how outrageous or self serving the claim.
thanks b.. i agree with your analysis here.. the usa needs to keep its puppet states. on a string... cia has a long history of
these types of actions.. i am surprised at how easily or convenient it is for the puppets to continue as puppets.. and of course
as we approach the nov 5 th financial santion bs from the evil empire that claims equality for all (after usa and israel are cared
for) will be trying to alienate the rest of the world to iran as much as possible.. the timing here is in line with that goal
post.. very predictible, just like our local shill who will claim it is iran as opposed to usa-israel-ksa and etc, that pull this
shit regularly.. the same ugly crew responsible for supporting terrorism as witnessed in syria, yemen and etc further back are
at work here... predictible..
i suspect more bs to come from these same state sponsored liars....
The complete and utter amorality of the West on display yet again, as if we needed any more examples. There is certainly compelling
evidence that a group of "extremists" are endangering all of humanity and the entire planet, the only problem for Western MSM
in reporting on this is that those "extremists" are in fact the ruling elites of the West and their "allies" in Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
"Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like
with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently.
I thought the War on Terror dictated that the whole world was the battlefield. What's the difference between Iran trying to take
down a terrorist in Denmark and the US trying to take one down in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Africa?
It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences.
Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?"
Please note the last listed "coincidence."
Also on Zarif's Twitter is a video segment of his interview with Face The Nation and other important announcements.
This is what he said about the Pittsburg attack:
"Extremism and terrorism know no race or religion, and must be condemned in all cases. The world deserves better than to
have to live with weaponized demagoguery. Thoughts and prayers with victims of terrorist attack on Pittsburgh synagogue and
their loved ones." [My Emphasis]
The nations of the world have had the following choice to make for awhile now, and I'd say the choice can no longer be kicked
down the road:
Either blindly follow the two prevaricating Outlaw Nations--United States and Israel--or stand with Russia, China, and others
in supporting proven truths and upholding the fundamental principles of International Law as expressed via the UN Charter. In
other words, it's past time to review GW Bush's dicta: Either you're with us or against us--abet the lawbreakers or join the posse
to contain them.
The evil empire and their bought minions are infecting the globe. They will never stop until their domination by organised $ brings
surfs everywhere under their control.
These forces do not believe in a "middle class", they believe the wealthiest should rule because it creates a more stable and
predictable society..
A society Charles Dickens wrote about. Wonderful...
One needs a high level of stupid among the western population to sell bull s... by the buckets. But then again, that is US and
allies. As was said: Too stupid to realize they are stupid. In the US the most trusted institution is the military. Proof enough?
about MEK, the terrorist group... our shithead exprime minister steven harper was singing the praises of them the past month....
apparenlty stevie just can't do enough for israel and zionism, and if the canuck media which is essentialy bought and paid for
by the same interests has its way, we will get a similar insane gov't after trudeau light is finished his term... apparently canucks
are one cycle behind the usa in electing its leaders... it will be a trump type israel subservient toad for next pm of cauckistan...
i sure wish the western political players weren't so beholden to neoliberalism. and we had someone even half the leader putin
is.... but, we don't....
East by not responding strongly to West provocations is begging for war.
East by crying for West for cooperation is begging for war.
And since East and West are controlled by the same same cabal - war is inevitable.
Just ask Mr. Kissinger...
The Edomites, who after Rome's extermination of the remnant of the House of Israel at Jerusalem began calling themselves "Jews"
for "controlled opposition" for "the real Anti-Christ" "engine for enslaving mankind" we founded God's America to escape, become
sex perverts, including incesting Sabbatean Frankists - hence the Manchu-baldness, as a consequence of their satanic cult's ritual
sodomy of innocent toddlers while being rabbinically inculcated as "gods chosen by God to rule the world."
Wow. Thank You for this one. After reading this excellent assessment of the present situation, of which we might only know the
most shallow facts, I had to do a search (DDG) about Iran during the time of the first openly Fascist Europe - being described
as having emanated from 3rd-Reich-Germany and Italy.
I was unaware that there was an
Anglo-Soviet
Invasion of Iran , because of the alleged sympathy of the Shah's Iran with Nazi-Germany. The Brits and the Russians were buddies
then and wanted to prevent that Iranian oil is accessible to Nazi-Germany.
All over sudden I am confused that the Brits invaded shoulder to shoulder with Soviet forces Iran - while now, besides delivering
the political ham theater of saber rattling against Russia, supporting terror and instigating sanctions against Iran again.
To make things much worse to comprehend, one is to wonder how many European countries actually did join Nazi Germany without
much ado at the time, based on the fact that the Scandinavians and the Netherlands are now as Fascist as Nazi Germany was during
its short 1000 years of glory. Does anybody else get the impression that this was always this way? That we have been lied to about
everything regarding Fascism? That it was never Fascism that was the problem in Europe - as it appears to do very well there -
but a strong Germany that could have easily governed its territory via effective 'bureaucracy'. All of Europe.
The truth is, that the stench of Fascism today, was already stinking badly in the 20th century, but was never really a problem.
The problem were the Germans. And somehow, the Germans want to continue to have economic ties with Iran. Is this how history repeats
itself - minus the marching Soviet/Russian and British buddy forces?
How many false flag operations have been invoked to explain unpopular events in recent years? The British government was behind
the attempted murder of Skripal. All of the chemical attacks launched against the opposition in Syria were false flag operations
to bring the US into the war (which amounted to nothing burgers anyway). Ray McGovern hypothesized the US used the Vault 7 tools
as a false flag to blame Russia for the DNC hack. Is there any end to false flag speculation?
Who cares if the Iranians deny the charge? That means absolutely nothing. Russia has been lying and denying for years. Additionally,
that Mossad would have provided the information to Denmark and France is completely logical since they have been collecting intelligence
on Iran for years - and have been dealing with Iranian-supported terrorists for decades.
There is no evidence for a false flag operation. Sure it's a possibility (it's always a possibility), but the current evidence
points toward Iranian plans to murder dissidents. The British were right about Skripal. The Dutch were right about MH17. Ray McGovern
was wrong about the CIA hacking the DNC - and the likely result of this investigation is that Iran planned to murder a couple
of dissidents. In lieu of the stupidity exhibited by the Saudis in the Khashoggi murder, it's completely believable.
With all of that said, this is a well thought out attempt to blame the US.
Denmark has become another UK, willing to perform any act and light any fuse against Russia, Iran or any nation that challenges
the hegemony of US, EU and NATO.
Just a subservient vassal, self-degradating. I would compare Denmark to a whore, but that defames those poor souls.
The Danes are like Brits. There, I said it. Nothing worse than the official scumbags of Britain. Pity the good folks of both
countries.
Such a little country desperately trying to hide their true Nazi soul, fabricating events and promulgating Fake News and bogus
Intel.
In service to big Hegemon and little hegemon (Israel).
thanks for the analysis. we all see the pattern, but i guess it's still important to debunk the bullshit--it just never seems
to stop the predetermined goals. it was widely seen that saddam's alleged wmd's didn't exist, but the invasion went on. now the
u.s. wants war with iran. unless russia or china intervenes, what can stop it?
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Nov 1, 2018 3:15:48 PM |
link
@10 - WJ: Difference is, USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick. ;)
I think false flag seems likely, but i also have some doubts about ISIS claiming to be resposible. The Iranian state is also pretty
complex, with many different actors and power centers. So it cant be ruled out that those arab seperatists are resposible and
that some rouge IRGC faction took action against reason of the state as a whole.
Like B said, the EU should demand evidence. Like with Skripal.. Not trust the Danish NATO proxys.
The Dutch were not right about MH17, and neither are the Danes. Almost certainly another anti-Iranian false flag coming --
this on American soil -- w war soon to follow.
'The Russian military traced the Buk missile [9M38 missile], which shot down the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in eastern
Ukraine in 2014, using serial numbers found on missile fragments showcased by an international team of investigators led by the
Netherlands.
'Using the serial number of the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 No. 8-30-113 and the engine of the missile 9D131 with the serial
number 8869032, the Russian military identified this missile as one produced by the Dolgoprudny plant – a Soviet/Russian designer
and mass producer of surface-to-air missiles located in the city of Dolgoprudny, Moscow Oblast.
'The military said that the documentation for the aforementioned missile is still stored at the plant – the missile with the
aforementioned engine and nozzle cluster has the manufacturing serial number of 8868720.
'According to the provided documents, the nozzle cluster was installed in the missile on December 24, 1986. The engine was
installed to the missile on the same day.'
About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless. Otherwise, their policy goal
remains the same: Full Spectrum Dominance by any means necessary. The attack proves yet again the Outlaw US Empire would rather
have destabilization and war in the region than peace, still thinking it remains the World's Boss.
Thanks b, this is Journalism. Poor craigsummers appears to be in shock. It's ok craig.
We're in a really strange place vis a vis "Mossad" in the west. The average person on the street doesn't know whether to idolize
them as superhuman kickass kravmaga-inventing Jason Bourne types, or diabolical creeps like Weinstein's "former Mossad" minions.
Then Sacha Baron Cohen comes around and makes them funny again. Are they scary? Funny? When they appear in official media, it's
usually in a display of mindblowing incompetence or fraud. So you can see how we're confused.
25 - "USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick."
Yes, from a safe place in some place in the U.S. desert, but I wonder how the pilots of the aircraft refueling the KSA bombing
runs to Yemen feel as they finish and do a 180 to return to base. Do they first look to see what their evil has done before heading
back?
More likely it is Iran conveniently concluded that ISIS was responsible, only to get off the hook of EU countries that harbor
terrorists not only anti Iran by anti Russia, so they closed the case not to wreck meek EU attempt to find the way around US sanctions
with trade with Iran. Mossad did not like that and hence used another Russia Gate like provocation to stop EU Iran accommodation,
this time claiming new Iranian terrorism issue Orwelian style blame victims.
karlof1 27 "About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless."
I would agree with that, but I also think he will be willing to take big risks to see his plan through. He may well be like
Putin's cornered rat if his plans are blocked.
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role in accusing Iran of supporting terrorism
and terrorist cells in Europe. Is Denmark's action as much to pressure Sweden and Finland into joining NATO as it is to pressure
the EU into following the US in sanctioning Iran and tearing up the nuclear treaty the EU still adheres to?
This crap by the Danes is not without precedent. They were in on the US attack against the SAA at Deir Ezzor. US, UK, Australia
and Denmark all took part in that attack.
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role
the danes swede and norway,netherlands folks have all been anglo zion borged.
the man leading this charge is a mr samuel son a proud son of a son i am sure he believes what he says i'm sure he has good reason.
wait for future headlines involving norways trillion dollar sovreign wealth fund vanishing just like gadaffi libya or ukraines
gold..
country control via epstein lolita express blackmail.
young boys and girls in ritual cctv horror show as a form of soft power persuasion
I'm not entirely convinced b. The Iranian government has a long history of assassination attempts. And Denmark is not exactly
a war mongering nation so your claims seem a bit shaky. I have never been impressed by analyses of Iran on this blog, as I think
both b and many commentators here totally ignorant of the IRI's crimes against its own citizens. I am very knowledgable when it
comes to Iran and so incidents like these do not surprise me. Of course I should make clear that it is possible to be against
the IRI and western war mongering nations at the same time.
I just can't stand responding to cs21 hasbara garbage; nothing is more annoying than hasbara. To quote Irish Nobel laureate GB
Shaw: never wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig loves it!
Mossad used the MEK and another terrorist group, Jundallah in Iran when they didn't do the dirty job themselves to assassinate
Iranian scientists extra-judicially. Imagine if JFK had done same when Israel was developing its nuclear weapons on the sly?
That's not all, Mossad used these terrorists like they used terrorists in Syria to foment manufactured revolution, specifically,
in Iran, the Green Revolution and as for example what was done in Ukraine, terrorist snipers masquerading as basiji fired into
the crowd of green protestors and killed a young women who the Western media elevated as the face of the Revolution hoping it
would incite anger that would spread exponentially and trigger riots everywhere then civil war like in Syria and Ukraine, but
they were very disappointed. This is playbook Mossad/CIA revolution engineering. All constituted criminal acts against sovereign
nations, except in Iran their plan fizzled.
Mossad also used false flag against Gadaffi in Libya and years earlier against Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader
of Iran that preceded the Shah. The Lavon Affair was a false flag comprised of multiple terrorist attacks that Israel planned
and plotted to execute and blame on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian groups.
Mossad has assassinated what it considered to be terrorists in Europe, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Jordan and on and on with total
impunity. Some of these so-called terrorists were political leaders recent example Arafat, and attempted murder of Meschal, at
least one or more were false flag to trigger civil war, i.e. in Lebanon, and some were what South African Apartheid victims would
consider resistance and freedom fighters.
Israel also attacked the USSLiberty and no doubt had a hand in U.S. military sabotage in Lebanon not to mention murdering American
journalists and activists.
ALL this was done with impunity. So in regards to these foiled terrorist attacks I have no doubt Mossad is up to no good and
Israel has everything to gain in this dirty business they have executed many times before.
The truth lies in who benefits most and who has exhibited the most egregious pattern of behaviour. ISRAEL.
Yes, it certainly smells like a false flag operation.
The CIA, MI6, and Mossad have been doing such operations in Europe since the end of WW2.
No surprise.
IRAN must be a hasbara trigger word. The Zionist web army recruits have arrived. Everything you pulled out of wiki I can double,
triple, quadruple for Isra-hell. For starters, let's talk about Prison facility 1391 - torture, murder, perpetual isolation--dark
ages stuff.
Let's talk about the kidnapping, imprisonment, even torture of children. Perhaps, the worst human rights record against children.
8000 Palestinian children arrested since 2000.
What about the two-tier justice system in Isra-hell?
Shall we discuss the murder of activists, journalists and protestors? What about political prisoners in Isra-hell? What about
administrative detention. Detention without trial.
This is the tip of the iceberg regarding Isra-hell's human rights abuses. Don't get me started.
As we approach the end of the year the big questions facing Europe are:
(1) Which country will win the prize for the most decapitations or slit throats? France or Germany?
With dozens of horrific crimes recently these two competitors are running neck and neck, however with Macron's France averaging
close to one slit throat per day, France is probably going to win this contest
Which leaves us with the big question Germans are asking
(2) Which city will earn the distinction of being 2018's Rape Capital of Germany?
For a long time it seemed that the winner would surely be Berlin, but then Freiburg lurched into the lead a few weeks ago.
And now, with a 15-year-old being gang-raped by Afghan asylum seekers, Munich is hustling to take the title.
This crime and subsequent arrests were kept out of the media for a few weeks
-- coincidentally, until just after the recent local elections in Bavaria
The article below from Bild, also translated into English, contains additional details:
Suspects in Custody: Six Men Allegedly Raped Girl (15)
October 30, 2018
Munich -- The Munich police have arrested five Afghan refugees; according to Bayerischer Rundfunk another alleged perpetrator
is on the run.
The allegation: They reportedly raped a 15-year-old girl.
The Munich public prosecutor confirmed to BILD upon request that there is an investigation involving a sexual assault and several
people have been arrested. The spokesman did not want to comment further.
The case: The girl, who is being psychologically cared for, according to BILD's information, had filed charges against her
"partner" at the end of September. The asylum seeker is said to have verbally threatened her and thereby forced her to have intercourse.
Also, he forced her to have intercourse with several his friends. She was so intimidated that she had to endure being abused
by them all for several days. Each case is to be handled individually. Physical violence had played no role in the incidents.
In addition to the alleged victim's partner, four other refugees (all between 20 and 25 years old) were arrested. The alleged
perpetrators are registered asylum seekers.
In the meantime, warrants have been issued against them on suspicion of rape. They are in custody.
The assaults are said to have occurred at the end of September. The first arrests were made four weeks ago.
Some interrogations remain to be conducted to substantiate the allegations made by the alleged victim, which is one explanation
for why the authorities have not made the case public.
Some of the detainees admitted that they had intercourse with the minor, but said that it had taken place by mutual agreement."
Got that?
According to Bild, "Physical violence played no role in the incidents"
First their is money laundering charges by the US against Denmark's largest bank and now we have Denmark joining the Trump stomp
on Iran project. Could it be the US cut a deal with Denmark to limit their investigations and penalties into this bank and maybe
others, or possible involvement of Danish government officials, and the Dane's jumped at the chance to limit the damage to the
country and it's economy and keep sanction happy Trump from sanctioning them into the poor house.
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world.
I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
42 ben, ditto... cs has never heard of the cia and the past countless years of there horrors... in fact as far as cs is concerned,
they never had any role to play in ghouta 2011 and afterwards either...cs thinks the letters stand for charity international association...usaid
is another benevolent org as far as cs is concerned... if cs was ever to read john perkins 'confessions of an economic hit man'
he would fall out of his chair and have his world turned upside down.... cs really needs to hang over at pat langs site where
some of his love and ignorance of the usa's covert history has a place of acceptance.. it ain't here..
"It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad
only in an auxiliary role."
Very difficult to distinguish the two. Israel declared its campaign to internally destabilise Iran last spring (evidently having
quailed at the risks of the open military attack), the US has been fruitlessly attempting the same for forty years. I suppose
the new Israeli campaign has revived US efforts.
By the way, I was interested by Alastair Crooke's recent remark that Israeli air superiority has been broken by the S300s.
Crooke's views are to take seriously.
Steve, how could you overlook the all time top lap dog: the UK? The UK would be first on most people's list of sycophant enablers
of US terrorism, regime change, and false flag operations. Sometimes Macron tries to run ahead of the pack, but gets slapped back
by Trump, but when all is said and done, the whole NATO crew are self-serving idiots and assholes.
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world.
I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
Posted by: Steve | Nov 2, 2018 4:49:42 AM | 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said!
I totally agree with you after saw the ghastly bully behaviour of Denmark on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference,
who was actively trying to force down the throat of BRICS (EPS. China & India) and developing countries the schemes that US &
Co wanted: 1): to strangle the development chance of third world and 2). to escape the accountability/ownership of the big messy
pollution the Western countries has been emitted into the air and the world for centuries.
Another aggressive Dane who was in full swing to propagate the Empire's interests/schemes is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ex-NATO
Secretary General, who was so belligerent that I sometimes question how the peace-love Denmark can produce such an aggressive
person......
b, is there any way to highlight a 'Craig Summers' post at the top, so we can skip over his/her/their lying rubbish unread. Bad
enough having to wade through the effusions of the sprinkling of religious loonies who seem to be posting now, without wasting
time on this bellingcrap-style hasbarollocks.
"In the beginning of 2017 the Danish Security Service PET had received information about planned political murder of individuals
in Denmark who oppose the Turkish government. The PET acted on the information and put the would be targets in safety. This is
revealed by Swedish Radio Ekot. https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6975341
And is Denmark going to stop doing this:"Denmark's foreign minister has for the first time acknowledged that the government
allowed the sale of surveillance technology to authoritarian Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE." "Mass surveillance
during and after the Arab Spring was used to facilitate the mass incarceration of dissidents, leading to the eventual crushing
of popular movements, the report alleged."
And what are the Syro-Ahwazian pro-FSA dudes up to in Denmark:"One battalion of the rebel Free Syrian Army is called the "Ahwaz
Brigade", although the group says there are no foreign fighters in its ranks.
"We have relations with different factions of the (Syrian) rebels," said Habib Nabgan, the former head of a coalition of Ahwazi
parties whose armed wing carried out last week's pipeline attack.
"They need information, which we give them, and we need some of their expertise, so there is cooperation and that is developing,"
he told Reuters via telephone from Denmark, where he took refuge in 2006." https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-iran-arabs-insight-idUKBRE97E0O620130815
Ahwazians in Syria:"Before the Syrian uprising, the Ahwazi community in Damascus was living in fear, but is now fully behind the
revolutionary struggle.There have been frequent demonstrations in Syria by Ahwazi Arabs flying the opposition flag alongside their
own."
Interesting, the first time i heard of this story my instinct immediately was, why on earth would Iran conduct such risky and
rather pointless operations where the downside would greatly outweigh any benefit if they were caught?? Add to that, no one was
harmed, they got "caught".. and Mossad involved.. seems pretty clear to anyone who actually understands what's going on in the
world.. but there aren't many of us who actually think when we read the news.. thanks again MR B for another insightful piece
on analysis :)
Why? Because you think your Zionist propaganda claptrap is actually convincing and working to bring down surviving bastions
of independent thought? It's laughable how hasbara-scripted you read; delivering superficially well-constructed neoliberal brainwash,
whitewash material. Your disingenuous ilk courting the Left with liberal goodies, in one hand while unleashing double-standard
neoconservative righteous destruction with the other is the main reason we now suffer Trump's fascist right-wing version of same.
People protest vote neoliberalism and end up in the arms of the hard right-wing version. It's a no choice choice; an affront to
real democracy. You play the desperation of the Left against the Right and then deliver it into the same neoconstruct. You're
two sides of the same cult and neither can stand independent thought. After I read your Zionist-contrived claptrap, I feel like
my mind has been abused and my time wasted. Once you're wise to the trap, you never go back to falling for whichever charismatic
puppet is going to save us from the other side.
The goal becomes helping others break free of the vicious, cyclical no-choice duopoly to viably challenge and destroy it for
good! You pretend at righeousness, but you're on the side of status quo darkness.
Uh, just one more point, I still believe in GW Shaw's wisdom that you shouldn't wrestle with ignorance, ie pigs, but I just intended
@56 as a Reader Beware CS for anyone who's out there only reading.
Perhaps of more importance was Crooke's remark on US debt. He said in August the cost of servicing the debt, for the first
time, exceeded tax revenue. On top of that, the US must sell over a trillion of new debt each year for the next three years.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2, 2018 11:31:43 AM | 58
Yes I too thought that was interesting. But Israel's problem is more fatal, in a permanent sense. Air superiority once lost
won't be recovered, but the US could, if it wanted to, live more within its means.
As usual, some former official has to include : Israeli intelligence tipped off the CIA that Iran had likely identified
some of its assets, said the same former official.
"Bolton, speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington, said he expects U.S. defense
spending "to flatten out" in the near term. He said he didn't anticipate major cuts to entitlements such as Medicare and Social
Security.
""It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society,"
Bolton said. "And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.""
Of course, he wants to cut support for citizens instead of support for the Deep State and its massively corrupt MIC. The massive
cut in revenues caused by Trump's giveaways to corporations and the 1% were designed to exacerbate the problem and create an artificial
crisis in discretionary spending. Most from all sides of the political spectrum can see this for what it is and are already pushing
back, which will be the fundamental reason Trump won't get a 2nd term--his policies are proving to be a fiscal nightmare.
The evidence provided by the author that the CIA was the primary driving agent in these incidents is not compelling. In fact,
the US government under Obama supported the JCPOA against the wishes of the Netanyahu government. Thus the statement that "US
interests" are necessarily defined by sanctions against Iran seems to me to be unfounded. Had the author replaced "US interests"
with "Trump administration policies", which are clearly much more aligned with the interests of the Likud and Netanyahu the statement
might be more supportable.
"Do you remember the Green revolution of 2009 that went pfttttt?"
Very interesting article, but the Green Revolution didn't go pfft because of that. 2009 failed because the middle class aren't
very good at revolutions. They aren't the majority, and they didn't have popular support.
Hitler and Napoleon learned that it is impossible to conquer Russia size of continent of
militarily impossible weather with now a network of underground fortifications, tunnels that
cannot be nuked.
There is no conquering Russia with measly million soldiers west could at best deploy for
their sure deaths. Hence no western strategist plan for that and so the idea of Russia
responding to conventional attack with nuke was a propaganda aim to end the conversation
about that absurd, no sides really considers, but is used to spread fear.
US may attack Russia with nukes but no strategic goal would be achieved by that while
retaliation would have been devastating.
Even conventional attack on Russia is absurd. Poland 50k 5k offensive capability, All
Baltic states 10k, Slovakia 5k, Hungary 9k facing what?
Russian allies: Donbas rebels 40k war hardened rebel soldiers would be hard to beat;
Belarus 250k highly trained soldiers, fully integrated Air, Space, Ground and electronic
warfare with all newest Russian toys, while entire army of 2 millions. Russia 3-5 million
military can call at least 10 millions will maintain air and space superiority over their
territory , digged in while invaders are exposed.
There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US
political and economic dictates. Also there is no conquering China as well. Not possible.
The only nuke war can occur when global elite will be losing grip on power and going down
in flames in socialist revolution and only to take entire humanity with them to hell.
If faced with an existential conventional attack, Russian doctrine calls for nuclear
response. It would be silly to think they'd limit it to low yield missiles in staging areas
in E Europe. They WILL hit continental US and the Pentagon whizkids know this.
The US is using every tool to destabilize them for a change of government, and all the
provocations to now are not on a scale of all out war. It does serve to build a compelling
narrative that allows no discussion when laws are finally passed limiting freedom of
information and association.
I see it as the real target being all the natural resources and cheap but skilled labor in
the former USSR (on top of bringing down a competitor), and the US population just stading in
the way because they're not brainwashed enough for the generals taste.
The capitalist economies can't work in autarchy, they need to get more markets, they need to
bring down competitors. or they fall themselves, If you place the control of the population
at the top of their priorities, how do you explain the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq etc ?
How do you explain the mamoth military budget ? is it just in case a whole US city turns
communist and they need to reduce it to ashes ?
First they would have to make sure the rest of the country didn't learn about the one that
went communist. Then instead of reducing it to ashes they would use the association trees
they have built tracking internet and social media to identify and round up the ringleaders.
Rest of the country might never even know what had happened between partial blackouts and
misinformation.
Don't get me wrong, the US would love to replace partial state control of key Russian
industries with Western banking interests and have a free hand with the natural resources.
This is certainly the long term plan. But...in the near term they have to reestablish control
of the narrative.
The military budget is wealth transfer to folks who enjoy and agitate for any war.
Afghanistan was about military contracts, hydrocarbons and opium, the Taliban had to go. Iraq
(and Syria) are a problem for Israel - problem solved. Libya was setting up an alternative
banking system and possessed attractive gold reserves.
Afghanistan was a good occasion for military contracts, but hydrocarbons of the whole region,
(especially the project for a pipeline through the caspian sea that Russia and Iran opposed),
were a bigger reason.
Why israel so important to the US ? because the resources of the whole region, and because
they could threaten the suez canal.
This is the net result of neoliberalism enforced debt slavery for the country. And there is no chances for Ukrainians to
climb back from this debt hole.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's SSS has acknowledged that so far this year, the population has already decreased by 122,000. ..."
"... While the country's low birth rate of approximately 1 birth for 1.5 deaths is a contributing factor to the country's depopulation, emigration is by far the biggest factor. ..."
"... Between 2002 and 2017, an estimated 6.3 million Ukrainians emigrated with no plans to return. ..."
"... Through 2015 and 2017, as a result of the ongoing war in the Donbass region and the plunging value of the Ukrainian hryvnia, migration increased notably: 507,000 people went to Poland; 147,000 to Italy; 122,000 to the Czech Republic; 23,000 to the United States; and 365,000 to Russia or Belarus. ..."
"... The easing of visa-free travel by the European Union (EU) in September 2017 only increased the flow of Ukrainians to countries such as Poland, which is facing its own demographic crisis and in need of workers. In 2018 alone, more than 3 million Ukrainians applied for passports that would allow them to work in Poland. Poland is the only EU country that allows Ukrainians to obtain seasonal work visas with just a passport. Ukrainians have received 81.7% of all work visas issued in Poland this year. ..."
"... Between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian workers now reside in Poland, where they are often forced to take jobs "under the table," are easily exploited by employers, and work in dangerous conditions. Many Ukrainian laborers are recruited to Poland by scam offers of employment, only to then find themselves stranded and forced to work for whatever wage they can get. ..."
"... While Russia is constantly demonized in the Ukrainian and Western press as the eternal enemy of Ukraine, 2 million Ukrainian citizens now live or work in Russia. According to Olga Kirilova, between 2014 and 2017, 312,000 Ukrainians were granted Russian citizenship and Ukrainians make up the vast majority of immigrants to Russia. ..."
"... The migration of Ukrainian workers abroad has reached such a level that remittances from migrants now constitute 3 to 4 percent of the country's GDP. They exceed the amount of foreign investment in Ukraine. Nonetheless, such transfers are not nearly enough to make up for the negative impact of the currency's falling value, inflation, and the disappearance of skilled workers. ..."
"... The Ukrainian ruling class acknowledges that the country is in serious trouble. "One of the main risks of the current scenario is the continuation of the outflow of labor from Ukraine, which will create a further increase in the imbalance between demand and supply in the labor market," noted a report from the country's national bank. ..."
"... The Corrupt, extreme right wing government of Poroshenko, that has driven large proportions of the Ukrainian population into poverty and despair has only been able to take power and remain I office thanks to US imperialism and Angela Merkel's scheming and regime change program. ..."
"... Popular support for the "maidan" in the Ukraine was based on misleading and dishonest claims by pro EU and Pro US opportunistic political operators that such "regime change" would lead to total integration with Europe and open borders.... ..."
"... One of the most horrific consequences of the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the explosion of sex trafficking and very large numbers of Ukrainian women were caught up in this horrific exploitation and continue to be. ..."
"... Oh the benefits of US installed dictatorships. ..."
"... "Welcome to Europe, Ukraine. Here are your rubber gloves and toilet cleaning brush. Oh, you're a young woman? The red light district is three blocks that way". ..."
"... In Baltic states after being "freed from communism and Soviet occupation" the population decline is also very prominent, the same reasons as in Ukraine too. ..."
As fascist far-right nationalist groups regularly parade through the country demanding "Ukraine for Ukrainians," Ukraine faces
a massive depopulation crisis. Millions of people of all ethnicities are leaving the country, fleeing poverty and war.
Since the restoration of capitalism in 1991, the overall population of Ukraine has declined from just over 52 million to approximately
42 million today, a decrease of nearly 20 percent. If the separatist-controlled provinces of the Donbass region and Crimea are excluded,
it is estimated that just 35 million people now live in the area controlled by the government of Petro Porosehnko.
Ukrainian governments, including the current one, have been loath to carry out an official census, as it is widely believed that
the population estimates reported by the country's State Statistics Service (SSS) are inflated by including deceased individuals.
One aim of this is to rig elections. An official country-wide census has not been held since 2001. In late 2015, the Poroshenko government
postponed the 2016 census until 2020.
Despite the lack of reliable official numbers, all independent reports point to a sharp reduction in the population. According
to Ukraine's Institute of Demography at the Academy of Sciences, by 2050 only 32 million people will live in the country. The World
Health Organization has estimated that the population of the country will drop even further, to just 30 million people.
Ukraine's SSS has acknowledged that so far this year, the population has already decreased by 122,000.
Such data are a testament to the monumental failure of capitalism to provide a standard of living that matches, much less exceeds,
that which existed during the Soviet period over 25 years ago.
While the country's low birth rate of approximately 1 birth for 1.5 deaths is a contributing factor to the country's depopulation,
emigration is by far the biggest factor.
Between 2002 and 2017, an estimated 6.3 million Ukrainians emigrated with no plans to return.
Facing poor employment prospects, deteriorating social and medical services, marauding far-right gangs, and the ever-present
prospect of a full-scale war with Russia, Ukrainian workers are fleeing the country in great numbers, either permanently or as temporary
labor migrants.
According to a report from the Center for Economic Strategy (CES), almost 4 million people, or up to 16% of the working-age population,
are labor migrants. Despite having Ukrainian citizenship and still technically living in Ukraine, they actually reside and work elsewhere.
Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has put the number of Ukrainian migrant workers even higher, at 5 million.
Through 2015 and 2017, as a result of the ongoing war in the Donbass region and the plunging value of the Ukrainian hryvnia, migration
increased notably: 507,000 people went to Poland; 147,000 to Italy; 122,000 to the Czech Republic; 23,000 to the United States; and
365,000 to Russia or Belarus.
The easing of visa-free travel by the European Union (EU) in September 2017 only increased the flow of Ukrainians to countries
such as Poland, which is facing its own demographic crisis and in need of workers. In 2018 alone, more than 3 million Ukrainians
applied for passports that would allow them to work in Poland. Poland is the only EU country that allows Ukrainians to obtain seasonal
work visas with just a passport. Ukrainians have received 81.7% of all work visas issued in Poland this year.
Between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian workers now reside in Poland, where they are often forced to take jobs "under the table," are
easily exploited by employers, and work in dangerous conditions. Many Ukrainian laborers are recruited to Poland by scam offers of
employment, only to then find themselves stranded and forced to work for whatever wage they can get.
While migrant workers in Poland are constantly subjected to anti-immigrant rhetoric from the right-wing PiS government in Warsaw,
the Polish state classifies Ukrainian laborers as "refugees" in order to comply with EU quotas and reject refugees from Syria and
elsewhere.
According to polls of Ukrainian migrants in Poland, over half are planning to move to Germany if the labor market there is ever
open to them.
While Russia is constantly demonized in the Ukrainian and Western press as the eternal enemy of Ukraine, 2 million Ukrainian
citizens now live or work in Russia. According to Olga Kirilova, between 2014 and 2017, 312,000 Ukrainians were granted Russian citizenship
and Ukrainians make up the vast majority of immigrants to Russia.
The dearth of a working-age population in Ukraine is putting further strain on an already struggling pension system. According
to Ukraine's SSS, as a result of widespread labor migration, only 17.8 million out of 42 million Ukrainians are economically active
and paying into the pension system.
The migration of Ukrainian workers abroad has reached such a level that remittances from migrants now constitute 3 to 4 percent
of the country's GDP. They exceed the amount of foreign investment in Ukraine. Nonetheless, such transfers are not nearly enough
to make up for the negative impact of the currency's falling value, inflation, and the disappearance of skilled workers.
The Ukrainian ruling class acknowledges that the country is in serious trouble. "One of the main risks of the current scenario
is the continuation of the outflow of labor from Ukraine, which will create a further increase in the imbalance between demand and
supply in the labor market," noted a report from the country's national bank.
However, the government can do nothing to slow the mass emigration, as it is thoroughly under the control of international finance
capital and committed to implementing the austerity programs demanded by Western states and banks.
Despite assurances from the Poroshenko regime that the economy will improve, the emigration and emptying of the country shows
no signs of slowing.
The Corrupt, extreme right wing government of Poroshenko, that has driven large proportions of the Ukrainian population into
poverty and despair has only been able to take power and remain I office thanks to US imperialism and Angela Merkel's scheming
and regime change program.
Without the working class intervening the only ones remaining in Ukraine will be those unable to leave and those that have
their noses in the trough.
Another excellent report of decaying of artificial entity of Ukraine (and capitalism specializes in collapsing societies) that
never even existed before 1992 in European history and was resurrected ( from brief self declared by Bandera racist state status
in 1941) and funded by Germany, Canada and US only to nurture their Fascist and actual Nazi traditions starting from Doncov to
Bandera terror of hundreds of thousands dead 1941-1948 of OUN-B, UPA and Ukrainian SS, all against Russia, as Ukrainian "Country"
was and is used as a Trojan horse to push Putin to submit to the west even more than he does now.
Pain and suffering of Ukrainian people is enormous as only 5% of population of Ukrainian Nazi thugs terrorist nation like like
Hitler street thugs in 1932-1934. It is tragedy that capitalism instigated, exasperated and augmented and should be a lesson for
the left what nationalism does, divides working class that was rendered powerless in Ukraine as Ukrainian industry tied to Russia
collapsed and forces massive migration and de-cohesion of communities, divisions of working class and eradication of any real
leftist leadership via murder, intimidation and exile.
Just a note. All that anti Russia hoopla after 2014 and ensuing NATO belligerence and warmongering and sanctions all were focused
on so called annexation of Crimea to Russia which was nothing but reunification of land under control of Russia since 1754.
I was shocked watching an episode of Columbo, crime series in 1970s when one of characters proudly referred to California joining
in US 1845 as annexation from Mexico, with no shame or condemnation like hinting that it was international aggression of US as
Alta California was never part of US before that.
Well, it was before 1984 and Orwellian newspeak.
Note that Crimea remained autonomous region, not a part of Russia but part of Russian Federation.
Popular support for the "maidan" in the Ukraine was based on misleading and dishonest claims by pro EU and Pro US opportunistic
political operators that such "regime change" would lead to total integration with Europe and open borders.... That would
have allowed (so the misconception went) Ukrainians to flee the country much more openly with less red tape and hassle at the
borders. So, far from being politically or ideologically supportive of Europe or the US or opportunist/nationalist Ukrainian politicians,
the vast majority of Ukrainians only wanted to be allowed to flee, as they experience it, a social shipwreck
One of the most horrific consequences of the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the explosion of sex trafficking and very
large numbers of Ukrainian women were caught up in this horrific exploitation and continue to be.
Victoria Newland and Geoffrey Pyatt, both US officials, were recorded at the time of the right wing and fascist led coup that
overthrew Russian backed Yanakovic, boasting that Washington had poured $5 billion into Ukraine ensuring that their man, an ex
World Bank executive, was elected.
Since then the most rabid anti working class/ anti Russian governments have ruled the roost.
Only those unable to flee this hell- hole and those whose snout is in the trough will soon be left there. Oh the benefits
of US installed dictatorships.
In addition to emigration, Ukraine's decreasing population is a result of a higher infant mortality rate than surrounding countries.
High infant mortality rates always indicate economic and social stress.
According to The World Bank 2017 figures for infant mortality in that region, the rate per 1,000 births in Ukraine is 7.5 compared
to the following rates in surrounding countries:
Poland - 4.0
Romania - 6.6
Russia - 6.5
Belarus - 2.8
Hungary -3.8
Slovak Republic - 4.6
Only poor Moldova is higher at 13.3
Kinda shot themselves in the foot with their "Revolution of Dignity" fascist coup. "Welcome to Europe, Ukraine. Here are your
rubber gloves and toilet cleaning brush. Oh, you're a young woman? The red light district is three blocks that way".
Life in Crimea must be looking pretty good to them now.
The puppet of the USA, Poroshenko , needs to go, and the USA should get the hell out of the Ukraine plus NATO has no business
being on the borders of Russia. This is all the fault of the USA, And, the current immigration problem world wide is because the
USA bombs countries eviscerating them yet the USA refuses to admit refugees which are fleeing from the USA wars.
In Baltic states after being "freed from communism and Soviet occupation" the population decline is also very prominent, the
same reasons as in Ukraine too.
These same right-wing, fascist Ukrainian Banderovitzes love to yell and scream about the bogus "Holodomor" hoax (which has been
debunked by serious scholars such as Pers Anders Rudling, and others, as well as Thottle). They falsely claim that the USSR tried
to "depopulate" Ukrainians, when they are the ones who have depopulated Ukraine.
Speaking of Ukraine, the Russian sanctions against Ukraine have been announced. Predictably,
Poroshenko considers them to be 'an award', or so he says. I don't know why he feels
qualified to speak for those so honoured, since he was not on the list.
Trade between Russia and Ukraine hit a low of $10.26 Billion in 2016, but struggled back
up to $12.9 Billion last year. Mind you, pre-glorious-Maidan it was more than $50 Billion
annually. Never mind; I'm sure Yurrup will pick up the slack, just like it did after the
glorious Maidan. Amazingly, the New York Times is still referring to Poroshenko as a
'chocolate tycoon', in the same sentence in which it calls Viktor Pinchuk an oligarch.
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments
as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history
for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.
Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks
the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.
She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her
last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final
straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative
fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition
partners.
Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the
dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain
for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors,
Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal
in the postwar world.
One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated
her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey
to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed
her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within
the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have
left them for the AfD.
Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question
of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has
"utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society)
and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were
rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.
For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject.
Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to
be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with
those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.
"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later,
she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male
asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at
the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as
"Merkel the Bold."
Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, TheNew York Times
reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed
that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always
the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement
whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end
of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.
The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's
socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of
sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European
criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics),
she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim
world might prove difficult.
Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants
during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.
In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself.
Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came
in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.
In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become
more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.
Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars
.
"... On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S. military establishment wants, Merkel must provide. ..."
"... But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum Lady, Theresa May here). ..."
"... Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea. ..."
"... Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring at a staggering pace in Russia. ..."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped down as the leader of the Christian Democratic
Union, the party she has led for nearly two decades. Yesterday's election in Hesse, normally a
CDU/SPD stronghold was abysmal for them.
She had to do something to quell the revolt brewing against her.
Merkel knew going in what the polls were showing. Unlike American and British polls, it
seems the German ones are mostly accurate with pre-election polls coming close to matching the
final results.
So, knowing what was coming for her and in the spirit of trying to maintain power for as
long as possible Merkel has been moving away from her staunch positions on unlimited
immigration and being in lock-step with the U.S. on Russia.
She's having to walk a tightrope on these two issues as the turmoil in U.S. political
circles is pulling her in, effectively, opposite directions.
The globalist Davos Crowd she works for wants the destruction of European culture and
individual national sovereignty ground into a paste and power consolidated under the rubric of
the European Union.
They also want Russia brought to heel.
On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that
furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever
forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S.
military establishment wants, Merkel must provide.
So, if she rejects that role and the chaos U.S. policy engenders, particularly Syria, she's
undermining the flow of migrants into Europe.
This is why it was so significant that she and French President Emmanuel Macron joined this
weekend's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan in Istanbul.
It ended with an agreement on Syria's future that lies in direct conflict with the U.S.'s
goals of the past seven years.
It was an admission that Assad has prevailed in Syria and the plan to atomize it into yet
another failed state has itself failed. Merkel has traded 'Assad must go' for 'no more
refugees.'
To President Trump's credit he then piggy-backed on that statement announcing that the U.S.
would be pulling out of Syria very soon now. And that tells me that he is still coordinating in
some way with Putin and other world leaders on the direction of his foreign policy in spite of
his opposition.
But the key point from the Istanbul statement was that Syria's rebuilding be prioritized to
reverse the flow of migrants so Syrians can go home. While
Gilbert Doctorow is unconvinced by France's position here , I think Merkel has to be
focused on assisting Putin in achieving his goal of returning Syria to Syrians.
Because, this is both a political necessity for Merkel as well as her trying to burnish her
crumbling political throne to maintain power.
The question is will Germans believe and/or forgive her enough for her to stay in power
through her now stated 'retirement' from politics in 2021?
I don't think so and it's obvious Davos Crowd boy-toy Macron is working overtime to salvage
what he can for them as Merkel continues to face up to the political realities across Europe,
which is that populism is a natural reaction to these insane policies.
Merkel's job of consolidating power under the EU is unfinished. They don't have financial
integration. The Grand Army of the EU is still not a popular idea. The euro-zone is a disaster
waiting to happen and its internal inconsistencies are adding fuel to an already pretty hot
political fire.
On this front, EU integration, she and Macron are on the same page. Because 'domestically'
from an EU perspective, Brexit still has to be dealt with and the showdown with the Italians is
only just beginning.
But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to
fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum
Lady, Theresa May here).
And Macron should stop looking in the mirror long enough to see he's standing on a quicksand
made of blasting powder.
This points to the next major election for Europe, that of the European Parliament in May
where all of Merkel's opposition are focused on wresting control of that body and removing
Jean-Claude Juncker or his hand-picked replacement (Merkel herself?) from power.
The obvious transition for Merkel is from German Chancellor to European Commission
President. She steps down as Chancellor in May after the EPP wins a majority then to take
Juncker's job. I'm sure that's been the plan all along. This way she can continue the work she started
without having to face the political backlash at home.
But, again, how close is Germany to snap elections if there is another migrant attack and
Chemnitz-like demonstrations. You can only go to the 'Nazi' well so many times, even in
Germany.
There comes a point where people will have simply had enough and their anger isn't born of
being intolerant but angry at having been betrayed by political leadership which doesn't speak
for them and imported crime, chaos and violence to their homes.
And the puppet German media will not be able to contain the story. The EU's speech rules
will not contain people who want to speak. The clamp down on hate speech, pioneered by Merkel
herself is a reaction to the growing tide against her.
And guess what? She can't stop it.
The problem is that Commies like Merkel and Soros don't believe in anything. They are
vampires and nihilists as I said over the
weekend suffused with a toxic view of humanity.
Oh sure, they give lip service to being inclusive and nice about it while they have
control over the levers of power, the State apparatus. But, the minute they lose control of
those levers, the sun goes down, the fangs come out and the bloodletting begins.
These people are vampires, sucking the life out of a society for their own ends. They are
evil in a way that proves John Barth's observation that "man can do no wrong." For they never
see themselves as the villain.
No. They see themselves as the savior of a fallen people. Nihilists to their very core
they only believe in power. And, since power is their religion, all activities are justified
in pursuit of their goals.
Their messianic view of themselves is indistinguishable to the Salafist head-chopping
animals people like Hillary empowered to sow chaos and death across the Middle East and North
Africa over the past decade.
Add to this Merkel herself who took Hillary's empowerment of these animals and gave them a
home across Europe. At least now Merkel has the good sense to see that this has cost her nearly
everything.
Even if she has little to no shame.
Hillary seems to think she can run for president again and win with the same schtick she
failed with twice before. Frankly, I welcome it like I welcome the sun in the morning, safe in
the knowledge that all is right with the world and she will go down in humiliating defeat yet
again.
Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing
for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European
electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea.
Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There
will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring
at a staggering pace in Russia.
<
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.>
As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists
have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against
criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would
include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were
coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)
Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point
because he was taken alive, but who knows.
What is often missing in comments is the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist
"Jews", Zionists with Jew and Jews with Semites!
Zionism is an extremely radical anti-Jewish ideology that is based on a fantasy of a
racial/cultural pure society, as was Nazism and the Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states (excluding Oman). This is not to say that there are not other societies that are
racist, such as the US, Japan and India to mention just a few.
Most believers in Zionism are Radical conservative Christians with some 40 million in the
US alone. A vast majority of US Christians support Zionism via their voting for Politicians
that support Zionism and Zionist "Jews".
Jews are just those that practice one of the variations of the Jewish religion much like
there are various Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox sects. As long as a religion practices an
inner form of the religion (e.g. some Sufi Islamic sects) that provides a moral basis for
interactions with other in a society there is little harm in religion.
Jews are considered a part of the broad category of Semitic people the denotes a family of
languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as
Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semitic
"Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi
specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians/Syriacs, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans,
and Mhallami, all have a common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to
the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one
another, indicating the different histories of these peoples."
Furthermore, Jews are generally less Semitic than their current neighbors as: "A DNA study
of "six Middle Eastern populations (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews from Israel;
Muslim Kurds; Muslim Arabs from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area; and Bedouin from
the Negev)" found that Jews were more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile
Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
It is important to point out that Benzion Netanyahu (AKA Ben Nitay) may not be Semitic
like many of the Jews in the government of Israel. His father was a Zionist Rabbi in Poland
named Benzion Mileikowsky who was also a one-time secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benzion-Netanyahu
Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" are mostly Ashkenazim (only some 40% of these have generic
markers for Semitic Jews) and not only are anti-Semitic against the Palestinian Muslims and
Christians but are also discriminating against the Ultra-Orthodox Semitic Jews. Furthermore,
the Zionist Jews are facing daily protests against their rule from Semitic Jews, Christians
and Muslims who are actually citizens of the state of Israel. Recently these protests have
increased since the Zionist "Jews" that currently control Israel even passed a bill that
officially defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and Hebrew as the
country's official language.
Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" also do not recognize the Syrian citizenship of the Druze
living in the occupied Golan Heights. The refuse to take Israeli citizenship and use a
Israeli laissez-passer to travel outside of Israel with the citizenship box left empty.
Likewise, the Zionist anti-Semites suppress three million, mostly Semites, living in open
air concentration camps and have killed and wounded some 10,000 as collective punishment with
the approval of the West (including Australia). https://joanroelofs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/insecurity-blanket.pdf
@51 Krollchem - "...the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist "Jews", Zionists
with Jew and Jews with Semites!"
Yes indeed.
True it is that Zionists are the Jews' worst enemies, as Alan Hart pointed out in this
talk, titled after his 3-volume book and available on YouTube: Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
We are familiar now with seeing how many of our confusions are actually caused by the
disinformation machine, and the same can be said for the massive conflation that takes place
between the notions of Zionism, Jewishness and Semitism.
Trolls come to western discussions all the time to inflame anti-semitism - why would
Israel send them to do that? Because anti-semitism is the racism that forms the smoke behind
which Zionism can hide.
Zionism essentially uses the Jews as human shields. Like the Wahhabi, Zionism hides behind
innocent civilians. And because of the fog of war put out by Zionist disinformation and
field-level trolling, few critics can take aim at the Zionist actions hiding behind the Jews,
and don't dare shoot for fear of hitting "Semites", so called.
Thanks for the two links! I come to MoA to learn and appreciate your comment and the
additional info.
Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39
">link
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
Trump may have his own views, but he has no own foreign policy. He is a neocon's
marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have come to end. ..."
"... Woodward wrote ..."
"... Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we are already out, and they'll believe him? ..."
"... Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk. ..."
"... The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos. ..."
"... There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to what the supporters claim. ..."
In a routine dating back to 2004, U.S. officials
regularly claim that the latest strategy in Afghanistan is working -- or as General David
Petraeus said in
2012 , the war had "turned a corner." It hadn't and it still hasn't. In fact, evidence
overwhelmingly affirms that the newest "new" strategy will be no more effective than those that
came before it. It is time to stop losing U.S. lives while pretending that victory is just
around the corner. It is time to end the war in Afghanistan.
Last week, one of the most brazen insider attacks of the war took place in Kandahar when one
of the Afghanistan governor's bodyguards turned rogue,
killingthree high-profile
Afghan leaders and
wounding the senior U.S. field commander, Brigadier General Jeffrey Smiley. Miraculously,
the new commander, General Scott Miller, escaped harm. But in 2018,
eight Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the American death toll to
2,351 .
On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush
addressed the nation as combat operations in Afghanistan began. He emphasized that the
American "mission is defined. The objectives are clear. [Our] goal is just." Those objectives,
he explained , were "targeted actions" that were "designed to disrupt the use of
Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the
Taliban regime."
By the summer of 2002, those objectives were fully met as the Taliban organization was
wholly destroyed and al-Qaeda severely degraded. As of 2009, there were reportedly
as few as 100 stragglers scattered impotently throughout Afghanistan. The military mission
should therefore have ended and combat forces redeployed.
Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation
from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald
Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building
abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had
it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have
come to end.
After a December 2015 insider attack, Trump tweeted : "A suicide
bomber has just killed U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When will our leaders get tough and smart.
We are being led to slaughter!" According to Bob Woodward's book Fear , Trump brought
that same passion against the futility of the Afghan war into the White House.
Woodward
wrote that at an August 2017 meeting on Afghanistan, Trump told his generals that the
war had been "a disaster," and chided them for "wanting to add even more troops to something I
don't believe in."
Woodward claims that Trump then told the top brass, "I was against this from the beginning.
He folded his arms. 'I want to get out,' the president said. 'And you're telling me the answer
is to get deeper in.'" Under pressure -- from the likes of Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and Senator Lindsey Graham -- Trump eventually gave in.
Events have since proven that Trump would have done the country a favor by resisting that
pressure and sticking to his instincts to end the war. The violence
keeps up at a record pace, civilian casualties continue to set
all-time highs , and Afghan troops struggle
mightily with battle losses. The president was right in August 2017 and his instincts
remain solid today.
The longer Trump continues to defer to the establishment thinking that produced 17
consecutive years of military failure, the longer that failure will afflict us, the more
casualties we will suffer unnecessarily, and the more money we will pour down the drain.
It is time for Trump to remember that it is futile to try to win the unwinnable and finally
end America's longest war.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lieutenant
Colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments,
two of which were in Afghanistan.
Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of
Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get
him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we
are already out, and they'll believe him?
Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he
going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk.
The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary
Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos.
There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China
Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to
what the supporters claim.
I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his campaign
positions on this and other things .
God; what might have been .
SDS, you are correct. I've often thought that Trump could have forged a majority coalition by
doing things the People really wanted, or at least didn't hate: nominating another Gorsuch,
cutting the size of government, appointing competent people, getting out of the Middle East,
no tariffs, less racism, getting concession from businesses that benefited from the tax cut,
following emoluments rules, etc. etc.
"I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his
campaign positions on this and other things . God; what might have been ."
First, sorry you fell for The Con. I understand. Maybe. Second, the real question is, "What are you going to do about it?". Vote Republican Nov 6? Why would you do that? Hope against all hope? Dementia? Gluttony
for punishment? BTW. HRC is not on the ballot this time, and will never be again.
Unless we intend to invade en mass, and scour the country from one end to the other to defeat
any and all opponents, the mission in Afghanistan will remain what it is. "new wine (of
sorts) in old wineskins.
If we are going to remake a country -- we had better remake it. I am not sure i have ever
said this before but the entire affair
We hear Pakistan is now desperate for IMF aid. That the One belt One Road initiative there by
China has already put the country in the position of having to stand down its creditor,
China. Partly with the help of Japanese finance, Iran and India are out to squeeze Islamabad
out of world trade.
The Pakis are headed into a new dark age, so don't expect the Russians to bark wildly and
chase down this car. With any luck, they and China will revive the Northern Alliance, make a
garrison of Kabul, and eventually Xi and Vladi will have their own escalating civil war over
control over Central Asia.
I'd say January 2019 is a good time to begin a quick US withdrawal, just as long as we
pull out of the IMF and not give another red American cent to the region, save a green zone
around Kabul with economically productive areas.
I would argue that although this would seem like an American loss, it will put our
Progressive yappers to shame. What human values would they stand up and defend now, among the
IndoPak Caravan? Maybe then we'll really focus on our own border and wage the good fight
where it is needed -- the Culture War.
Obama had intended to leave. The military insisted on vict'ry and another Surge. He gave them
their Surge and their time to do it. They failed, made things worse and prevented Obama from
leaving. They're still playing. Trump's just the latest Oval Office 'sucker'.
"... As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. ..."
"... Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses. ..."
As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into
three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners,
plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist
constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion.
And certainly in terms of his voters, in terms of his voter base, that's a small proportion.
What you have, then, is the rich, amongst whom he has a very significant lead. He polls 60-65
percent amongst the rich. And these people are motivated by what is called [inaudible]machismo,
which is anti-Worker's Party sentiment, which is really a sort form of barely-disguised class
loathing which targets the Worker's Party, rails against corruption, but of course turns a
blind eye to corruption amongst more traditional right-wing politicians.
These are the people who, at the end of the day, are quite influential, and have probably
proved decisive for Bolsonaro. But that isn't to say that he doesn't have support amongst the
poor, and this is the real issue. Bolsonaro would not win an election with just the support of
the reactionary middle class and the rich. He needs the support amongst the broad masses, and
he does have that to a significant degree, unfortunately.
What are they motivated by? They're motivated by a sense that politics has failed them, that
their situation is pretty hopeless. The security situation is very grave. And Bolsonaro seems
to be someone who might do something different, might change things. It's a bit of a rolling of
the dice kind of situation. And you know, here the Worker's Party does bear some blame. They've
lost a large section of the working class. A large section of the poor feel like they were
betrayed by the Worker's Party, who didn't stay true to its promises. The Worker's Party
implemented the austerity in its last government under Dilma, which led to a ballooning of
unemployment. And you know, there's a sense that- well, what have you done for us? A lot of
people don't want to return to the path. They want something better, and kind of roll the dice
hoping that maybe Bolsonaro does something, even though all evidence points to the fact that
he'll be a government for the rich, and the very rich, and for the forces of repression.
GREG WILPERT: So finally, in the little time that we have remaining, what is
happening to Brazil's left? Is it supporting the Haddad campaign wholeheartedly?
ALEX HOCHULI: Yes, absolutely. It's pretty much uniform amongst the left. Certainly
in terms of, you know, in terms of individuals, in terms of groups, in terms of movements.
Everyone, from even the kind of far-left Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party who
hate PT have told its members that they should vote for Fernando Haddad who, it should be
noted, is a figure to the right of that of PT, I guess, within the party. He's a much more
centrist figure. So that's kind of notable.
What hasn't happened is a broad front against fascism. That hasn't really materialized,
because the Brazilian center has failed to defend its democratic institutions against the very
obvious threat that Bolsonaro represents. You know, just to highlight one thing, Eduardo
Bolsonaro, who is Jair Bolsonar's son and a congressman, has threatened the Supreme Court,
saying that you could close down the Supreme Court. All you have to do is send one soldier and
one corporal, and they'll shut down the Supreme Court. I mean, this is a pretty brave threat
against Brazilian institutions. And a lot of the center has failed to really manifest itself,
really failed to take a stand. Marina Silva, who was at one point polling quite high about six
months ago, who is a kind of an environmentalist and an evangelical and a centrist, and who is
known for always in her speeches talking about doing things democratically, even she- it took
her until this week to finally endorse Haddad, lending Haddad critical support.
The center right, which should be the, you know, the Brazilian establishment, the ones
upholding the institutions, have broadly failed to endorse Haddad as the democratic candidate.
Which is really, really striking. I mean, just to give you one example, probably the best known
figure for your viewers outside of Brazil who might not know the ins and outs and all the
players involved, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was
exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has
yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years
ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This
is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian
supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro
poses.
GREG WILPERT: Wow. Amazing. We'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for what happens on
Sunday. We'll probably have you back soon. I'm speaking to Alex Hochuli, researcher and
communication consultant based in Sao Paulo. Thanks again, Alex, for having joined us
today.
"... They had to assemble a number of these devices and no one knows if the idea was to scare these political operatives or was a true false flag operation. ..."
"... When yet another 'explosives expert' was introduced to explain the procedure, I burst out laughing. When I looked around at the several disapproving faces in the dining area, I shrugged my shoulders and remarked: "It reminds me of Pro Wrestling." One other older man laughed. The rest were perplexed. ..."
"... I am inclined at this point to think that this is a campaign organized from the left intended to move the needle before the elections. I would look for college students in the NY City area where "bombs" have been hand delivered. Try NYU or Columbia first. ..."
Whoever cooked up the scheme to send fake bombs to Democrat politicians on the eve of the
2018 mid-term election, you have to give them credit for creativity. The so-called "bombs" sent
to the likes of the Clintons, Obama, Soros and Joe Biden are made to appear like real bombs but
lack the detonator and other key components that one would normally find with a real Improvised
Explosive Device. Friends in ATF and the FBI tell me that these "devices" are to explosives
what the little kid dressed as Pocohontas is to real American Indians. Costumed theater.
The audience for this theater is the voting public. The Democrats want you to believe that
Donald Trump has stirred up a culture of hate and that some acolyte of Trump has now embarked
on his own personal jihad. Of course, those pushing this nonsense ignore Madonna's call to blow
up the White House. They ignore Kathy Griffin's decapitation of the President's effigy. They
ignore the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up the Republicans practicing for a softball game.
They ignore the mob attacks on Sarah Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and others in the Trump
Administration. They ignore the multiple Antifa attacks that have shutdown conservative
Republicans. They ignore the cacophony of epithets hurled by former Obama officials, like John
Brennan and Jim Clapper, against Donald Trump.
Nope. It is all Donald Trump's fault. What a crock!!!
PT - No one knows yet who sent the bombs and what their political motive might be. It
might be a amateur bomb maker who had no idea what he/she was doing as a bomb maker.
They had to assemble a number of these devices and no one knows if the idea was to
scare these political operatives or was a true false flag operation.
The idea of demonstrations is to get your point across and to show the intensity
behind it. Now I don't agree with hassling someone in a pubic non political space. But
please spare me the idea that Saint Trump is our President - not when he applauded
Gianforte for body slamming to the ground, Ben Jacobs. I think all democrats said the
shooting at the Congressional baseball practice was totally improper.
There is way too much animosity displayed in our political system. The current
political ads are way out of bounds - on both sides. this is doing nothing but furthering
the partisanship that is slowly eating away at our culture.
Democratic Party and many (not all, of course) of its supporters are a real danger--from
suicidal identity and gender politics to unhinged progressive "brown-shirts" totally
capable to start a fire they will not be able to control.
Sir;
You get complete agreement from here.
Now New York city is moved one step closer to Fortress City status with the deployment of
the National Guard there to 'protect' 'key' locations.
I was in a local fast food place yesterday that had Fox News on the jumbo television
screen mounted on the wall of the eating area. When yet another 'explosives expert'
was introduced to explain the procedure, I burst out laughing. When I looked around at
the several disapproving faces in the dining area, I shrugged my shoulders and remarked:
"It reminds me of Pro Wrestling." One other older man laughed. The rest were
perplexed.
What I am worried about is that this might be a program to set the scene for an actual
attempt on Trump.
One cannot be too cynical today.
I suspect that it is *precisely* because of that long list of "left-wing" provocations
and incitements to violence which started to worry the "influence managers" of the borg
planners. They must have seen lots of feedback indicating that the "left" was perceived
as being violent and anti-democratic, and thus needed to "change the conversation" back
to... Donald Trump is to blame for everything, naturally. And Putin. Russians. You know
the story by now.
I think it will fail badly for several reasons. Firstly, it is simply too slick - all
the "bombs" coming one after the other, and the "targets" seeming like a list of
prominent Trump "enemies". It is totally unlike the kind of campaign a "lone wolf" or
amateur group would do. Secondly, after pushing the insane conspiracy theories like
"Russiagate" for two years, the instinct in the public mind is to see this as yet another
"false flag". Thirdly, I would imagine that such people - who have the very best security
money can buy - were clearly never in danger even if the "bombs" were genuine.
I think Trump and Pence have shown an excellent response - by immediately condemning
these "attacks" they have made the Dummycrats look terrible by comparison. Remember the
ricin packages? The mobs? Calls for assassination? Sure you do. But what you will not
remember is a single example of a Democrat condemning any of it, or suggesting to their
followers to refrain from violent and terrorist-like tactics. Because it never
happened.
Yet, still in the Twilight Zone of CNN/MSNBC/etc, it is still Donald Trump (and his
Russian "handlers", of course!) who is always responsible for violence, incivility,
anti-democratic tendencies, global warming, poverty, low wages, poor Star Wars reviews,
Conor losing to Khabib, Crimea, Syria...
My WAG is that ithe "so-called bombs"came from Alt-Right types and that the intended
message was "The next time, or the time after that, they'll be for real -- you're that
vulnerable." We shall see ... perhaps.
I am inclined at this point to think that this is a campaign organized from the left
intended to move the needle before the elections. I would look for college students in
the NY City area where "bombs" have been hand delivered. Try NYU or Columbia first.
I would say that fascism is nationalist movement with the nationality of host country in its core. While neoliberalism
like Trotskyism is in its core globalization movement.
Modem far right movement in Europe emerged as a reaction neolineralism and with few exceptions (Ukranina, oland, Baltic states)
are suspecialous of both EU and the USA and by extension of neoliberal globalization
Notable quotes:
"... The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F Byrnes, has been a member of the council. ..."
"... n their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy ..."
"... When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. ..."
"... There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé. ..."
"... Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. ..."
"... Before defining the characteristics of fascism, we should look at the neo-conservatives who run the US government on behalf of the elite. ..."
"... The small, but ruthless, group of men, the "money power" described by Lincoln, has stolen democracy from the American people. ..."
Perhaps the best description of how the elite operate comes from the late Senator Barry Goldwater, Presidential candidate of
the Republican Party back in 1964. Senator Goldwater, a close friend of both JFK and Joe McCarthy, was considered a saber
rattling, extreme right wing conservative. Following his death, the Washington Post wrote: "Unlike nearly every other politician
who ever lived, anywhere in the world, Barry Goldwater always said exactly what was on his mind. He spared his listeners
nothing." This eulogy appears to be confirmed in one of Goldwater's books, With no Apologies, [12] in which he presents an
astonishingly frank exposé of the unfettered power and aspirations of the elite:
"The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making with the State Department and other federal
agencies. Every secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F Byrnes, has been a member of the council. Almost
without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. I believe
that the Council on Foreign relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological
anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a
socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - it's all the same to them.
"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945,
three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post
for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable
change in foreign or domestic policy.
There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during
the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy
Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.
"Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe,
Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and
banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
"Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping
and administering the proposed New World Order The Trilateral organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate - its
members selected by Rockefeller, its purpose defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller Examination of the
membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with
great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors In my view, the
Trilateral Commission represents a skilful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -
political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.
"The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power. David Rockefeller and
Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him to win the Democratic nomination
and the Presidency [1977]. To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the
intellectual influence of the academic community - which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations - and
the media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It was
no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the commission in 1973. But they weren't ready to bet all
their chips on Carter. They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open they also brought in
Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other
potential nominees."
Goldwater's testimony is all the more astonishing coming from a man with considerable knowledge of the core of the matrix and
who was no radical of the left. Goldwater was the only Republican Presidential candidate not to be the CFR choice for the
presidential nomination in the last 50 years.
The elite inner-circle members of the Bilderberg club, Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, conspire to
politically, and economically, dominate the entire world under their New World Order, or Globalisation as they now prefer to name
it.
Since the Second World War, Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations has filled key positions in virtually every
administration. Since Eisenhower, every man who has won the nomination for either party (except Goldwater in 1964) has been
directly sponsored by Rockefeller's CFR.
Before defining the characteristics of fascism, we should look at the neo-conservatives who run the US government on behalf of
the elite. In her book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, [13] Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of
Calgary, Canada, names current politicians, political advisers, administration and Supreme Court officials, who were followers of
the teachings of the fascist Leo Strauss.
Leo Strauss (1899- 1973) was a philosopher at the University of Chicago (built by Rockefeller money) where he taught many of
those currently involved in the US administration. Strauss left Nazi Germany in 1934 having been given a Rockefeller Foundation
bursary and is considered to be the "fascist godfather" of today's neo-cons.
According to Jeffery Steinberg in Executive Intelligence review [14]: "A review of Leo Strauss' career reveals why the label 'Straussian'
carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany (he actually left for a better
position abroad, on the warm recommendation of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt), Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most
notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. Recent biographies have
revealed the depth of Heidegger's enthusiasm for Hitler and Nazism.
"The hallmark of Strauss's approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run
by 'philosophers' who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and
deceived a foolish 'populist' mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general
population in clueless servitude."
Professor Shadia Drury [15] provides a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the neocons "Leo Strauss was a great believer
in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent
threat to the United States - the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaeda and the
Iraq regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz [Straussian] and others in the war party are denying that these
were the real reasons for the war.
"The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss's disciples consider it
a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it. The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished
believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be
like throwing pearls before swine A second fundamental of Strauss's ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for
secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He
argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons - to spare the people's feelings and to protect the elite from
possible reprisals. The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to
rule over the inferior, the master over the slave and the wise few over the vulgar many.
"I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close
to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realised in the political life of
a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny."
Shadia Drury is by no means alone in her desperate concern. Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois law
school writes [16]: "I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was
trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protégé, co-author, and literary executor Joseph Cropsey.
Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of
Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process by Chicago's Straussian
cabal.
"Chicago routinely trained me and numerous other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is
precisely why so many neophyte neo-con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago became
the 'brains' behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree
from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his 'lawyers' at the Department of Injustice [sic] are members of the
right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka 'Feddies'), which originated in part at the
University of Chicago.
"According to his own public estimate and boast before the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush Jr. hired about 20
Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its
Bush Jr. Straussian cabal. Only the University of Chicago would have the Orwellian gall to publicly claim that Strauss and
Bloom [a Strauss protégé] cared one whit about democracy let alone comprehend the 'ideals of democracy'.
"Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz or
totalitarians like Ashcroft! The neo-con cabal, currently ruling America and in charge of pursuing the New World Order agenda
is, according to Professors Drury and Boyle, "a tyranny of warmongers and unscrupulous elites from an intellectual and moral
cesspool."
What are the implications of this "New World Order", or "Globalization" as it is now called? Richard K. Moore [17] writes:
"The course of world events, for the first time in history, is now largely controlled by a centralised global regime. This regime
has been consolidating power ever since World War II and is now formalising that power into a collection of centralised
institutions and a new system of international 'order'. Top western political leaders are participants in this global regime, and
the strong Western nation state is rapidly being dismantled and destabilised. The global regime serves elite corporate interests
exclusively. It has no particular regard for human rights, democracy, human welfare, or the health of the environment. The only
god of this regime is the god of wealth accumulation.
"In two centuries the Western world has come full circle from tyranny to tyranny. The tyranny of monarchs was overthrown in
the Enlightenment and semi-democratic republics were established. Two centuries later those republics are being destabilised
and a new tyranny is assuming power - a global tyranny of anonymous corporate elites. This anonymous regime has no qualms
about creating poverty, destroying nations, and engaging in genocide.
"Humanity can do better than this - much better - and there is reason to hope that the time is ripe for humanity to bring
about fundamental changes We can oust the elites from power and reorganise our economies so that they serve the needs of the
people instead of the needs of endless wealth accumulation. This is our Revolutionary Imperative. Not an imperative to violent
revolution, but an imperative to do something even more revolutionary - to set humanity on a sane course using peaceful,
democratic means."
Bottom line, are the neo-cons driving this agenda neo-fascist? Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published research
on fascism [18] in which he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and several Latin American
regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each fascist State:
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans,
symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in
fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the
other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy
over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists;
socialists; terrorists, etc.
Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a
disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.
Rampant sexism - The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist
regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is
represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media
is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in
war time, is very common.
Obsession with National security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Religion and Government are intertwined - Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the
nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when
the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who
put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government,
labor unions are either eliminated, or are severely restricted.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher
education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free
expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce
laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There
is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates
who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from
accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even
outright stolen by government leaders.
Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are
manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassinations of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting
numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries
to manipulate or control elections.
Benito Mussolini - who knew something about fascism - had a more straightforward definition: "Fascism should more properly be
called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Abraham Lincoln stated, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the
safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country
will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and
the republic is destroyed."
The small, but ruthless, group of men, the "money power" described by Lincoln, has stolen democracy from the American
people. An ever-growing number of informed Americans, however, are fighting a brave, but desperate rear-guard action to
retrieve that democracy. Will we give them our total support now, or simply sit back and watch as the entire planet is taken back
to the dark ages? "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."
Jim Macgregor is a 57 year old retired doctor. For many years he was a family practitioner and visiting Medical Officer
to Glenochil Prison, one of Scotland's high security prisons. Through his prison work, he developed a special interest in
miscarriages of justice and is a member of the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation. MOJO (Scotland). You can contact Jim at
[email protected]
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
B, it does seem that the k affair has risen the crisis in Yemen to the foreground just as
many predicted. Thank goodness.
You are correct in that many are looking too far into this as some kind of conspiracy. I
am reminded by this of many who put forth that it made no difference as to who won the prez
election. It did make a difference to the military as well as Hillary's backers in the cIa
and fbI.
The Saudis screwed up and they will get their comeuppance it seems. Russia might be able
to wiggle their way into the middle then, filling the vacuum of uncle Sam at the circle
jerk. The Saudis will have to curtail their operation in Yemen and no quarter will be given
to wahhabi-terrorists by ksa who wish retribution against Russia. Win-win.
Interesting take by Ghassan Kadi on the Saker's blog, for those who still sense a
conspiracy in this. https://thesaker.is/insights-into-the-khashoggi-ordeal-who-and-why/
Goes back to this 'fiance', but adds Gullen to the mix and makes Erdy out to be an
instigator. Good to have a viewpoint from someone who has lived in Sawdi land.
"... As a Muslim, Mr. Khashoggi could have gone to any country that upholds Muslim marriage rites and remarried without having to formally divorce his first wife, and then go to America and live with his "new wife" under the guise of a de-facto relationship. So why would he risk his life and walk into a potential death trap? ..."
"... Logic stipulates that Khashoggi entered the Consulate after he was given vehement assurances that his safety was guaranteed by the Saudi Crown. He would have never entered the Consulate had he not been given this assurance. ..."
"... Hatice Cengiz (Turkish for Khadijeh Jengiz) it is claimed, raised the first alarm for Khashoggi's disappearance, announcing at the same time that she is/was his fiancée. But that latter announcement of hers came as a surprise even to Khashoggi's own family. ..."
"... Some reports allege that Hatice has had a colourful history, including Mossad training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPuKo7WMSA&feature=youtu.be . The same YouTube alleges that she was a Gülenist and was arrested by Erdogan and released under the condition that she works for his security apparatus in order to guarantee her freedom. If such is the case, do we know if she has been also blackmailed in exchange for security of family members, loved ones, property etc? We don't know. ..."
"... In reality, irrespective of what his family members are saying now, Khashoggi has never introduced her to the world as his fiancée; and this is fact. So was she his fiancée? It is at least possible that she wasn't? So, who was she to Khashoggi and what role did she possibly play? ..."
"... Gülen is falling out of America's favour as he seems to have outlived his use-by date, and the Gülenist movement would be in dire need of a new benefactor. ..."
"... Cengiz, a former Gülenist, released on the above-mentioned conditions and possible threats, might have introduced herself to Khashoggi as an undercover Gülenist, and she had a history to support her claim. Being a former Gülenist, she might have indeed kept a foot in the Gülenist camp, and with the diminishing support of the American Government to the Gulenist movement, she might have been recruited to source finance. The Gülenists might have eyed Saudi Arabia to take this role, and as the rift between the Saudi royals and Erdogan intensified after their former joint effort to topple the legitimate secular government of Syria ..."
"... MBS himself would have inadvertently invited the Gülenists to approach him when he announced, back in March 2018 during a visit to the Coptic Pope Tawadros II in Egypt, that the triangle of evil in the Middle East is comprised of Iran, Islamist extremists groups and Turkey, and, in naming Turkey, he obviously meant Erdogan personally. ..."
"... With the Saudi-led Wahhabi version of fundamentalist Islam competing with the Muslim Brotherhood side, politically and militarily headed by Erdogan, it is not far-fetched to believe that either party is conspiring to topple the other. ..."
"... It is highly likely that Saudi officials had several contingency plans for Khashoggi's visit; depending on its outcome and the information that he had to offer. Those plans might have included giving him a wide range of treatments, ranging from a red carpet reception in Saudi Arabia, to beheading and dismembering him within the Consulate's grounds. ..."
"... It is possible that the Saudi officials in Turkey have had their own contacts with the Gülenists prior to the supposed ground-breaking visit of Khashoggi. In such a case, if the story Khashoggi may have offered did not fall in line with the story the Saudi's already know, then Khashoggi would have automatically been branded as suspicious and his safe entry would have been revoked. In such a case, he would have walked into his own trap. ..."
"... If any of the above scenarios are accurate, then the role of Erdogan in this story is not that of a scavenger who capitalized on the rift generated between the Saudis and America, but that he was instrumental in conjuring up and orchestrating the whole drama. Erdogan might have subjected the Saudi Government to the Gülen litmus test, and in such a case, the victim is Saudi Arabia and the scavenger is America seeking silence money in lieu of continued protection of Saudi interests. ..."
"... In all of the above scenarios, Khashoggi would have been driven into the trap by his alleged fiancée and had his impunity revoked by the Saudi officials because he failed the test. ..."
"... Most likely, Khashoggi was after amnesty from the Saudi Crown, and this would be a safety concern not only for Khashoggi himself, but also for his family that continued to live in Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Arabic media are inundated with posts and YouTube videos that are very damning of Hatice Cengiz ..."
"... . In reality however, her sudden emergence as Khashoggi's "fiancée", the fact that she allegedly waited for nearly 24 hours before reporting his disappearance and her personal, professional and political history are all factors that cast much doubt about her innocence and instead, portray her as a possible key element in the series of events that led to the disappearance of Khashoggi. ..."
"... And if Trump is seizing the opportunity to grab MBS, and this time he will be grabbing by the wallet, if Erdogan smells a hint of preparedness of MBS to support Gülen, then Erdogan would want MBS's wallet and head. Any whichever way, the silver lining of this story is that for once, Saudi Arabia is finally running for cover. Few around the world will give this brutal royal family any sympathy. ..."
"... MBS has committed heinous war crimes in Yemen and has made huge errors of judgment with regard to Syria and Qatar. He made many enemies, and it seems that Erdogan is out to get him. ..."
"... It does seem possible that the Assad-must-go curse has reached the neck of the Saudi throne ..."
"... Interestingly enough apparently K handed his two phones to fiancée before he went in ..any good journalist would have left a cache somewhere to be opened incase of certain events?????? ..."
"... why enter the consulate in Turkey? And, not in USA? And, why not the Embassy as the Ambassador has more power, than the Consular? Also, both the Muslim Brotherhood have Wahhabism have been friends for ages, as their theology is very similar with each other. And, if fact Erdogan is not Muslim Brotherhood but a Sufi. ..."
"... I've read several articles about Khashoggi and my feeling right now is everyone is lying, including B and Ghassan Kadi. ..."
"... Seems to me that also the Old US Establishment, along with the EU Establishment, both anti-Trump, never wanted MbS in the first place. Israel, and therefore Trump, are happy with MbS but a lot of people would like to see him gone and get the old "safe" gang back (who paid handsome bribes/salaries for decades). MbS is similar to Trump, way too impulsive, unpredictable and manic, and a special kind of crazy on top to make for a reliable partner in crime. ..."
"... The Establishment wants the Saudis to sell them their oil, then to recycle the money back into their economies. They'd prefer that they do this quietly, without any big fuss. They can get rich doing so, but they shouldn't disrupt the world. And this is the role that the Saudis have played mostly for the last 60-70 years. ..."
"... Until MbS. So yes, it is conceivable that some other powerful people are getting a bit tired of him. The same powerful people who really don't want the disruption of the world that a Shiite-Sunni war over the oil fields would cause. The same powerful friends who are also worried about Trump upsetting apple carts. Perhaps these powerful people are moving against a war, which means against Trump on Iran, and against MbS if they feel he keeps stirring things up too much. ..."
"... One problem throughout this whole affair is that I don't believe the Turks. Erdogon shutdown or converted the independent media that they once had. And in a case like this, all information comes from the government anyways. The Sauds have been rightly attacked for changing their story. But the Turks have been too. I've gotten the feeling that the 'news' reports from Turkish leaks (supposedly) have simply been the plot lines of various Hollywood movies. The body was cut up (with a chainsaw? like in Texas?), the body was dissolved in acid, the killers watched on Skype (always good to get that hip tech tie-in to a story). It can't all be true. ..."
"... Like The Salisbury Affair, The Case of the Disappearing Lover in Instanbul simply is going to have to be one to sit back and wait and see what if anything actually emerges as the truth. ..."
"... Seems pretty clueless to drop the bits in a well. Maybe the "local contact" was actually the consul, suggesting: Hey, I have an idea! How about dropping the body parts down the well? ..."
"... That is about the dumbest thing I have heard yet in the Story of K. Except, the idea of the body double. The people who thought up the body double idea must be the same Einsteins who figured the well in the consul's garden was a solution to disposal. Keystone Konsul. ..."
"... That bit of imagination leads to the idea that one of Khashoggi's last thoughts was "shit, I knew getting married again was a bad idea." ..."
"... The interesting thing was watching the US media go crazy about this. I kept thinking how different was this from Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awaki executed by drone strike? Al-Awaki received no trial, or even some kind of demand. Obama and his team just had him executed. So MBS is a horrible monster for doing exactly what Obama did. ..."
"... Khashoggi seemed to be working to "end dictatorship" and spread "free speech," democracy, voting, opinion polls, feminism, gender theory, lgbt washrooms, all that. All the great stuff of democracy. Worked out great in Sweden, why not Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... It was Khashoggi beating the Assad must go drum. The last Saudi represented on this site said Assad is harmless as long as he understands Saudi interests exist in Syria. Not ideal, but a better offer than London's. Further, the dead "journalist" believed Syria should be divided, and worse, that we should now act as if Assad is already gone ..."
"... Seems to come down to him being lied to, conn'd or lured into the consulate and his death. Then we come to the whole other point of why on earth did the Saudis use their consulate as an assassination killing ground? ..."
"... Governments killing people within their consulates is very rare. For reasons that are now very obvious, if they weren't before. ..."
"... The pundits who say MBS wanted to send a message set off alarms in my brain. Because that is exactly the reason we are supposed to believe that Putin uses all sorts of bizarre assasination methods that are obviously traced back to him. He wants to send a message. Yeah, right. And that's why they brought a bleep-storm of trouble down on top of their heads. To send a message? ..."
When I worked and lived in Saudi Arabia, one of the first things I learnt was that
the company I worked for had a fulltime employee with the job description of "Mu'aqeb". The
best translation of this title is "expeditor". This man was in charge of every matter that had
to do with dealing with government. He is the one who takes one's passport and sees that a
Saudi "Iquama" (temporary certificate of residence) is produced. He is the one who renews
driving licenses. He is the one that does the necessary paperwork to grant employees exit and
re-entry visas when they go away on holidays. He even applies on one's behalf for visas to
visit other countries. He even paid water and electricity bills. He did it all, and of course,
on top of his salary, he expected a present from employees on their return to work from
holidays, and some employees would risk big penalties smuggling in Playboy magazines to reward
him with. But the company I worked for was not alone in this regard; all other companies had
their own "Mu'aqeb".
It is against the Saudi psyche, culture and "pride" to go to a government office, wait in
line and make an application for anything. Not even uneducated poor Saudis are accustomed to go
through the rigmarole of government red-tape and routine.
Mr. Khashoggi was from the upper crust, and it is highly doubtful that he would have been
willing and prepared to physically enter the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul seeking an official
document.
Jamal Khashoggi was no fool. He knew the modus operandi of the Saudi Government too well. He
knew that what he had said was tantamount to a death sentence in the brutal Kingdom of Sand. So
what incited him to walk into the Consulate? To receive a divorce certificate so he could
remarry as the reports are trying to make us believe? Not a chance.
But this is not all. As a Muslim, Mr. Khashoggi could have gone to any country that upholds
Muslim marriage rites and remarried without having to formally divorce his first wife, and then
go to America and live with his "new wife" under the guise of a de-facto relationship. So why
would he risk his life and walk into a potential death trap?
Logic stipulates that Khashoggi entered the Consulate after he was given vehement assurances
that his safety was guaranteed by the Saudi Crown. He would have never entered the Consulate
had he not been given this assurance.
But why would the Saudi Government give him this assurance even though he had been very
critical of MBS? A good question.
Once again, a logical hypothetical answer to this question could be that Khashoggi had some
important meeting with a high ranking Saudi official to discuss some issues of serious
importance, and this normally means that he had some classified information to pass on to the
Saudi Government; important enough that the Saudi Crown was prepared to set aside Khashoggi's
recent history in exchange of this information.
If we try to connect more dots in a speculative but rational manner, the story can easily
become more interesting.
Hatice Cengiz (Turkish for Khadijeh Jengiz) it is claimed, raised the first alarm for
Khashoggi's disappearance, announcing at the same time that she is/was his fiancée. But
that latter announcement of hers came as a surprise even to Khashoggi's own family.
Not much is said and speculated about Hatice in the West, but she is definitely making some
headlines in the Arab World, especially on media controlled and sponsored by Saudi Arabia. To
this effect, and because the Saudi neck is on the chopping board, it is possible that for the
first time ever perhaps, the Saudis are telling the truth.
But the Saudis are the boys who cried wolf, and no one will ever believe them. But, let us
explore how they might have got themselves into this bind.
As we connect the dots, we speculate as follows:
Some reports allege that Hatice has had a colourful history, including Mossad training
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPuKo7WMSA&feature=youtu.be . The
same YouTube alleges that she was a Gülenist and was arrested by Erdogan and released
under the condition that she works for his security apparatus in order to guarantee her
freedom. If such is the case, do we know if she has been also blackmailed in exchange for
security of family members, loved ones, property etc? We don't know.
It has also been reported that Jamal Khashoggi met her only as early as May 2018 and later
introduced her as an expert on Omani history and politics. In reality, irrespective of what his
family members are saying now, Khashoggi has never introduced her to the world as his
fiancée; and this is fact. So was she his fiancée? It is at least possible that she wasn't? So, who was she to Khashoggi and what role did she possibly play?
The following speculation cannot be proved, but it makes sense:
To explain what a Gülenist is for the benefit of the reader who is unaware of this
term, Erdogan blamed former friend and ally Fethullah Gülen for the failed coup attempt of
July 2016 and persecuted his followers, putting tens of thousands of them in jail. Erdogan's
relationship with America was already deteriorating at that time because of America's support
to Syrian Kurds, and to add to Erdogan's woes, America was and continues to give Gülen a
safe haven despite many requests by Erdogan to have him extradited to Turkey to face trial. But
Gülen is falling out of America's favour as he seems to have outlived his use-by date, and
the Gülenist movement would be in dire need of a new benefactor.
Cengiz, a former Gülenist, released on the above-mentioned conditions and possible
threats, might have introduced herself to Khashoggi as an undercover Gülenist, and she had
a history to support her claim. Being a former Gülenist, she might have indeed kept a foot
in the Gülenist camp, and with the diminishing support of the American Government to the
Gulenist movement, she might have been recruited to source finance. The Gülenists might
have eyed Saudi Arabia to take this role, and as the rift between the Saudi royals and Erdogan
intensified after their former joint effort to topple the legitimate secular government of
Syria
The Gülenists would have found in Al-Saud what represents an enemy of an enemy, and
they had to find a way to seek Saudi support against Erdogan. MBS himself would have
inadvertently invited the Gülenists to approach him when he announced, back in March 2018
during a visit to the Coptic Pope Tawadros II in Egypt, that the triangle of evil in the Middle
East is comprised of Iran, Islamist extremists groups and Turkey, and, in naming Turkey, he
obviously meant Erdogan personally.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/08/saudi-crown-prince-sees-a-new-axis-of-evil-in-the-middle-east/
Khashoggi, with his expansive connections, looked like a good candidate to introduce the
would-be new partners and broker a deal between them.
Back to what may have incited Khashoggi to enter the Saudi Consulate and to why the Saudi
Government would have, in that case, given him a safe entry despite his history. Possibly,
Khashoggi believed that he had a "big story" to relay to the Saudi Government; one that most
likely exposed big time anti-Saudi dirt about Erdogan.
With the Saudi-led Wahhabi version of fundamentalist Islam competing with the Muslim
Brotherhood side, politically and militarily headed by Erdogan, it is not far-fetched to
believe that either party is conspiring to topple the other. If Khashoggi had a story to this
effect, even if it was fake but credible enough for him to believe, it would have given him the
impetus to seek an audience at the Saudi Consulate and hence an expectation for the Consulate
to positively reciprocate. In reality, given the history and culture involved, it is hard to
fathom that any scenario short of this one would have given either Khashoggi and/or the Saudi
officials enough reasons to meet in the manner and place they did.
It is highly likely that Saudi officials had several contingency plans for Khashoggi's
visit; depending on its outcome and the information that he had to offer. Those plans might
have included giving him a wide range of treatments, ranging from a red carpet reception in
Saudi Arabia, to beheading and dismembering him within the Consulate's grounds. What happened
after Khashoggi entered the precinct of the Consulate is fairly muddy and hard to speculate on.
If the above speculations thus far have been accurate, then these are the possible scenarios
that followed the fateful CCTV coverage of Khashoggi's entry to the Consulate:
1. It is possible that the Saudi officials in Turkey have had their own contacts with the Gülenists prior to the supposed ground-breaking visit of Khashoggi. In such a case, if the
story Khashoggi may have offered did not fall in line with the story the Saudi's already know,
then Khashoggi would have automatically been branded as suspicious and his safe entry would
have been revoked. In such a case, he would have walked into his own trap.
2. On the other hand, if Khashoggi indeed gave Saudi authorities vital information, so vital
that it clearly is vehemently pro-Gülen, and as Gülen is no longer an American
favourite, then upon his return to America he may have become a Saudi liability that can
potentially muddy the Saudi-American waters that the Saudis desperately try to keep clear. In
such an instance, it would be opportune for the Saudis to finish him off before he could return
to America.
3. A third possibility is that some Saudi officials already working covertly with Gülen
saw in Khashoggi an already persona non grata, a dangerous Erdogan implant and decided to take
action against him.
If any of the above scenarios are accurate, then the role of Erdogan in this story is not
that of a scavenger who capitalized on the rift generated between the Saudis and America, but
that he was instrumental in conjuring up and orchestrating the whole drama. Erdogan might have
subjected the Saudi Government to the Gülen litmus test, and in such a case, the victim is
Saudi Arabia and the scavenger is America seeking silence money in lieu of continued protection
of Saudi interests.
In all of the above scenarios, Khashoggi would have been driven into the trap by his alleged
fiancée and had his impunity revoked by the Saudi officials because he failed the
test.
But what triggered him off personally to walk into this possible trap? What was in it for
him? Definitely not divorce documents. Most likely, Khashoggi was after amnesty from the Saudi
Crown, and this would be a safety concern not only for Khashoggi himself, but also for his
family that continued to live in Saudi Arabia. He may well have thought that by providing vital
and sensitive information to his government, his previous "sins" would be set aside and he
would be treated as a hero, his family would feel safe, despite that fact that he has
criticized the Crown Prince in the past.
Arabic media are inundated with posts and YouTube videos that are very damning of Hatice
Cengiz. Most of them perhaps are Saudi propaganda and should not be taken without a grain of salt.
In reality however, her sudden emergence as Khashoggi's "fiancée", the fact that she
allegedly waited for nearly 24 hours before reporting his disappearance and her personal,
professional and political history are all factors that cast much doubt about her innocence and
instead, portray her as a possible key element in the series of events that led to the
disappearance of Khashoggi.
Furthermore, why would a person in her position make rules and conditions about meeting the
President of the United States of America, even if this President is Donald Trump? (
Jamal Khashoggi's fiancee I will only visit Trump if he takes action World news The Guardian ) How many
people in history have refused the invitation of American Presidents? Who does she think she is
or who is she trying to portray herself as?
And if Trump is seizing the opportunity to grab MBS, and this time he will be grabbing by
the wallet, if Erdogan smells a hint of preparedness of MBS to support Gülen, then Erdogan
would want MBS's wallet and head. Any whichever way, the silver lining of this story is that
for once, Saudi Arabia is finally running for cover. Few around the world will give this brutal
royal family any sympathy.
There are other rumors spreading in the Arab world now alluding to the removal of MBS from
office and passing over the reins to his brother. MBS has committed heinous war crimes in Yemen
and has made huge errors of judgment with regard to Syria and Qatar. He made many enemies, and
it seems that Erdogan is out to get him.
It does seem possible that the Assad-must-go curse has reached the neck of the Saudi
throne.
Erdogan presentation to his party today too most media seemingly reporting deep
international concern and hubris from arms suppliers... Interestingly enough apparently K
handed his two phones to fiancée before he went in ..any good journalist would have left a
cache somewhere to be opened incase of certain events??????
No confirmation of victims "screams", etc although a there is one report he was held in a
stranglehold which would prevent such vocalisation?
You left the elephant out of the room. You are right that Jamal Khashoggi had no need to
enter the consulate for his divorce, and you suggested the reason being quid pro quo. But why enter the consulate in Turkey? And, not in USA? And, why not the Embassy as the Ambassador has more power, than the Consular? Also, both the Muslim Brotherhood have Wahhabism have been friends for ages, as their
theology is very similar with each other. And, if fact Erdogan is not Muslim Brotherhood but
a Sufi.
So, why did you leave out the elephant in the room, Israel. With the fall of Saudi
Arabia, Israel has more to loose and Iran has more to gain.
I was waiting for this article.
Looks B is not buying this version.
"There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories being weaved around the case. Some of them
were mentioned in the comments here. I don't buy it. Turkey did not arrange the incident. I
see no sign that the U.S., Israel, Qatar or the UAE had a hand in this. This was a very
stupid crime committed by Mohammad bin Salman. Or even worse, a mistake. The wannabe-sultan
Erdogan is a crafty politician. He is simply riding the wave." https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/10/how-will-caligula-fall.html#more
I've read several articles about Khashoggi and my feeling right now is everyone is lying,
including B and Ghassan Kadi. (wrote this article. Mod.)
B ignores all said by Ghassan Kadi . And Ghassan Kadi is being soft on
SA cuz Russian wants it.
SA is a prize big enough to the bear get out of his cave. Deep State set the trap and SA fell like a kid cuz they are very predictable. They simply
kill a lot! Everybody is trying to profit and only one thing is sure about all this:
we will never know!
Seems to me that also the Old US Establishment, along with the EU Establishment, both
anti-Trump, never wanted MbS in the first place. Israel, and therefore Trump, are happy with
MbS but a lot of people would like to see him gone and get the old "safe" gang back (who paid
handsome bribes/salaries for decades). MbS is similar to Trump, way too impulsive,
unpredictable and manic, and a special kind of crazy on top to make for a reliable partner in
crime.
The Establishment wants the Saudis to sell them their oil, then to recycle the money back
into their economies. They'd prefer that they do this quietly, without any big fuss. They can
get rich doing so, but they shouldn't disrupt the world. And this is the role that the Saudis
have played mostly for the last 60-70 years.
Until MbS. So yes, it is conceivable that some other powerful people are getting a bit tired of him.
The same powerful people who really don't want the disruption of the world that a
Shiite-Sunni war over the oil fields would cause. The same powerful friends who are also
worried about Trump upsetting apple carts. Perhaps these powerful people are moving against a
war, which means against Trump on Iran, and against MbS if they feel he keeps stirring things
up too much.
One problem throughout this whole affair is that I don't believe the Turks.
Erdogon shutdown or converted the independent media that they once had. And in a case like
this, all information comes from the government anyways. The Sauds have been rightly attacked for changing their story. But the Turks have been
too. I've gotten the feeling that the 'news' reports from Turkish leaks (supposedly) have
simply been the plot lines of various Hollywood movies. The body was cut up (with a chainsaw?
like in Texas?), the body was dissolved in acid, the killers watched on Skype (always good to
get that hip tech tie-in to a story). It can't all be true.
To some extant, I get the feeling I'm watching Qatar money buying news stories to get back
at the Sauds. If so, good for them.
Like The Salisbury Affair, The Case of the Disappearing Lover in Instanbul simply is going
to have to be one to sit back and wait and see what if anything actually emerges as the
truth.
Could not be sulphuric acid the "traditional acid" for dissolving bodies you would need more
than 25 litres the most dangerous lethal fumes and smell would have filled the whole building
which would have been contaminated other people choking with deadly fumes. How to get acid in
and out/disposed ..people in PPE hosing down etc etc
I actually thought the "local contact" who supposed disposed of the body took it rolled up in
a rug and cremated it. Seems pretty clueless to drop the bits in a well. Maybe the "local contact" was actually the
consul, suggesting: Hey, I have an idea! How about dropping the body parts down the well?
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard yet in the Story of K.
Except, the idea of the body double.
The people who thought up the body double idea must be the same Einsteins who figured the
well in the consul's garden was a solution to disposal. Keystone Konsul.
Maybe I'm being sexist, but I imagine a discussion between the couple, with the future wife
saying she wants to get married, while the future husband is saying "Ah, aren't things great
now? Why change it? We can just live together." That bit of imagination leads to the idea that one of Khashoggi's last thoughts was "shit,
I knew getting married again was a bad idea."
The interesting thing was watching the US media go crazy about this. I kept thinking how
different was this from Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awaki executed by drone strike? Al-Awaki
received no trial, or even some kind of demand. Obama and his team just had him executed. So
MBS is a horrible monster for doing exactly what Obama did.
Khashoggi seemed to be working to "end dictatorship" and spread "free speech," democracy,
voting, opinion polls, feminism, gender theory, lgbt washrooms, all that. All the great stuff
of democracy. Worked out great in Sweden, why not Saudi Arabia?
All I'm getting out of this article is a desire to see the house of Saud fall. Plus some
dense little leaguer stuff about a marriage or something. Come on!
It was Khashoggi beating the Assad must go drum. The last Saudi represented on this site said Assad is harmless as long
as he understands Saudi interests exist in Syria. Not ideal, but a better offer than London's. Further, the dead "journalist"
believed Syria should be divided, and worse, that we should now act as if Assad is already gone – said the guy who got
sawed up and buried under a flower bed.
Seems to come down to him being lied to, conn'd or lured into the consulate and his death. Then we come to the whole other point of why on earth did the Saudis use their consulate
as an assassination killing ground? Governments wanting to kill people is nothing new. That's
what governments do. Governments killing people within their consulates is very rare. For
reasons that are now very obvious, if they weren't before.
The pundits who say MBS wanted to send a message set off alarms in my brain. Because that
is exactly the reason we are supposed to believe that Putin uses all sorts of bizarre
assasination methods that are obviously traced back to him. He wants to send a message. Yeah,
right. And that's why they brought a bleep-storm of trouble down on top of their heads. To
send a message?
Email is cheaper. And if someone is dead from methods not traced back to you, then someone
else goes and whispers the message into the few ears you want to hear it, that is a lot more
effective than either Novachuk in a park or a bloody murder in a consulate.
Israel/US/Saudi tried to pass Turkey off as the sole sponsor and creator of ISIS. It was an
important player, certainly, largely because of its geographic location. So a bit of revenge?
As with all these events, there will be multiple facets from the various actors, some
mutually exclusive.
The only thing that is certain so far is the west's concern for Saudi's alleged execution
of a 'journalist' is rank hypocrisy.
"2. On the other hand, if Khashoggi indeed gave Saudi authorities vital information, so
vital that it clearly is vehemently pro-Gülen, and as Gülen is no longer an
American favourite, then upon his return to America he may have become a Saudi liability that
can potentially muddy the Saudi-American waters that the Saudis desperately try to keep
clear. In such an instance, it would be opportune for the Saudis to finish him off before he
could return to America."
The SA gang would want to protect the "vital" . . . pro-Gulan" information obtained from K
because that information would have given the SA gang an advantage in dealing with America
because a K running free could expose SA sources and knowledge, so he had to be eliminated.
(??)
Or, Erdogan knows via Cengiz that K believes he can facilitate a deal between Gulan and SA
to the detriment of Turkey, in order that K can protect his family in SA. But SA already
knows somehow that K is in effect an agent for SA's enemy Erdogan and is peddling polyester
rugs, that K's story is donkey doo, so SA believes K is betraying SA with said donkey doo, so
out comes the Popeil's Pocket Body Dismemberer. ??
". . . should not be taken for (without) a grain of salt." ??
As for the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and SA's Wahabbists, it strikes me that
the custodianship of the two holy mosques in SA, or better said the moral leadership role
that said literal custodianship confers could be in contention if Erdogan can demonstrate to
his immense egoic neo-Ottoman satisfaction belongs to Turkey under his direction.
It seems no matter who "wins" every one of the players loses credibility any way this
plays out.
"contention if Erdogan can demonstrate to his immense egoic neo-Ottoman satisfaction belongs to
Turkey under his direction."
This was my main takeaway from Erd's address to Parliament. The bit about the Saudis as
protectors of the holy cities. Like, maybe not. LIke, look at the mess they have made.
They are clearly incompetent and have no standing as protectors of holy sites.
Hmm, so who would be a better "protector"? Could it be the one who arrogates to himself the
authority to call out false 'protectors" by any chance?
Probably this murder will end with nothing more than "The Saudis are really evil. Who didn't
already know that". But lets look at what we do know about the killing (and what is rumored in
news reports).
Before Khashoggi goes into for the meeting a team of 15 Saudi agents, several of them men
close to MBS arrive from Saudi Arabia and go into the building. Including among them an
autopsy expert with a "bonesaw". One of them is a body double for Khashoggi and carries with
him a fake beard to make his resemblance to Khashoggi even stronger. An hour or so later that
man leaves the building wearing Khashoggi's clothes and sunglasses. And the fake beard. So that
the CCTV might record him as Khashoggi.
RT reports that minutes before the killing Khashoggi talks on the phone to MBS. Its thought
that MSB wants Khashoggi to agree to return to Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi refuses. Right after
that Khashoggi is killed and dismembered. The Turkish press is now reporting that parts of
Khashoggi's remains have been found in a well at the Saudi Consuls official residence. I'd say
with that kind of evidence anyone would have to be braindead (or just not willing to admit
the truth for political reasons), to not conclude MBS is up to his beard in this conspiracy to
commit murder.
One question being asked is why would MBS risk it. But I think the answer is simple. He
believes he is untouchable and can do whatever he wants (the track record for that is pretty
good for him until now, and maybe now as well). He took power in Saudi Arabia from his
cousins, and got away with it. He starts and conducts a bloody war against Yemen, and isn't
punished. He holds hostage dozens of the wealthiest Saudis and tortures them for large chunks
of their wealth. And gets away with it. He kidnaps the Lebanese PM, and forces him to resign (at
least for a while). And he gets no punishment even for that. He threatens Qatar with war, closes
the border. And still no punishment. He funds terrorists all over the Middle East. And yet again
no punishment. So why on earth would he pause at murdering a "pain in the a$$" Saudi dissident
who dares to defy him. He may have gone a "bridge too far" this time. But his record points to
his surviving this time too (hopefully not).
Has anyone commented of the features of this grisly murder that make it look like some kind
of ritual murder?
They could have just stabbed or strangled him or druged him. Bu why cut off fingers?
Symbolism?
Why deface facial features?
Was he drawn and quartered like traitors in medieval Europe?
Or was it renaissance Europe?
And, what happened to all the blood?
How did they keep it off the clothing that the body double then donned?
Just wondering what kind of "message" K's murder was designed to send to him, as he
died.
Or, what kind of cultic weirdness was being provided for bin Salman to feel satisfaction at
the manner of the death?
"The Saudis say they are countering Iran, which backs the Houthis. But the Houthis are an indigenous group with legitimate grievances,
and the war has only enhanced Iranian influence . As has been obvious for some time, the only solution is a negotiated settlement.
But the Saudis have done their best to sabotage a U.N.-led peace process. Talks planned for Geneva in September failed when Saudi
leaders
would not grant safe travel guarantees to Houthi leaders." Bezos' editorial board at WaPo
---------------
Beneath the largely specious argument that Saudi Arabia has the US by the cojones economically lies the true factor that
has caused the two countries to be glued together.
This factor is the Israeli success in convincing the US government, and more importantly, the American people, that Iran is a
deadly enemy, a menace to the entire world, a reincarnation of Nazi Germany, and that Saudi Arabia, a country dedicated to medieval
methods of operation, is an indispensable ally in a struggle to save the world from Iran. The successful effort to convince us of
the reality of the Iranian menace reflects the previous successful campaign to convince us all that Iraq was also Nazi Germany come
again.
The Iran information operation was probably conceived at the Moshe Dayan Center or some other Israeli think tank. and then passed
on in the form of learned papers and conferences to the Foreign Ministry, the Mossad and the IDF. After adoption as government policy
the Foreign ministry and Zionist organizations closely linked to media ownership in the US and Europe were tasked for dissemination
of the propaganda themes involved. This has been a brilliantly executed plan. The obvious fact that Iran is not presently a threat
to the US has had little effect in countering this propaganda achievement.
Last Saturday morning, the Philadelphia based commentator Michael Smerconish openly asked on his popular talk show why it is that
US policy favors the Sunni Muslims over the Shia. i.e., Saudi Arabia over Iran. To hear that was for me a first. This was an obvious
defiance of the received wisdom of the age. I can only hope that the man does not lose his show.
It is a great irony that the barbaric murder of a personally rather unpleasant but defiant exiled journalist has caused re-examination
of the basis and wisdom of giving strategic protection to a family run dictatorship. pl
Erdogan called the Khashoggi murder brutal and premeditated, but did not reveal any damning audio or video evidence. Elijah Magnier
surmises Erdogan extracted a heavy payment from both the Saudis and the Americans in exchange for his relative silence. We shall
see if the economic pressure on Turkey dissipates in the coming days and weeks.
It appears the central pillar of the Borg creed, so eloquently and precisely described here by Colonel Lang, will survive this
bout of heretical thinking. Will journalists and other members of the press be able to keep challenging the Borg? With Trump so
thoroughly assimilated into the Borg, will the "resistance" keep the issue of Saudi perfidy alive? I have my doubts. The Israeli
information operations machine is a juggernaut. Few have the stamina and will to resist it. But it is a fight worth fighting.
This is an incorrect view. neoliberal is about global corporatist dictatorship.
Fascism and neofascism are limited to a single country, and often to single ethnos or (in case of
neofacism) culture. So far we see that neofascism was a reaction of excesses of neoliberal
globalization.
The fact that both neoliberalism and neofascism are forms of corporatist dictatorship do not
chnge this fact.
"I see it more as a neoliberal desire to belong to some vague bigger global entity.
Plus the fact that since WW2 nationalism has become equated with fascism."
Yes, what a beautiful piece of propaganda and mind control, carried out by the people
behind this 'vague bigger global entity and facilitated by their 'Mainstream Media', to
create this neo-liberal desire.
In reality it is this 'vague bigger global entity' that embodies the essence of fascism -
i.e. corporatist-dictatorship.
Washington is concocting ludicrous charges against a Russian national for alleged election
meddling merely to find reasons for new sanctions and to play the 'Russia card' ahead of the
midterms, a top Kremlin official has warned.
The US is bringing up "ludicrous accusations" with a "laughable 'body of proof'" simply to
slap Moscow with a new round of sanctions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov
said
in a statement on Saturday. He added that "certain" US politicians hope to use charges against
Russia to gain the upper hand in "interparty brawls" ahead of the midterm elections, slated for
November 6.
Ryabkov made his remarks after the US Department of Justice officially leveled charges
against Russian national Elena Khusyaynova, who allegedly served as the chief accountant for
'Project Lakhta.' The officials suspect her of handling the funds used to pay online trolls for
posting comments to "sow discord in the US political system," and to "undermine faith" in US
democracy. These alleged activities were part of what Washington calls Russian strategic
efforts to meddle in the 2016 US presidential race and as well as the upcoming midterms.
... ... ...
Russian official Ryabkov dismissed the charges as "flagrant lies" and yet another element of
the "shameful slanderous campaign" unleashed by Washington against Moscow.
"The US clearly overestimates its capabilities," the deputy foreign minister said.
"While exhibiting hostility towards Russia and looking down on the whole world, they will
only meet tougher pushback."
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
Notable quotes:
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
.
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Stefan Halper
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
Roger Stone
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
WaPo
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
through
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Alexander Downer
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
themarketswork.com )
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
2016.
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
...
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Daily Caller
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
...
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
Daily Caller
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
on China.
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent
the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his
version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will
using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election
campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of
state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that
GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly
matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr
Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the
secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps
he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.
Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian
president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to
Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from
videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the
beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his
daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.
There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually
been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if
the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan
Bandera was.
However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to
expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive
expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.
Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats
connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff
to the enemy.
That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by
the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the
RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke
the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a
turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks,
explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.
The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action
from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered
state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's
novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover.
Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.
But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove
their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and
not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched.
Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of
Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a
formidable task.
There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and
their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal
their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll
go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent
threats, this end of the world is quite possible.
Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it
wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has
initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to
return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it
turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have
been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian
reactions.
I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never
know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people
like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director
and actors.
@utu " Instead we get
defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as
inept and indolent.
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal
poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable
haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it
– which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to
die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc,
etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay
retired.
Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not
to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their
incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda
gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian
perfidy.
Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.
@Anatoly Karlin " British
or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what
passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "
On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that
he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was
involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid
stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.
"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more
attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other
spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .
A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly
respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with
your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific
human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible
selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said,
almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have
not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both
touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure
where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to
Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons
applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other
places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples
from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the
dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian
jail.
If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton
Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander
Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.
If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the
observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.
Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence"
services.
The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media
seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.
The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a
sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have
had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.
Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits
and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the
closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the
hotel was not then immediately quarantined.
And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they
are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR
disaster.
The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by
anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in
Photoshop.
But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow,
that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If
anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire
passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can
work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).
But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that
not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where
Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.
@Tyrion 2 Had some
experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.
Here are a few examples.
There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female
handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when
she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of
both.
There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S.
military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.
There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that
was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was
a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers.
The feds busted them.
As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was
occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned
vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their
espionage work and methods.
I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read
people, quite well. It's a natural gift.
Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing
out their self-serving bullshit.
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end
Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I
published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan
I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14
'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU
or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another
Potemkin village production from the reality masters
Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a
frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans
to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion
the elaborate hoax
Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added
this
' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't
try to kill anyone that's stupid
It's some sort of spy game
Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back
someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very
stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and
their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing
dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '
This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a
dollar short
I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the
Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper
bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever
pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory
because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to
show the Russians were in fact somehow involved
But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that
Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on
their countermove
Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out
of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in
the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the
hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'
It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient
intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent
poisoning
BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and
chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact
same chemical compound organophosphates
'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand
deaths.'
That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and
treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like
Salisbury
That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital
the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would
have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery
But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid
Brits
So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very
very far from over
As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the
matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly
well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a
useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months
ago
PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel
apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out
of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material
anyway
As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if
such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in
the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been
employed why not ?
@FB How would a fake
database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to
UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?
In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the
very article to which you are responding started with:
It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and
counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the
subterranean battle.
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge
vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a
spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any
Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since
by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a
spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is
that?
Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west.
Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that
are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.
Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of
being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered
protection from Mother Russia.
Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter
father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much
everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western
generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect
her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.
Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of
time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is
equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers
such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality,
despite ditching socialism.
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly'
refuse to take at face value this silly statement
it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean
battle.'
Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data'
about Petrov and Boshirov
that was put out by Bellingcat
Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle
the most utterly stupid bipeds
A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's
acknowledged partner here
If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various
sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their
flight to the UK
Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear
In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and
glorify the Bellingcat outfit
which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott
Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential
advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those
willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as
it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.
Boils down to, from the comment below:
When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market
.) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret
service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best
postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has
a price..
and
Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage.
And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the
Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of
Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian
intelligence services"? Mais non.
CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend
not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and
ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.
For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide,
in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back
off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under
the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as
chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that
his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.
So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with
it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.
The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state.
They rule the USA.
This months gas tariff for "Ukrainians" increases by 24%!!
The context is that Ukrainian consumers have the lowest gas rate in Europe. Moldovan
households pay more for gas than do Ukrainian ones. Even with a 24% price increase Ukraine will
still have the cheapest gas in Europe for its consumers:
A huge line for free food at the charity kitchen in Kiev can be seen here: http://rusvesna.su/news/1539952343
(those who read Russian can find details in the accompanying news item).
I guess all of this is a great achievement of Maidan. Ukies, please comment.
I initially backed Trump, though with reservations on his attitude to Iran and his wanting
to increase US military spending - build a stronger US military. Pulling out of the TPP was
great. Au had sovereignty on paper if not in practice, but with the TPP, Australia would not
have had sovereignty legally. His first attack on Syria was a flash bang exercise to disable
his opponents. His second attack I thought initially was the same, but with everything I've
read since, I believe Trump's US planned to destroy Syrian military but not wanting to go to
war with Russia at that time, respected the Russian nyet on targets.
With Idlib it moved up a notch, Trump's US threatening attack on Syria including Russian
personal stationed there, and Russia moving to asymmetrical moves rather than in your face
nuclear amageddon, which is what a full on US attack on Syria would have amounted
to..
"... Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation. ..."
"... This article was originally published by The Nation . ..."
There have been plenty of purely criminal and commercial " rogue " operations by
intelligence agents in history, but also " rogue " ones that were purposefully
political. We know, for example, that both Soviet and US intelligence agencies - or groups of
agents - tried to disrupt the Eisenhower-Khrushchev détente of the late 1950s and early
1960s, and that some intelligence players tried to stop Khrushchev's formal recognition of West
Germany, also in the early 1960s.
It is reasonable to ask, therefore, whether the attacks on Skripal and Khashoggi were "
rogue " operations undertaken by political opponents of the leaders' policies at home
or abroad, with the help of one or another intelligence agency or agents. Motive is a - perhaps
the - crucial question. Why would Putin order such an operation in the UK at the very
moment when his government had undertaken a major Western public-relations campaign in
connection with the upcoming World Cup championship in Russia? And why would MbS risk a
Khashoggi scandal as he was assiduously promoting his image abroad as an enlightened
reform-minded Saudi leader?
We lack the evidence and official candor needed to study these questions, as is usually the
case with covert, secretive, disinforming intelligence operations. But the questions are
certainly reason enough not to rush to judgment, as many US pundits do. Saying " we do not
know " may be unmarketable in today's mass-media environment, but it is honest and the
right approach to potentially fruitful " analysis. "
2. We do know, however, that there has been fierce opposition in the US political-media
establishment to President Trump's policy of " cooperating with Russia ," including in
US intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and FBI - and at high levels of his own
administration.
We might consider Nikki Haley's resignation as UN ambassador in this light. Despite the
laurels heaped on her by anti-Trump media, and by Trump himself at their happy-hour farewell in
the White House, Haley was not widely admired by her UN colleagues. When appointed for
political reasons by Trump, she had no foreign-policy credentials or any expert knowledge of
other countries or of international relations generally. Judging by her performance as
ambassador, nor did she acquire much on the job, almost always reading even short comments from
prepared texts.
More to the point, Haley's statements regarding Russia at the UN were, more often than not,
dissimilar from Trump's -- indeed, implicitly in opposition to Trump's. (She did nothing, for
example, to offset charges in Washington that Trump's summit meeting with Putin in Helsinki, in
July, had been " treasonous .") Who wrote these statements for her, which were very
similar to statements regarding Russia that have been issued by US intelligence agencies since
early 2017? It is hard to imagine that Trump was unhappy to see her go, and easier to imagine
him pushing her toward the exit. A president needs a loyalist as secretary of state and at the
UN. Haley's pandering remarks at the White House about Trump's family suggests some deal had
been made to ease her out, with non-recrimination promises made on both sides. We will see if
opponents of Trump's Russia policy can put another spokesperson at the UN.
As to which aspects of US foreign policy Trump actually controls, we might ask more urgently
if he authorized, or was fully informed about, the joint US-NATO-Ukraine military air exercises
that got under way over Ukraine, abutting Russia, on October 8. Moscow regards these exercises
as a major " provocation ," and not unreasonably.
3. What do Trump's opponents want instead of " cooperation with Russia "? A much
harder line, including more " crushing " economic sanctions. Sanctions are more like
temper tantrums and road rage than actual national-security policy, and thus are often
counterproductive. We have some recent evidence. Russia's trade surplus has grown to more than
$100 billion. World prices for Russia's primary exports, oil and gas, have grown to over $80 a
unit while Moscow's federal budget is predicated on $53 a barrel. Promoters of anti-Russian
sanctions gloat that they have weakened the ruble. But while imposing some hardships on
ordinary citizens, the combination of high oil prices and a weaker ruble is ideal for Russian
state and corporate exporters. They sell abroad for inflated foreign currency and pay their
operating expenses at home in cheaper rubles. To risk a pun, they are " crushing it.
"
Congressional sanctions - for exactly what is not always clear - have helped Putin in
another way. For years, he has unsuccessfully tried to get " oligarchs " to repatriate
their wealth abroad. US sanctions on various " oligarchs " have persuaded them and
others to begin to do so, perhaps bringing back home as much as $90 billion already in
2018.
If nothing else, these new budgetary cash flows help Putin deal with his declining
popularity at home - he still has an approval rating well above 60 percent - due to the
Kremlin's decision to raise the pension age for men and women, from 60 to 65 and from 55 to 60
respectively. The Kremlin can use the additional revenue to increase the value of pensions,
supplement them with other social benefits, or to enact the age change over a longer period of
time.
It appears that Congress, particularly the Senate, has no Russia policy other than
sanctions. It might think hard about finding alternatives. One way to start would be with real
" hearings " in place of the ritualistic affirmation of orthodox policy by "
experts " that has long been its practice. There are more than a few actual
specialists out there who think different approaches to Moscow are long overdue.
4. All of these dangerous developments, indeed the new US-Russian Cold War itself, are elite
projects -- political, media, intelligence, etc. Voters were never really consulted. Nor do
they seem to approve. In August, Gallup asked its usual sample of Americans which policy toward
Russia they preferred. Fifty-eight percent wanted improved relations vs. only 36 percent who
wanted a tougher US policy with more sanctions. (Meanwhile, two-thirds of Russians surveyed by
an independent agency now see the United States as their country's number-one enemy, and about
three-fourths view China favorably.)
Will any of the US political figures already jockeying for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2020 take these realities into account?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.
This article was originally published by The
Nation .
If you are finding your way out of the dark forest of propaganda there are two speeches by
Putin that I point people toward. First, at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Video
here : Transcript
here
Second, at the UN General Assembly September 2015, Video here : Transcript here .
I fail to see how any rational person could disagree with the sentiments he expresses.
Warning! You may become a Putin-bot!
The governor General Abdul Raziq, the police chief and the intelligence chief of Kandahar
have all been killed today. Bodyguards turned their guns on them. Two U.S. soldiers were
wounded. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan was present but not hurt.
Raziq was a brut, thief, killer, drug baron and the CIA's man in Kandahar.
In 2011 Matthieu Atkins portrait him:
Our Man in Kandahar Abdul Raziq and his men have received millions of dollars' worth of U.S. training and
equipment to help in the fight against the Taliban. But is our ally -- long alleged to be
involved in corruption and drug smuggling -- also guilty of mass murder?
The United States, specifically Cheney and Petraeus and Rodham, imposed the Imperial
Executor form of Federalist government upon a people who were a well-organized heirarchical
society while William the Conqueror was still head chopping Anglo-Saxons in bear skins.
Cheny wrote the Afghan petroleum and strategic resources laws *in English* at the
beginning of the 2001 invasion. The US imposed a new flag, a new pledge of allegiance, a new
national song and even a new national currency on the Afghan people, then imposed the first
imperial caesar, Karzai.
You break it, you own it!
For the $TRILLIONS hoovered up by Deep State and their war profiteering minions, we could
have put every Afghan male of military age through Harvard Business School.
Cheney, Petraeus and Rodham ALSO created the Federal Republican Guard ANA and ANP,
goombahs, renegade hijackers and shakedown artists who, like those same ANA/ANP 'personal
guards' mentioned in b's article, assassinated the governor and the others. And umm, yes,
I've been on the muzzle end of those ANA/ANP thugs in an attempted kidnapping, so been there,
done that.
AFA Russ' defense of William the Conqueror as some 'high point' of a Western Civilization
of Red Haired Yettis, they were still head-chopping each other in England while Afghanistan
ruled from East Persia to Western India, an advanced civilization far more ancient than
Anglo-Saxon bearskin cave dwelling knuckle draggers, at the time.
Of course, now today we have the White Scientocratic Triumphal Exceptionalist Civilization
and its Miracle of the Two Planes and Three Towers to prove it, even if Johnny and Jillian
can't read, write or do their ciphers.
just watched the Atlantic council's Championing the Frontlines of Freedom: Erasing the
"Grey Zone", only interesting thing to come out of the conference was Kurt Volker's (US
Special Representative for Ukraine) comments;
Escalating sanctions vs Russia every 1-2 months there will be new & expanded
sanctions on Russia.
Stable borders should not be a requirement to be a part of NATO, "Occupied" states can
be taken into NATO and receive support from NATO to liberate themselves (he stressed that
the US would not be escalate the conflict, but how the hell could anyone guarantee
that).
Opposition to Russia is now bipartisan, regardless of the Nov elections, US Senate
& Congress are unified against Russia
when asked how "We" (the Atlantic council) can make political elites care about Baltic
states (plus Ukraine/Georgia), WITHOUT knowing the historical and political details of
these states he, unsurprisingly answered "this is about spreading our liberal values"
(translation: the American people don't need to be informed about the region are changes
are non-negotiable). the long and the short of the 3 hour conference was the new cold war
vs Russia will continue indefinitely, I would say this is the start of another generation
conflict that will last 10-20 years at least
Ok i'l stick my neck out !
It's over for America ! That's my assessment their day is d d d done ! Am basing my view on
the worldwide picture politically, the mind set of the general public I talk to, the many
sites I visit on the net left and right. Plus overall wisdom and overstanding (a Rasta thing)
Empires fall, this one has more than had its day. If it was a buseness what does it produce ?
And at what cost? It just robs other peoples hard earned resources and assets! For all it's
wealth it treats it's own public like dirt milking them dry. It's intelligent public it
curupt's. Nature abbor's greed, and wil correct that imbalance.
I think Putin understands this, and understands as I do 'desperate people do desperate
things' hence his speech.
Censoring the truth on a massive network like the internet is truly impossible and plainly
desperate !!!
In Bavaria's state elections, German voters sent a powerful message to German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, who has been harshly criticized for opening up Germany's borders to the free
flow of migration. But strangely enough the pro-immigrant Green Party took a solid second
place.
Merkel and her fragile coalition, comprised of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Social
Democrats Party (SPD) and Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered staggering losses
in Bavaria on Sunday, losses not experienced by the two powerhouse conservative parties for
many decades.
The CSU won just 37.3 percent of the vote, down 12.1 percent from 2013, thus failing to
secure an absolute majority. It marked the worst showing conservative Christian Bavaria, where
the CSU has ruled practically unilaterally since 1957. But the political mood in Germany has
changed, and Merkel's so-called sister party will now be forced to seek a coalition to cover
its losses.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD), in an awkward alliance with their
conservative allies, secured just 9.5 percent of the Bavarian vote, down almost 10.9 percent
from its 2013 showing.
The dismal results were not altogether unexpected. CSU leader Horst Seehofer has regularly
clashed with Angela Merkel over the question of her loose refugee policies, which saw 1.5
million migrants pour into Germany unmolested in 2015 alone. In January 2016, when the number
of arrivals had peaked, Bavaria grabbed headlines as Peter Dreier, mayor of the district of
Landshut, sent a
busload of refugees to Berlin, saying his city could not handle any more new arrivals.
Yet, despite such expressions of frustration, and even anger, Germany, perhaps out of some
fear of reverting back to atavistic nationalistic tendencies that forever lurks in the
background of the German psyche, has not come out in full force against the migrant invasion,
which seems to have been forced upon the nation without their approval. As with the young girl
in the video below, however, some Germans have come forward to express their strong
reservations with the trend.
In general, however, the German people, in direct contradiction to the stereotype of them
being an orderly and logical people, do not seem overly concerned with the prospects of their
tidy country being overrun by the chaos of undocumented and illegal migrants. This much seemed
to be confirmed by the strong showing of the pro-immigration Green Party, which took second
place with 18.3 percent of the votes, a 9 percent increase since the last elections.
Katharina Schulze, the 33-year old co-leader of the Bavarian Greens,
told reporters "Bavaria needs a political party that solves the problems of the people and
not create new ones over and over again."
However, a political platform that seems fine with open borders seems to contradict
Schulze's claim to not creating new problems "over and over again." Today, thanks to Merkel's
disastrous refugee non-plan, which the Greens applaud,
every fifth person in Germany comes from immigration, a figure that will naturally increase
over time, placing immense pressure on the country's already overloaded
social welfare programs, not to mention disrupting the country's social cohesiveness.
Thus Schulze may find it an impossible challenge "solving the problems of the people," one
of the vaguest campaign pledges I have ever heard, while embracing a staunchly refugee-friendly
platform that seems doomed to ultimate disaster.
Indeed, Germany appears to be on a collision course between those who accept the idea of
being the world's welcome center for refugees, and those who think Germany must not only close
its borders, but perhaps even send back many refugees. After all, it has been proven that many
of these new arrivals are in reality
'
economic migrants' who arrived in Europe not due to any persecution back home, but rather
from the hope of improving their lot in life. While it's certainly no crime to seek out
economic opportunities, it becomes a real problem when it comes at the expense of the domestic
population.
From an outsider's perspective, I cannot fathom how it is possible that Angela Merkel is
still in power. Although there is no term limit on the chancellorship, people must still go to
the polls and vote for this woman and the CDU, which the majority continues to do –
despite everything.
In a search for answers, I found an explanation by one Arne Trautmann, a German lawyer from
Munich.
"I think the answer lies in German psychology. We do not like instability. We had our
experience with it (hyperinflation, wars and such) and it did not work very well. Angela Merkel
offers such stability. Simply because she has been around for so long."
Still, that answer just drags up more questions that perhaps only the Germans can answer.
After all, if the German people "do not like instability," then the specter of their borders
being violated on a daily basis such be simply unacceptable to them. Perhaps I am missing
something.
In any case, there was a consolation prize of sorts in the Bavarian elections, as the
anti-immigrant AfD party took fourth place (behind the Free Voters) with 10.2 percent of the
votes, an increase of 10 percent from their 2013 performance.
This will give the AfD parliamentary power in the state assembly for the first time, which
should work to put the brakes on illegal migrants entering the country. For the future of
Germany, it may be the last hope.
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been
nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.
She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the
wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard
to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria.
She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only
to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight
into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to
control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.
So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser and what we've accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending our reach . ..."
"... By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
"... As long as NATO exists, Washington will continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it benefited Germany's national interest. ..."
"... She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He is leaving the door open. ..."
"... What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018. ..."
"... Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to exchange ensuring business for many years to come. Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it). Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana. ..."
"... IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere. ..."
"... So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines. ..."
"... Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA. ..."
"... It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil (unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong? ..."
"... The United States should lead by example. Telling Germany not to import Russian gas is rich considering the U.S. also imports from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/12/russia-was-a-top-10-supplier-of-u-s-oil-imports-in-2017/ ..."
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
This
is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us
and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing
this fundraiser and what we've
accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending
our reach .
Yves here. It's not hard to see that this tiff isn't just about Russia. The US wants Germany
to buy high-priced US LNG.
By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm.
Originally published at
OilPrice
The United States and the European Union (EU) are at odds over more than just the Iran
nuclear deal – tensions surrounding energy policy have also become a flashpoint for the
two global powerhouses.
In energy policy, the U.S. has been opposing the Gazprom-led and highly controversial
Nord Stream 2 pipeline project , which will follow the existing Nord Stream natural gas
pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. EU institutions and some EU members
such as Poland and Lithuania are also against it, but one of the leaders of the EU and the
end-point of the planned project -- Germany -- supports Nord Stream 2 and sees the project as a
private commercial venture that will help it to meet rising natural gas demand.
While the U.S. has been hinting this year that it could sanction the project and the
companies involved in it -- which include not only Gazprom but also major European firms Shell,
Engie, OMV, Uniper, and Wintershall -- Germany has just said that
Washington shouldn't interfere with Europe's energy choices and policies.
"I don't want European energy policy to be defined in Washington," Germany's Foreign
Ministry State Secretary Andreas Michaelis said at a conference on trans-Atlantic ties in
Berlin this week.
Germany has to consult with its European partners regarding the project, Michaelis said, and
noted, as quoted by Reuters, that he was "certainly not willing to accept that Washington is
deciding at the end of the day that we should not rely on Russian gas and that we should not
complete this pipeline project."
"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent
of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline," President Trump said.
Germany continues to see Nord Stream 2 as a commercial venture, although it wants clarity on
the future role of Ukraine as a transit route, German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer
said last month.
Nord Stream 2 is designed to bypass Ukraine, and Ukraine fears it will lose transit fees and
leverage over Russia as the transit route for its gas to western Europe.
Poland, one of the most outspoken opponents of Nord Stream 2, together with the United
States, issued a joint statement last month during the visit of Polish President Andrzej Duda
to Washington, in which the parties
said , "We will continue to coordinate our efforts to counter energy projects that threaten
our mutual security, such as Nord Stream 2."
The president of the Federation of German Industry (BDI), Dieter Kempf, however, told
German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung last month, that he had "a big problem with a third
country interfering in our energy policy," referring to the United States. German industry
needs Nord Stream 2, and dropping the project to buy U.S. LNG instead wouldn't make any
economic sense, he said. U.S. LNG currently is not competitive on the German market and would
simply cost too much, according to Kempf.
The lower price of Russian pipeline gas to Europe is a key selling point -- and one that
Gazprom uses often. Earlier this month Alexey Miller, Chairman of Gazprom's Management
Committee, said at a gas forum in
Russia that "Although much talk is going on about new plans for LNG deliveries, there is no
doubt that pipeline gas supplies from Russia will always be more competitive than LNG
deliveries from any other part of the world. It goes without saying."
The issue with Nord Stream 2 -- which is already
being built in German waters -- is that it's not just a commercial project. Many in Europe
and everyone in the United States see it as a Russian political tool and a means to further
tighten Russia's grip on European gas supplies, of which it already holds more than a third.
But Germany wants to discuss the future of this project within the European Union, without
interference from the United States.
Maybe the US thinks it will also have to go out of its way to accommodate Germany and the
EU by offering to construct the necessary infrastructure in Europe for the import of LNG at
exorbitant US prices. MAGA. How long would that take?
The question is, is it inevitable that the EU/US relationship goes sour?
Continentalism is on the rise generally, and specifically with brexit, couple this with the
geographical gravity of the EU-Russia relationship makes a EU-Russia "alliance" make more
sense than the EU-US relationship.
Ever since the death of the USSR and the accession of the eastern states to the EU, the
balance of power in the EU-US relationship has moved in ways it seems clear that the US is
uncomfortable with.
To all of this we must add the policy differences between the US and the EU – see the
GDPR and the privacy shield for example.
I have said it before – the day Putin dies (metaphorically or literally) is a day
when the post war order in Europe may die, and we see the repairing of the EU-Russia
relationship (by which I mean the current regime in Russia will be replaced with a new
generation far less steeped in cold war dogma and way more interested in the EU).
"The post war order in Europe will doe and we see the repairing of the EU/Russian
relationship "
I think you mean the German/Russian relationship and that repair has been under way for
more than a decade. The post war order is very very frayed already and looks close to a break
point.
This Nord Stream 2 story illustrates more than most Germany's attitudes to the EU and to
the world at large. Germany used its heft within the EU to 1 ) get control of Russian gas
supplies into Central Europe (Germany insisted that Poland could not invest in the project
apparently and refused a landing point for the pipeline in Poland. Instead it offered a flow
back valve from Germany into Poland that the Germans would control) 2) thumb its nose at the
US while outwardly declaring friendship through the structures provided by EU and NATO
membership.
Even Obama suspected the Germans of duplicity (the Merkel phone hacking debacle).
It's is this repairing relationship that will set the tone for Brexit, the Ukraine war,
relations between Turkey and EU and eventually the survival of the EU and NATO. The point ?
Germany doesn't give a hoot about the EU it served its purpose of keeping Germany anchored to
the west and allowing German reunification to solidify while Russia was weak. Its usefulness
is in the past now, however from a German point of view.
Putin dying isn't going to change Washington. As long as NATO exists, Washington will
continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along
with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it
benefited Germany's national interest.
Come to think of it, maybe Merkel dying off would improve German-Russian relations
She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while
Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said
that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He
is leaving the door open.
Germany won't lose if NATO and the EU break up. It would free itself from a range
increasingly dis-functional entities that, in its mind, restrict its ability to engage in
world affairs.
I think you are right. Russia and Germany are coming together and there's nothing we can
do about it because "private commercial venture." Poetic justice.
And the economic link will
lead to political links and we will have to learn a little modesty. The ploy we are trying to
use, selling Germany US LNG could not have been anything more than a stopgap supply line
until NG from the ME came online but that has been our achilles heel.
It feels like even if
we managed to kick the Saudis out and took over their oil and gas we still could no longer
control geopolitics. The cat is out of the bag and neoliberalism has established the rules.
And it's pointless because there is enough gas and oil and methane on this planet to kill the
human race off but good.
That exactly right. and Gerhard Schroder has been developing those political relationships
for more than a decade. The political/economic links already go very deep on both sides.
if the rapprochement is occurring, Brexit, the refugee crisis and Italy's approaching debt
crisis are all just potential catalysts for an inevitable breakup. Germany likely views these
as potential opportunities to direct European realignment rather than existential crises to
be tackled.
What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption
and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018
Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes
re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018.
The US produces annually about 33,000,000 million cubic feet and consumes 27.000.000
million according to the EiA . So there is an
excess to export indeed.
Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to
exchange ensuring business for many years to come.
Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture
Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland
representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it).
Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still
dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana.
I don't know much about NG markets in Poland but according to Eurostat prices for
non-household consumers are very similar in Poland, Germany, Lithuania or Spain.
Gas contracts are usually linked to oil prices. A lot of LNG is traded as a fungible
product like oil, but that contract seems different – most likely its constructed this
way because of the huge capital cost of the LNG facilities, which make very little economic
sense for a country like Poland which has pipelines criss-crossing it. I suspect the
terminals have more capacity that the contract quantity – the surplus would be traded
at market prices, which would no doubt be where the profit margin is for the supplier (I
would be deeply sceptical that unsubsidised LNG could ever compete with Russia gas, the
capital costs involved are just too high).
IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with
oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do
with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere.
IMO, the folks responsible for this waste are as usual, ignoring the 'externalities', the
costs to the environment of course, but also the cost of infrastructure and transport related
to turning this situation to their advantage.
So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to
offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and
of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and
high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines.
This doesn't even take into account the possibility that the whole fracked gas supply may
be a short-lived phenomenon, associated with what we've been describing here as basically a
finance game.
Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income
American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA.
Just to clarify, fracked gas is not usually a by-product of oil fracking – the
geological beds are usually distinct (shale gas tends to occur at much deeper levels than
tight oil). Gas can however be a byproduct of conventional oil production. 'wet' gas
(propane, etc), can be a by-product of either.
It's common for oil wells both fracked and conventional to produce natural gas (NG) though
not all do. The fracked wells in the Permian Basin are producing a great deal of it.
Natural gas does indeed form at higher temperatures than oil does and that means at
greater depth but both oil and NG migrate upward. Exploration for petroleum is hunting for
where it gets captured at depth, not for where it's formed. Those source rocks are used as
indicators of where to look for petroleum trapped stratigraphically higher up.
It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil
(unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It
sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will
have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use
nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong?
I wonder what the secret industry studies say about the damage possible from an accident
at a LNG port terminal involving catastrophic failure and combustion of the entire cargo of a
transport while unloading high-pressure LNG.
They call a fuel-air bomb the size of a school bus 'The Mother of all bombs', what about
one the size of a large ocean going tanker?
Many years ago, someone was trying to build an LNG storage facility on the southwest shore
of Staten Island 17 miles SW of Manhattan involving very large insulated tanks. In spite of
great secrecy, there came to be much local opposition. At the time it was said that the
amount of energy contained in the tanks would be comparable to a nuclear weapon. Various
possible disaster scenarios were proposed, for example a tank could be compromised by
accident (plane crashes into it) or terrorism, contents catch fire and explode, huge fireball
emerges and drifts with the wind, possibly over New Jersey's chemical farms or even towards
Manhattan. The local opponents miraculously won. As far as I know, the disused tanks are
still there.
A 28-inch LNG underground pipeline exploded in Nigeria and the resulting fire engulfed
an estimated 27 square kilometers.
Here's one from Cleveland;
On 20 October 1944, a liquefied natural gas storage tank in Cleveland, Ohio, split and
leaked its contents, which spread, caught fire, and exploded. A half hour later, another
tank exploded as well. The explosions destroyed 1 square mile (2.6 km2), killed 130, and
left 600 homeless.
The locals in Nigeria drill hole in pipeline to get free fuel.
The Nigeria Government has been really wonderful about sharing the largess and riches of
their large petroleum field in the Niger delta. Mostly with owners of expensive property
around the world.
I am trying to think of what might be in it for the Germans to go along with this deal but
cannot see any. The gas would be far more expensive that the Russian deliveries. A fleet of
tankers and the port facilities would have to be built and who is going to pick up the tab
for that? Then if the terminal is in Louisiana, what happens to deliveries whenever there is
a hurricane?
I cannot see anything in it for the Germans at all. Trump's gratitude? That and 50 cents
won't buy you a cup of coffee. In any case Trump would gloat about the stupidity of the
Germans taking him up on the deal, not feel gratitude. The US wants Germany to stick with
deliveries via the Ukraine as they have their thumb on that sorry country and can threaten
Germany with that fact. Nord Stream 2 (and the eventual Nord Stream 3) threaten that
hold.
The killer argument is this. In terms of business and remembering what international
agreements Trump has broken the past two years, who is more reliable as a business partner
for Germany – Putin's Russia or Trump's America?
I find it impossible to believe that a gas supplier would keep to an artificially low LNG
contract if, say, a very cold winter in the US led to a shortage and extreme price spike.
They'd come up with some excuse not to deliver.
My recollection was that there was a law that prohibited export-sales of domestic US
hydrocarbons. That law was under attack, and went away in the last couple years?
LNG with your F35? said the transactional Orangeman
The fracked crude is ultralight and unsuitable for the refineries in the quantities
available, hence export, which caused congress to change the law. No expert, but understand
that it is used a lot as a blender with heavier stocks of crude, quite a bit going to
China.
The petroleum industry has been bribing lobbying the administration for quite a
while to get this policy in place, The so called surplus of NG today (if there is), won't
last long. Exports will create a shortage and will result in higher prices to all.
also, if Germany were to switch to American LNG, for how long would this be a reliable
energy source? Fracking wells are short lived, so what happens once they are depleted? who
foots the bill?
I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been
nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.
She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the
wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard
to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria.
She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only
to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight
into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to
control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.
So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!
Putting money aside for a moment, Trump, as well as the entire American establishment,
doesn't want Russia "controlling" Germany's energy supplies. That's because they want America
to control Germany's energy supplies via controlling LNG deliveries from America to Germany
and by controlling gas supplies to Germany through Ukraine. This by maintaining America's
control over Ukraine's totally dependent puppet government. The Germans know this so they
want Nord Stream 2 & 3.
Ukraine is an unreliable energy corridor on a good day. It is run by clans of rapacious
oligarchs who don't give one whit about Ukraine, the Ukrainian "people", or much of anything
else except business. The 2019 presidential election may turn into a contest among President
Poroshenko the Chocolate King, Yulia Tymoshenko the Gas Princess, as well as some others
including neo Nazis that go downhill from there. What competent German government would want
Germany's energy supplies to be dependent on that mess?
It has been said that America's worst geopolitical nightmare is an
economic-political-military combination of Russia, Iran, and China in the Eurasian
"heartland". Right up there, if not worse, is a close political-economic association between
Germany and Russia; now especially so since such a relationship can quickly be hooked into
China's New Silk Road, which America will do anything to subvert including tariffs,
sanctions, confiscations of assets, promotion of political-ethnic-religious grievances where
they may exist along the "Belt-Road", as well as armed insurrections, really maybe anything
short of all out war with Russia and China.
Germany's trying to be polite about this saying, sure, how about a little bit of LNG along
with Nord Stream 2 & 3? But the time may come, if America pushes enough, that Germany
will have to make an existential choice between subservience to America, and pursuit of it's
own legitimate self interest.
It's hard to make NG explode, as it is with all liquid hydrocarbons. It is refrigerated,
and must change from liquid to gaseous for, and be mixed with air.
I've also worked on a Gas Tanker in the summer vacations. The gas was refrigerated, and
kept liquid. They is a second method, used for NG, that is to allow evaporation from the
cargo, and use it as fuel for the engine (singular because there is one propulsion engine on
most large ships) on the tanker.
The stunning CSU defeat in Bavaria means that the coalition partner in Angela Merkel's
government has lost an absolute majority in their worst election results in Bavaria since
1950.
In a preview analysis before the election, Deutsche
Welle noted that a CSU collapse could lead to Seehofer's resignation from Merkel's
government, and conceivably Söder's exit from the Bavarian state premiership, which would
remove two of the chancellor's most outspoken critics from power , and give her room to govern
in the calmer, crisis-free manner she is accustomed to.
On the other hand, a heavy loss and big resignations in the CSU might well push a
desperate party in a more volatile, abrasive direction at the national level. That would
further antagonize the SPD, the center-left junior partners in Merkel's coalition, themselves
desperate for a new direction and already impatient with Seehofer's destabilizing antics, and
precipitate a break-up of the age-old CDU/CSU alliance, and therefore a break-up of Merkel's
grand coalition. In short: Anything could happen after Sunday, up to and including Merkel's
fall.
The Financial Times reports that the campaign was dominated by the divisive issue of
immigration, in a sign of how the shockwaves from Merkel's disastrous decision to let in more
than a million refugees in 2015-16 are continuing to reverberate through German politics and to
reshape the party landscape.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning
Bavarian election defeat of the CSU party, and the message voters sent to Angela Merkel, the
last of the Obama 'rat pack' neo-liberal, globalist leaders whose tenure as German Chancellor
appears to be coming to an end.
Fascism is always eclectic and its doctrine is composed of several sometimes contradicting each other ideas. "Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." (Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..."
)
Some ideas are "sound bite only" and never are implemented and are present only to attract sheeple (looks
National Socialist Program ). he program championed
the right to employment , and called for the institution of
profit sharing , confiscation of
war profits , prosecution of usurers and profiteers,
nationalization of trusts , communalization of department stores,
extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a
national education program of all classes, prohibition
of child labor , and an end to the dominance of
investment capital "
There is also "bait and switch" element in any fascism movement. Original fascism was strongly anti-capitalist, militaristic and
"national greatness and purity" movement ("Make Germany great again"). It was directed against financial oligarchy and anti-semantic
element in it was strong partially because it associated Jews with bankers and financial industry in general. In a way "Jews" were codeword
for investment bankers.
For example " Arbeit Macht Frei " can be viewed as
a neoliberal slogan. Then does not mean that neoliberalism. with its cult of productivity, is equal to fascism, but that neoliberal
doctrine does encompass elements of the fascist doctrine including strong state, "law and order" mentality and relentless propaganda.
The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it lost its meaning. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated
as a working-class political party . This is not true about
Trump whom many assume of having fascist leanings. His pro white working class rhetoric was a fig leaf used for duration or elections.
After that he rules as a typical Republican president favoring big business. And as a typical neocon in foreign policy.
From this point of view Trump can't be viewed even as pro-fascist leader because first of all he does not have his own political
movement, ideology and political program. And the second he does not strive for implementing uniparty state and abolishing the elections
which is essential for fascism political platform, as fascist despise corrupt democracy and have a cult of strong leader.
All he can be called is neo-fascist s his some of his views do encompass ideas taken from fascist ideology (including "law and order";
which also is a cornerstone element of Republican ideology) as well as idealization and mystification of the US past. But with Bannon
gone he also can't even pretend that he represents some coherent political movement like "economic nationalism" -- kind of enhanced
mercantilism.
Of course, that does not mean that previous fascist leaders were bound by the fascism political program, but at least they had one.
Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that, "To [Hitler,
the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had
brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation,
for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory,
against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents."
Notable quotes:
"... Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago. ..."
"... Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics. ..."
"... In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence. ..."
"... fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. ..."
"... The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle. ..."
It's in the name of tradition that the anti-Semites base their "point of view." It's in the name of tradition, the long, historical
past and the blood ties with Pascal and Descartes, that the Jews are told, you will never belong here.
-- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1952)
It is only natural to begin this book where fascist politics invariably claims to discover its genesis: in the past. Fascist
politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously
pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist
mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago.
Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals,
its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present,
these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics.
In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal
cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the
face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence.
These myths are generally based on fantasies of a nonexistent past uniformity, which survives in the traditions of the small towns
and countrysides that remain relatively unpolluted by the liberal decadence of the cities. This uniformity -- linguistic, religious,
geographical, or ethnic -- can be perfectly ordinary in some nationalist movements, but fascist myths distinguish themselves
with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests
and civilization-building achievements. For example, in the fascist imagination, the past invariably involves traditional, patriarchal
gender roles. The fascist mythic past has a particular structure, which supports its authoritarian, hierarchical ideology. That past
societies were rarely as patriarchal -- or indeed as glorious -- as fascist ideology represents them as being is beside the point.
This imagined history provides proof to support the imposition of hierarchy in the present, and it dictates how contemporary society
should look and behave.
In a 1922 speech at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Benito Mussolini declared:
We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. . . . Our myth is
the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total
reality, we subordinate everything.
The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -- or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal
family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism
and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?
In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family. The leader is
the father of his nation, and his strength and power are the source of his legal authority, just as the strength and power of the
father of the family in patriarchy are supposed to be the source of his ultimate moral authority over his children and wife. The
leader provides for his nation, just as in the traditional family the father is the provider. The patriarchal father's authority
derives from his strength, and strength is the chief authoritarian value. By representing the nation's past as one with a patriarchal
family structure, fascist politics connects nostalgia to a central organizing hierarchal authoritarian structure, one that finds
its purest representation in these norms.
Gregor Strasser was the National Socialist -- Nazi -- Reich propaganda chief in the 1920s, before the post was taken over by Joseph
Goebbels. According to Strasser, "for a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation -- for the
woman it is motherhood!" Paula Siber, the acting head of the Association of German Women, in a 1933 document meant to reflect official
National Socialist state policy on women, declares that "to be a woman means to be a mother, means affirming with the whole conscious
force of one's soul the value of being a mother and making it a law of life . . . the highest calling of the National Socialist
woman is not just to bear children, but consciously and out of total devotion to her role and duty as mother to raise children for
her people." Richard Grunberger, a British historian of National Socialism, sums up "the kernel of Nazi thinking on the women's question"
as "a dogma of inequality between the sexes as immutable as that between the races." The historian Charu Gupta, in her 1991 article
"Politics of Gender: Women in Nazi Germany," goes as far as to argue that "oppression of women in Nazi Germany in fact furnishes
the most extreme case of anti-feminism in the 20th century."
Here, Mussolini makes clear that the fascist mythic past is intentionally mythical. The function of the mythic past, in fascist
politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity,
and struggle.
With the creation of a mythic past, fascist politics creates a link between nostalgia and the realization of fascist ideals. German
fascists also clearly and explicitly appreciated this point about the strategic use of a mythological past. The leading Nazi ideologue
Alfred Rosenberg, editor of the prominent Nazi newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, writes in 1924, "the understanding of and the
respect for our own mythological past and our own history will form the first condition for more firmly anchoring the coming generation
in the soil of Europe's original homeland." The fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present.
Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished
Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University. Stanley is the author of Know How; Languages in Context;
More about Jason Stanley
This could have been such a helpful, insightful book. The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so
often that it has started to lose its meaning. I hoped that this book would provide a historical perspective on fascism by examining
actual fascist governments and drawing some parallels to the more egregious / worrisome trends in US & European politics. The
chapter titles in the table of contents were promising:
- The Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectual
- Unreality
- Hierarchy
- Victimhood
- Law & Order
- Sexual Anxiety
- Sodom & Gomorrah
- Arbeit Macht Frei
Ironically (given the book's subtitle) the author used his book divisively: to laud his left-wing political views and demonize
virtually all distinctively right-wing views. He uses the term "liberal democracy" inconsistently throughout, disengenuously equivocating
between the meaning of "representative democracy as opposed to autocratic or oligarchic government" (which most readers would
agree is a good thing) and "American left-wing political views" (which he treats as equally self-evidently superior if you are
a right-thinking person). Virtually all American right-wing political views are presented in straw-man form, defined in such a
way that they fit his definition of fascist politics.
I was expecting there to be a pretty heavy smear-job on President Trump and his cronies (much of it richly deserved...the man's
demagoguery and autocratic tendencies are frightening), but for this to turn into "let's find a way to define virtually everything
the Republicans are and do as fascist politics" was massively disappointing. The absurdly biased portrayal of all things conservative
and constant hymns of praise to all things and all people left-wing buried some good historical research and valid parallels under
an avalanche of partisanism.
If you want a more historical, less partisan view of the rise of fascist politics, I would highly recommend Darkness Over Germany
by E. Amy Buller (Review Here). It was written during World War II (based on interviews with Germans before WWII), so you will
have to draw your own contemporary parallels...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
If one had to identify the main reason behind the utter failure of the U.S. political
establishment and military leadership, both civilian and in uniform, to identify and prioritize
weapons programs and procurement that was truly in line with the national defense needs of the
country, it would be the institutional corruption of the U.S. military industrial complex. This
is not a fault of one party, but is the inevitable outcome of a thoroughly corrupted system
that both generates and wastes great wealth at the expense of the many for the benefit of the
few.
Massive defense budgets do not lead to powerful military forces nor sound national defense
strategy. The United States is the most glaring example of how a nation's treasure can be
wasted, its citizens robbed for generations, and its political processes undermined by an
industry bent on maximizing profitability by encouraging and exacerbating conflict. At this
point it is questionable that the United States' could remain economically viable without war,
so much of its GDP is connected in some way to the pursuit of conflict.
There is no doubt that the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in an
Orwellian sleight of hand in 1947, just a few years after end of World War II. The military
industrial complex grew into a monolith during the war, and the only way to justify the
expansion of the complex, was by finding a new enemy to justify the new reality of a massive
standing military, something that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. This unlawful state
of affairs has persisted and expanded into a rotten, bloated edifice of waste. Wasted effort,
wasted wealth and the wasted lives of millions of people spanning every corner of the planet.
Tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform, and millions of civilians of so many
nations, have been tossed into the blades of this immoral meat grinder for generations.
President Donald Trump was very proud to announce the largest U.S. military budget in the
nation's history last year. The United States spent (or more accurately, borrowed from
generations yet to come) no less than $874.4 billion USD. The declared base budget for 2017 was
$523.2 billion USD, yet there are also the Overseas Contingency Operations and Support budgets
that have to be considered in determining the total cost. The total DOD annual costs have
doubled from 2003 to the present. Yet, what has the DOD really accomplished with so much money
and effort? Very little of benefit to the U.S. tax payer for sure, and paradoxically the
exorbitant waste of the past fifteen years have left every branch of the U.S. military
weaker.
The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of reigning in the military adventurism of
the executive branch. They have the sole authority to declare war, but more importantly, the
sole authority to approve the budget requests of the military. It is laughable to think that
the U.S. Congress will do anything to reign in military spending. The Congress and the Senate
are as equally guilty as the Executive in promoting and benefitting from the military
industrial complex. Envisioned as a bulwark against executive power, the U.S. Congress has
become an integral component of that complex. No Senator or Representative would dare to go
against the industry that employs so many constituents within their state, or pass up on the
benefits afforded them through the legalized insider-trading exclusive to them, or the
lucrative jobs that await them in the defense industry and the many think tanks that promote
continued prosecution of war.
Qatar is jubilating! Turkey, too! Saudi Arabia will be criticized and isolated as most GCC
countries would dissaprove and prefer to dissociate from such a crime. Dismembering the body
of a dead moslem man is a very serious crime in Islam.
Kuwait and Bahrein are already cozyng up with Syria, the UAE is slowly moving out the
Yemen war and reviewing ist relation with Syria.
Kashoogi's alleged martyr may save Yemenis lives and may have the Western world faced to
the reality that in the region, the evil is not Iran but their best friend, Saudi Arabia and
its smiling monster MBS.
Kashoogi may have succeeded unintentionally to destabilize MBS and probably trigger his
removal. The USA will have no problem in sacrificing MBS for the sake of keeping the Saudi
milking under control. The only problem will be that it will reflect on Kushner-MBS Grand
Palestinian plan.
Maybe Kashoogi's love for fiancee made him take the risk to get a divorce paper from the
Saudi Arabia consulate and be killed.
@75 Why should Trump make a big issue about some dead Arab? Because he was a journalist?
Trump hates journalists.
If bleeding heart progressives want to make a fuss so be it. He knows his base don't give
a shit about the world outside the USA as long as they buy American arms.
That might sound far fetched or even crazy but we have been here before. When in December
1988 Pan Am Flight
103 exploded over Lockerbie it was quite obvious that it was a revenge act for the July
1988 murder of 290 people on board of Iran Air flight 655 by the U.S. navy.
But the investigation was fudged and in the end it was politically most convenient to blame
Libya's Ghaddafi for the Pan Am disaster even while he had nothing to do with either
incident.
@8: For an objective discussion, with detailed analysis of the forensic
evidence, of how and where the Lockerbie bomb was placed I recommend the book 'Adequately
explained by stupidity?' by M.Kerr. The author (wisely in my view) does not speculate on who
might have placed the bomb, although she makes it clear that it could not have been either of
the Libyans tried for the crime. The book is not perfect, as it lacks an index, but you can't
have everything!
To Pan Am Flight 103: 4-5 years ago i watched a documentation about it, with the usual
narrative. But some weeks ago i tried to learn some more pieces of the truth about it, and
on Wikipedia is a MSM/propaganda article like so often these days. Has anyone some links to
an unbiased account on the tragedy? Thanks in advance! Posted by:
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | Oct 11, 2018 4:31:13 PM | 8
"For years disinformation specialists have peddled a giant lie about the crash of Pan Am 103
at Lockerbie. Time and time again the media has hysterically regurgitated the flawed and
impossible legend that Maid of the Seas was brought to earth by a bomb triggered by a
barometrically-activated timer, hidden in a radio in a samsonite suitcase. A barometric timer
set for 10,000 feet altitude, which miraculously failed to activate when the Air Malta Flight
it was allegedly planted on climbed through 10,000 feet after departing Valetta for
Frankfurt, and again when the Pam Am feeder Boeing 727 to London climbed through 10,000 feet
after departing Frankfurt." https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Bomb_Trigger_on_Pam_Am_103
Copyright Joe Vialls, May 2000
In The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror , which bombing is a modern
template for many false flags that follow, i.e. , a drill goes live, the author
follows a myriad of threads, including the fact that CIA intelligence officers were on Pan Am
103 ("Inconvenient Truths" and "Lockerbie: The Flight From Justice" mention this was well).
The contention is that they were returning to Langley to present evidence that a rogue CIA
group was running drugs through Lebanon. It sez here the rogues managed to place a bomb on
the plane in Germany.
I looked into the Lockerbie thing several years ago and was astonished to find out that
the only link to Lybia was a Swiss made timer supposedly used to detonate the bomb. It was
found "by chance" although the plane debris were scattered over many square kilometers...
My understanding of the Lockerbie air tragedy is that it's a classic example of two birds
being killed with one stone.
Where TPTB find a possibility that two problems or issues can be dealt with by the same
solution, however violent, that possibility becomes reality.
The context to the Lockerbie shootdown is that at the time the CIA was running a
heroin-trafficking racket in the Middle East with Lebanese partners. Investigators from the
DIA (Defense Intelligency Agency, the Pentagon's own spy agency) discovered this scheme and
collected evidence to expose it. The CIA became aware of what the DIA agents knew and wanted
them out of the way. One of the CIA's Lebanese partners knew that the Iranian government, or
people within it, wanted revenge on the US for the earlier shootdown of an Iranian passenger
jet by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf.
The CIA's Lebanese partners knew of the Iranians' desire for revenge and may have arranged
with the Iranians to substitute a bomb for cash or heroin packets in a suitcase taken on
board the Pan Am jet. This case may have been part of the evidence the DIA was taking back to
the US (but the DIA agents might not have known at the time they took the case on board).
I am not sure of all the details (details not being my strong suit) but that's my
understanding in a nutshell.
"the GRU's disregard for global values and rules that keep us all safe".
Like the values and rules that led the NSA to eavesdrop on Chancellor Merkel's phone calls
for years, and to use American Embassies as listening posts. Mutti Merkel was very
understanding, considering they were only doing it to keep us all safe.
A suspected third member of the Kremlin hit squad behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack
has been named, according to a respected Russian news website.
Sergey Fedotov, 45, travelled to the UK on the same day as the two assassins already
charged by British authorities – and boarded the same flight home.
The Telegraph had previously reported the existence of a third member of the Russian
intelligence hit squad and a trawl of flight records by the Fontanka news agency matched it
to Fedotov.
According to Fontanka, Fedotov flew to the UK on a passport whose number differs by
only a few digits from those used by the two GRU military intelligence agents officially
wanted for the nerve agent attack.
It is almost certain Fedotov is not the passenger's real name but an alias. No traces
of Sergei Fedotov have been found in documentary databases or on social media. He has no
property, vehicles or telephone numbers registered to his name in Russia, according to
Fontanka.
No "alleged"in "Kremlin hit squad behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack but It is
almost certain Fedotov is not the passenger's real name but an alias.
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
You would have to wonder why Putin opened with the following remarks if you were ignorant of
the global situation:
"You came here to hold an open and trust based discussion on the issues of the
global energy agenda .
"We believe that progress in global energy, as well as the stable energy security of our
entire planet, can only be achieved through global partnership, working in accordance with
general rules that are the same for everyone, and, of course, through conducting transparent
and constructive dialogue among market players which is not politically motivated but is
based on pragmatic considerations and an understanding of shared responsibilities and mutual
interests." [My Emphasis]
His characterization of Skripal came during the Q&A, and there are likely more gems to
be had from that session.
Waging Illegal Aggressive War, Illegal sanctions, Violations of UNSC Resolutions, Breaking
of Contracts, and Ongoing violation of the UN Charter and US Constitution since 1945 are just
a few of the reasons why it must be called the Outlaw US Empire as no other term properly
describes it. 80 years ago, appeasement didn't work, and it's clear it doesn't work today
either. Together the world's nations must bring the Outlaw US Empire to heel and make it obey
the Rule of Law and abandon its unilateral Rule of the Gun.
Ah, there it is. The reason behind this strange week, the dots that few will connect.
Putin speaking at a conference about "sustainable energy in a changing world."
Right there, two phrases that are certain to set off Exxon corp and their puppets in the
political theater. Say "sustainable energy" around an oil giant and watch them shudder. The,
mention "changing world" to any of that class and they have nightmares about their children
having to learn Chinese. Put them all together in one title of a conference at which Putin
himself is speaking and well, now we know why the Shakespearian chorus of Exxon's oil
industry bit players like former Texas Governor Rich "the hair" Perry and former Texas
Senator Hutchinson are suddenly frothing at the bit about the Park Rangers mounting a naval
blockade of Russia (see Yogi Bear for how that's likely to turn out, hey booboo?) and nuclear
first strikes on Russia.
Putin, Sustainable Energy, Changing world .. enough to send some senior executive geezers
at Exxon grabbing for their nitro pills and speed dialing their cardiologists.
For those who like to call Russia "a gas station masquerading as a country" here is Putin's
note on ecology:
"A separate ambitious task for the future is the development of renewable energy sources,
especially in remote, difficult-to-access areas of this country, such as Eastern Siberia, and
the Far East. This is opening a great opportunity for our vast country, the world's largest
country with its diverse natural and climatic conditions.
Friends, in conclusion I would like to tell you the following: sustainable and steady
development of the energy industry is a key condition for dynamic growth of the world
economy, enhancing living standards and improving the wellbeing of all people on our
planet.
Russia is open to cooperation in the energy industry in the interests of global energy
security and for the benefit of the future generations. And we certainly rely on active
dialogue on these subjects and cooperation.
Nothing is going to save us from our energy problems, nothing and especially not renewables.
Spend some time reading and studying Gail Tverberg's material and one will quickly see we
are heading for a financial catastrophe because of affordability issues. On the one hand
there isn't enough money to pay for extraction of oil and gas and on the other the consumer
is strapped because of high pump prices etc. But like she herself says if only the wages of
non elite workers could rise high enough to help pay for the increased costs then likely we
wouldn't have a problem. That though is clearly not happening.
I am deeply afraid we are going to wake up to a world very different from the one we went
to sleep in. Just this one article alone expresses the grave situation the world is in:
Every time Chuck Paar makes the over 500-mile round trip from his home in Mt. Jewett,
Pennsylvania, to Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, his 18-wheel tractor trailer carries 25 tons
of sand or cement and burns about $265 of diesel in one day. That's up from as little as $166
for the same route two years ago, and the increased cost of fuel is squeezing already thin
industry profit margins.
"... Thanks to media, to this day very few people in the West know that towards the end of the 78-day war, US and UK deliberately targeted several completely civilian facilities (bridges, hospitals and schools) and in just a few days of such targeting killed about 200 civilians. ..."
Kiza
says: October
7, 2018 at 7:50 am GMT 500 Words @Quartermaster
I am not going to insult you personally, but as a cheap paid troll you have absolutely no clue
about the subject you are typing about for your Israeli masters. FB has not explained
everything perfectly but what he wrote is correct. It is not true that an airforce would target
radar installations only with HARM missiles, which all NATO countries and Israel have, but in
practice HARM are the only missiles to reliably target mobile air defence. During the attack on
Serbia, US flew more than 90% of NATO missions and it managed to destroy three missile
batteries and one radar station (using HARM). But the mobility of the Serbian immobile air
defences had two major effects:
1) Unlike Iraq, Serbia let NATO bomb targets without always switching on its air defences to be
detected and destroyed; this grossly reduced NATOs air effectiveness because with every bomber
they had to constantly send at least one support plane with jammers, HARMs etc. NATO tried to
claim a virtue out of this by saying that they were soft on Serbia and will get tougher, but in
reality their military attack was becoming difficult to manage, expensive and risky (the NATO
unity was beginning to fray).
2) It was a running joke in Serbia how NATO planes would attack some completely empty hill
(Serbia is a relatively hilly country), create literally free fireworks for the villagers, just
because there was an air defense installation on the hill maybe 5-10 hours ago. A similar joke
was how the Serbian military or even the local villagers would spread a strip of black builders
plastic over a river and NATO planes flying at above 5 km to avoid manpads would blast this $2
bridge with $200,000 worth of bombs (adding mission cost to the cost of bombs).
Regarding US F117, it was more "stealth" than F35 and similar stealth to the smaller F22,
but the Serbians used the Checkoslovakian TAMARA passive radar, using ionospheric scatter, and
also launched multiple operator guided missiles at F117 without a proper engagement radar to be
HARMed. Self-confident in stealth the pilots of F117 did not manoeuvre, thus it was easy to
predict their path even without the targeting and engagement radar.
Forcing US to retire F117 was the second costliest damage the Serbians have done (Lockheed
did not cry, through their lobbyists they turned the loss into an opportunity to sell more
rubbish). But the biggest cost to US was that Milosevic sold several unexploded cruise missiles
and all F117 parts to China and used the money to rebuild and repair all civilian buildings in
Serbia destroyed by NATO. Later, UK and US did a colour revolution in Serbia, got their hands
on Milosevic, who then died from a health "accident" in NATO jail.
@Cyrano
You are spot-on. The Serbian military fought NATO to a draw, proven by the fact that the
peace treaty signed in Kumanovo in FYRM, did not contain the Rambouye clauses and even left
Kosovo under Serbian jurisdiction as per UNSC 1244.
Even this military draw was forced on Serbia by increased bombardment of civilian targets
in Serbia combined with open threats of carpet bombing by US B57. Serbia is a fairly densely
populated country, no jungles to hide in as in Vietnam. The civilian targets were bombed to
show that they could do carpet bombing with impunity (with the help of MSM). Thanks to
media, to this day very few people in the West know that towards the end of the 78-day war,
US and UK deliberately targeted several completely civilian facilities (bridges, hospitals
and schools) and in just a few days of such targeting killed about 200 civilians.
Naturally, any agreements with the West are totally pointless. After the Kumanovo
agreement, US and UK organized a color revolution in Serbia, took Kosovo away and got their
Serbian puppets to agree to all Rambouye demands. Serbia did not lose the war, but it lost
the agreement peace with the West.
' to my knowledge the Serbians did not use a radiating radar to shoot-down one/two F117.
They used a passive radar, which does not emit at all, it only receives a rough and noisy
location of the stealth plane '
This is complete nonsense once again you choose to pontificate on things in which you have
no knowledge
In your earlier comment,
you identified this 'passive radar' allegedly used by the Serbs as the Czech 'Tamara' system
which the Serbs did not possess
Not only that but this kind of system is not used for guiding SAM shots, and is certainly
not any kind of 'anti-stealth' weapon this category of device is known as an emitter locator
system [ELS], and is used to listen in on radio emissions from hostile aircraft and to then
track them, by means of a number of geometrically deployed antennas that can then triangulate
the bearing and direction of the aircraft
However, the basic physics involved means that these emitter locators are effective at
tracking signals OTHER THAN the aircraft's onboard radar this would include the IFF
[identification friend or foe transponder signal] and other onboard radio emitters which are
OMNIDIRECTIONAL emitters
An aircraft radar's narrow pencil beam could not reach multiple [at least 2] ELS antenna
[which would be geographically dispersed] to provide the needed triangulation
' A topic which appears to crop up with monotonous regularity [is] Warsaw Pact equipment
"capable of detecting stealth aircraft".
These claims invariably involve either the Czech designed and built Tesla-Pardubice
KRTP-86 Tamara or ERA Vera Emitter Locating Systems, or the Ukrainian designed and built
Topaz Kolchuga series of Emitter Locating Systems.
More than often this equipment is described as 'anti-stealth radar', 'radar' or
'passive radar', all of which are completely incorrect.
Much of everything else you have farted out here regarding the Serb takedown of the F117
is similar bullshit
The
3′rd battery of the 250′th Air Defense missile Brigade, commanded by then Lt
Col Zoltan Dani killed both F117s [the second one made it back to Aviano, Italy but was
scrapped, as USAF Col Riccioni confirms in his F22 report I linked to earlier] as well as the
kill on the F16 of then 555′th squadron Commander, then Lt Col David Goldfein, who,
since 2016 happens to be Gen Goldfein and the USAF
Chief of Staff
Here is Goldfein's F16 canopy and tail feathers on display at the Belgrade Aviation
Museum
Incidentally, Col Riccioni mentions in that same report that Goldfein was doing 'other
than what he was supposed to be doing' when shot down I guess in today's USAF that means you
have the 'right stuff' to become The Chief
Also incidentally, the Goldfein kill was overseen by Col Dani's Deputy Maj Bosko Dotlic,
as Col Dani was off duty at the time
The point is that that one single S125 battery accounted for ALL the confirmed kills of
the Serb IADS in 1999 [although there are many more 'probable' kills that either ditched in
the Adriatic, or limped back but were scrapped]
This speaks to my earlier point about human competence and the 'hawks' and 'doves' just
like a small fraction of fighter pilots rack up the overwhelming majority of kills the same
goes for air defense commanders, submarine captains, tank commanders etc
You have spewed here a whole lot of garbage about 'secret' anti-stealth weapons and 'lucky
shots' etc which is a complete insult to the historical record and the great work by Col Dani
and his men and to the entire principle of working and training hard to achieve professional
competence in a military skill
Here is a picture of the side of the 3′rd Battery Command Cabin, with Three kills
stenciled in the F117 [black] on top a B2 [not confirmed] and Goldfein's F16 in white at
bottom
As per standard Russian air defense design doctrine, the S125 uses a separate
acquisition and tracking radar which DOES operate at a lower frequency in this case the
P15 'Flat Face'
which operates in the decimetric wavelength band [which is similar to ATC radar frequency of
about 1.2 to 1.4 GHz...ie L band]
As explained previously the acquisition radar serves to find and track the target at long
range and cues the engagement radar to scan a precise sector where the acquisition radar has
found the target the engagement radar's increased precision [due to its higher frequency and
antenna size] then provides pinpoint accuracy to guide the missile
It is this combination of separate radars working together that allows the targeting of
low observable aircraft and what the 3′rd Battery did was a textbook example of using
the equipment to its full potential despite the fact that this old radar technology was in
fact susceptible to jamming, which the Nato forces employed massively
Col Dani also trained his men hard to be able to disassemble their radar and launchers
within 90 minutes and load everything up on trucks and move to another location he also
exercised strict discipline with regard to emissions allowing the radar to be turned on only
for very short bursts at a time about a minute or two at most
This is all textbook Soviet operating procedure and the difference was the exceptional
work ethic and competence that Col Dani maintained in his unit
It should be noted here that the Serb air defense was in fact very successful overall war
is a game of survival and attrition and what the Serbs accomplished was noted by air combat
practitioners
'The air campaign over Kosovo severely affected the readiness rates of the United States
Air Force's Air Combat Command during that period. Units in the United States were the most
badly affected, as they were were stripped of their personnel and spare parts to support
ACC (Air Combat Command) and AMC (Air Mobility Command) units involved in Operation Allied
Force.
The Commander of the USAF's Air Combat Command, General Richard E Hawley, outlined this
in a speech to reporters on 29 April, 1999.[10] Further, many aircraft will have to be
replaced earlier than previously planned, as their planned fatigue life was prematurely
expended.
PGM inventories needed to be re-stocked, the warstock of the AGM-86C Conventional
Air-Launched Cruise Missile dropping to 100 or fewer rounds.[11] Of the more than 25,000
bombs and missiles expended, nearly 8,500 were PGMs, with the replacement cost estimated at
$US1.3 billion.[12]
Thus the USAF suffered from virtual attrition of its air force without having scored
a large number of kills in theatre. Even if the United States' best estimates of Serbian
casualties are used, the Serbians left Kosovo with a large part of their armoured forces
intact.
Incidentally, several years ago the downed USAF pilot Col Dale Zelko, traveled to Serbia
to visit the man who shot him down Col Dani a film The Second Meeting was made here is
a trailer
PS I will have more to say later, as you have littered this thread with all kinds of
technically incorrect crapola
@Johnny
Rico NATO failed to defeat the Yugoslav army so NATO targeted Serbian civilians. You have
suffered far more losses than you acknowledge so you started killing women and children. You
rained the main marked and the main hospital of my hometown with cluster bombs. That's why
Serbia accepted UN resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo agreement. Given the ultimatum in
Rambouillet, that's not what I would call a capitulation. The only reason Serbia signed was
because you threatened to mass murder Serbian civilians. Why would you threaten to massacre
civilians if you had so soundly defeated the Yugoslav army? Never have so many American
military died during training exercises than during the aggression against Serbia. We
consider you to be shit at war. Extremely armed fags who pee in their pants when they face
opposition. But believe what you want.
@Kiza
The Russians failed to defend Serbia in 1999. That's the Serbian approach.
Why on Earth would Russians defend Serbs who only remember "Russian" brothers when they're in
dire straits?
Why would the Russian "love" us more than we "love" them? What is their interest? Because
Serbs love "Tolstoevsky"?
Don't blame the Russian for Serbian failures. In true love as in a true contract, you have to
give in order to take. Russia has given us a lot with no expectance of return. If she
expected anything, we have given her nothing. We aren't Russia's spoiled child.
NATO failed to defeat the Yugoslav army so NATO targeted Serbian civilians.
Actually, they started to target civilian infrastructure. The objective was to intimidate
the regime in Belgrade into surrender by pushing the country towards stone age.
I guess you could be onto something here:
You have suffered far more losses than you acknowledge .
and
Never have so many American military died during training exercises than during the
aggression against Serbia.
As for
That's why Serbia accepted UN resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo agreement.
there was a little matter of Russia guaranteeing something too, I guess. While the
drunkard was in the Kremlin.
Perceptions aside (Argentinians still believe they sank Royal Navy aircraft carrier in
'82, for example) NATO delivered what its political masters wanted at the time.
Serbs lost .BADLY.
@Vojkan
Yes. It's pretty much standard American practice to bomb civilian infrastructure immediately,
regardless of the degree of resistance put up by the opposing military.
@Vojkan
I don't mean to interfere in inter-Serbian squabble, but I'll volunteer an opinion anyway. I
think you are exaggerating what Russia has done for Serbia for example. How so? As a proud
Balkaneer ( I am exaggerating here a little bit myself – the proud part) I have to say
that we in the Balkans have always benefited from the simple fact that usually Russia's
enemies are our enemies too, so when Russia takes care of their enemies, they automatically
take care of our enemies too.
But I don't think that the Russians would necessarily put their neck on the line for the
Balkan Slavs to defend them against enemies that are not their enemies as well. So,
unfortunately for Serbia, that equation didn't work for them in the 90's – simply put
– Serbia's enemies were not automatically Russia's enemies too. Russia was still trying
to be friends with the west. I forgot who it was, but some prominent Russian politician at
the time said: "We are not going to start nuclear war with US over Serbia".
But it seems that Serbia is always the canary in the mine – whenever someone attacks
Serbia – Russia is next. That's why that buffoon Yeltsin had to go. Friendship with the
west was over the moment they attacked Yugoslavia (Serbia). Now the Russia didn't start a
nuclear war over Serbia, but they still might have to – to defend themselves, and as
always Serbia will benefit from this – if anything is left over from this world after
things go nuclear.
@peterAUS
Serbs did lose badly. Albeit not on the battlefield. Though there never was a real
battlefield.
I have no reason to doubt the accounts of my friends in the military who sought in the rare
conversations I've had with them on the subject, to humble down their achievements.
I believe Russians capitalised on the Serb's defeat. I can't blame them for that. No one is
responsible for what happened to Serbs, as it happened, but Serbs. They're so keen on making
the wrong decisions for the sake of appearing glorious, you can't blame the devil for that.
It's their informed choice
@Beefcake
the Mighty To be fair, they only did it after they realised that the Serb military were
too smart to be depleted by aerial bombardment and that in order to defeat them, you'd have
to fight them on the ground. That's why NATO bombarded civilians. On a man to man basis,
Serbs and Russians are the best soldiers in the world. No navy seal, no marine, no SAS can
match them. Fighting for their homes gives them the little bit of adrenaline needed to
prevail.
@Cyrano
My point was never "Russians" are our brothers. My point is, whatever cultural, religious or
blood affinity I have with the Russians, they have their interests and we have ours. I cannot
expect of Russians to defend Serbia for "ses beaux yeaux". The same goes the other way
around. To some people Russia has "betrayed" Serbia, to some other Serbia has "betrayed"
Russia. Yet the West sees us as one whole, Russia and little "Russia". I didn't ask myself
before but now I love Russia infinetely more than the West. Russia has asked me nothing, has
given me nothing and is expecting nothing from me.
If we can have a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, great. We will never have that
with the USA or the UK or Germany or France. They're guilty of the spoilation of Serbs' lives
and private properties. Russians never spoiled Serbs of anything.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg says that people having "poor" memories of NATO's
1999 bombing of Yugoslavia are wrong because the military bloc did this to protect civilians
and save lives.
"I stressed that we did this to protect civilians and to stop the Milosevic regime,"
Stoltenberg stated during a meeting with the students of Belgrade University.
The NATO secretary stated further that the bloc supports a "dialogue" between Serbia and its
breakaway region [now a self-proclaimed state] of Kosovo. According to him, Belgrade has to
"look into the future" for furher cooperation between the two sides.
The attitude showed by Stoltenberg is a common example how the US-NATO propaganda works. Any
actions, incluindg illegal military interventions, false flag provocations and mass civilian
casualties, are being explained by the need to "defend democracy", "protect civilians" and
"save lives".
"... Accountability is for the little people, immunity is for the ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded some of the darkest moments in human history ..."
"... September began with John McCain's funeral – a memorial billed as an apolitical celebration of the Arizona lawmaker, but which served as a made-for-TV spectacle letting America know that everyone who engineered the Iraq war is doing just fine. ..."
"... The underlying message was clear: nobody other than the dead, the injured and the taxpayer will face any real penalty for the Iraq debacle. ..."
"... Meanwhile, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon garnered non-Onion headlines by floating the idea of running for president – a reminder that a decade after his firm played a central role in destroying countless Americans' economic lives, he remains not only unincarcerated and gainfully employed, but so reputationally unscathed that he is seen as a serious White House candidate. ..."
Accountability is for the little people,
immunity is for the ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded some of the darkest moments in human
history
'If there are no legal consequences for profiteers who defrauded the
global economy into a collapse, what will deter those profiteers from doing that again?' Illustration: Mark Long/Mark Long for Guardian
US W hen the former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was
released from prison
a few weeks ago, the news conjured memories of a corporate scandal that now seems almost quaint – and it was also a reminder
that Enron executives were among the last politically connected criminals to face any serious consequences for institutionalized
fraud.
Since Skilling's conviction 12 years ago,
our society has been fundamentally altered by a powerful political movement whose goal is not merely another court seat, tax cut
or election victory. This movement's objective is far more revolutionary: the creation of an accountability-free zone for an ennobled
aristocracy, even as the rest of the population is treated to law-and-order rhetoric and painfully punitive policy.
Let's remember that in less than two decades, America has experienced the Iraq war, the financial crisis, intensifying economic
stratification, an opioid plague, persistent gender and racial inequality and now seemingly unending climate change-intensified disasters.
While the victims have been ravaged by these crime sprees, crises and calamities, the perpetrators have largely avoided arrest, inquisition,
incarceration, resignation, public shaming and ruined careers.
That is because the United States has been turned into a safe space for a permanent ruling class. Inside the rarefied refuge,
the key players who created this era's catastrophes and who embody the most pernicious pathologies have not just eschewed punishment
– many of them have actually maintained or even increased their social, financial and political status.
The effort to construct this elite haven has tied together so many seemingly disparate news events, suggesting that there is a
method in the madness. Consider this past month that culminated with the dramatic battle over the judicial nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
September began with John McCain's funeral – a memorial billed as an apolitical celebration of the Arizona lawmaker, but which
served as a made-for-TV spectacle letting America know that everyone who engineered the Iraq war is doing just fine.
The event was attended by Iraq war proponents of both parties, from
Dick Cheney to
Lindsey
Graham to Hillary Clinton. The funeral featured a saccharine eulogy from the key Democratic proponent of the invasion, Joe Lieberman,
as well the resurrection of George W Bush. The
codpiece-flaunting
war president who piloted America into the cataclysm with
"bring 'em on" bravado,
"shock and awe" bloodlust and
"uranium from
Africa" dishonesty was suddenly portrayed as an icon of warmth and civility when he
passed a lozenge to Michelle Obama. The scene was depicted not as the gathering of a rogues gallery fit for a war crimes tribunal,
but as a
venerable
bipartisan reunion evoking
nostalgia for the supposed halcyon days – and Bush promptly used his newly revived image to
campaign
for Republican congressional candidates and
lobby
for Kavanaugh's appointment .
The underlying message was clear: nobody other than the dead, the injured and the taxpayer will face any real penalty for the
Iraq debacle.
Next up came the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis – a meltdown that laid waste to the global economy, while providing
lucrative taxpayer-funded bailouts to Wall Street firms.
To mark the occasion, the three men on whose watch it occurred – Fed chair Ben Bernanke, Bush treasury secretary Hank Paulson
and Obama treasury secretary Tim Geithner – did not offer an apology, but instead promised that another financial crisis will eventually
occur, and they
demanded lawmakers give public officials
more power to bail out big banks in the future.
In a similar bipartisan show of unity, former Trump economic adviser
Gary Cohn gave an interview in which he asked "Who broke the law?" – the implication being that no Wall Street executives were
prosecuted for their role in the meltdown because no statutes had been violated. That suggestion, of course, is undermined by
banks
'
own
admissions that they defrauded investors (that includes
admissions of fraud
from Goldman Sachs – the very bank that Cohn himself ran during the crisis). Nonetheless,
Obama's attorney
general, Eric Holder – who has now rejoined
his old corporate defense law firm – subsequently backed Cohn up by arguing that nobody on Wall Street committed an offense that
could have been successfully prosecuted in a court of law.
Meanwhile, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon garnered non-Onion headlines by
floating the idea
of running for president – a reminder that a decade after his firm played a central role in destroying countless Americans' economic
lives, he remains not only unincarcerated and gainfully employed, but so reputationally unscathed that he is seen as a serious White
House candidate.
Again, the message came through: nobody who engineered the financial crisis will pay any real price for wreaking so much havoc.
Then as
Hurricane Florence provided the latest illustration of climate change's devastation, ExxonMobil
marched into the supreme court to demand an end to a state investigation of its role denying and suppressing climate science.
Backed by 11 Republican attorneys general
, the fossil fuel giant had reason to feel emboldened in its appeal for immunity: despite
investigative reporting detailing the company's prior knowledge of fossil fuel's role in climate change, its executives had already
convinced
the Securities and Exchange Commission to shut down a similar investigation.
Once again, the message was unavoidable: in the new accountability-free zone, companies shouldn't be bothered to even explain
– much less face punishment for – their role in a crisis that threatens the survival of the human species.
... ... ...
The answer is nothing – which is exactly the point for the aristocracy. But that cannot be considered acceptable for the rest
of us outside the accountability-free zone.
David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an investigative journalist at Capital & Main. His latest book is Back to Our Future:
How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now
The recent history of the Supreme Court has been one of Justices playing the part of
politicians in robes. Perhaps no better example was the nullification of the recount in the
Bush v Gore election with the "Brooks Brothers Riot" where paid operatives of the republicans
stormed the election office in Florida and declared the recount over in an extra judicial
action which was backed up by the members of the Supreme Court leading to their moniker
"politicians in robes". The Supreme Court basically stole that election by upholding the use
of violence as a tool to stop the recount instead of reacting on its own to denounce the use
of such tactics.
The Supreme Court has become weaponized as a force for right wing agendas and it has taken
a partisan position many times due to justices who have become radicalized to advance right
wing views. This is part of a vast right wing well funded and well oiled political money
machine. Little debut over the 10 million dollars spent by anonymous donors greasing the
nomination of Neil Gorsuch. The $10 million effort to win federal appeals court Judge Neil
Gorsuch's confirmation, funded by unknown donors to a conservative interest group called the
Judicial Crisis Network, follows a successful $7 million effort last year to block President
Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. The group calls it "the most robust operation in the
history of confirmation battles."
Billionaires are funding the selection and nomination of Supreme Court Justices for one
reason. So that the Supreme Court is stacked by loyal conservatives who will side with big
industrialist businesses on every case brought against big industrialists.
This is a long term strategy funded with hundreds of millions of dollars poured into
efforts to create a three point strategy. Fund AstroTurf phony grass roots populist
organizations which claim they are formed by housewives and farmers and middle class folk but
who really serve the interests of the billionaire class. Fund politicians and judges who are
begging to get the money to win elections by promising they will do everything to support the
uber class and groveling at their feet for the cash to be had. Create laws to serve the
interests of billionaires.
So far each effort has been a phenomenal success. Funded with hundreds of millions of
dollars willing recipients of all the corporate cash have created the ostensible populist
front defending wedge issues like abortion, gun control and anti immigration along with a
health dose of anti establishment hatred of the government. Their real aim is to serve the
corporate interests.
Donald Trump is perhaps the biggest benefactor of the money machine having won election
based on this populist jargon while spending little of his own money but really serving the
corporate interests most obviously by supporting the 1.9 Trillion dollar tax breaks for
billionaires.
It is unlikely that the average American would get angry about health care or their own
social security which is funded by workers not billionaires unless they were propagandized by
every main stream media outlet with Fox News and other more extremely radical right wing
media outlets and all the rightwing websites and right wing syndicated media pundits.
Average Americans have been suckered to believe that what is in their own interests is
very bad for America and Freedom and Democracy etc. They have been hoodwinked into voting for
politicians who want to strip them of healthcare, social security, financial security and
basic rights to privacy and access to the judicial system with arbitration clauses attached
to every product down to toothbrushes and sunglasses. They have come to believe that
defending wedge issues means they will vote for republicans no matter how bad their economic
future is compromised and their future put at risk by predatory businesses which offer
paycheck loans, balloon mortgages, sky high interest and insurance rates, multiple bank
accounts with lots of surcharges (Pinkerton Bank) and promise to end Medicare and Social
Security because its Okay to give trillions to billionaires but not Okay to help average hard
working people.
Donald Trump is the pinnacle of this usurpation of power capturing the Executive Branch
funded by free advertising from the media and running on a fake AstroTurf populist campaign
strategy while delivering all the money to the billionaires as he entertains guests for huge
fees at his Florida Property against the Emoluments Clause which appears to be dead. No
president should economically benefit from the position of the highest office in the land for
personal enrichment yet the Tax Cuts seem to have been perfectly tailored for Trumps own
enrichment via a little known clause which allows property investment owners to pass the
profits gained via those holdings to other entities like his kids at greatly lower taxes.
What a windfall for Trump who has investment pass through properties all over the place. It's
a really nice deal" for Trump and pass-through owners like him, said Roberton Williams, a
senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
So much for the little guy as republicans now demand that the giant deficit created by
their enormous tax cuts for the wealthy now be shrunk by eliminating all social welfare
programs like Social Security which if funded by workers under the payroll deduction tax.
Payroll taxes are taxes imposed on employers or employees, and are usually calculated as a
percentage of the salaries that employers pay their staff. Payroll taxes generally fall into
two categories: deductions from an employee's wages, and taxes paid by the employer based on
the employee's wages. These taxes fund Social Security/ Workers earnings are garnished to pay
for Social Security. The Government does not steal this money from rich people. They take it
from every worker according to a schedule.
How stupid we are to willingly call this wasteful government spending and buy the BS of
the republicans that it must end. What will they do with all the money once none of us is
going to see a dime of what we donated under law? Why they will steal it of course.
Who has the authority to declare all social welfare programs unconstitutional? The Supreme
Court. Who has the power to decline any case brought against and well monied entity including
the President? The Supreme Court.
It is not so much about beer and drunkenness and abuse of women but about the continued
abuse of us all by the republican party which is funded by the rich and operated by the rich
for the rich and only for the rich.
As Russia is preparing plans to wean its banking system off the dollar, advancing a trend of
de-dollarization among the US's largest economic and geopolitical rivals, Russian President
Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical" mistake by exploiting
the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes that don't bow to its
whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
While Putin's criticisms are hardly new, these latest remarks happen to follow a report in
the
Financial Times, published Tuesday night, detailing Russia's efforts to wean its economy
off of the dollar. The upshot is that while de-dollarization may be painful, it is, ultimately
doable.
The US imposed another round of sanctions against Russia over the summer in response to the
poisoning of former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and the US Senate is
considering measures that would effectively cut Russia's biggest banks off from the dollar and
largely exclude Moscow from foreign debt markets.
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by
Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian
establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar settlements into other
currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the
backing of Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the
Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have
been readily embraced by China and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly
fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises in Vladivostok last month,
Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to
counter US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think
about how to minimise dependence on the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's
spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to be done and
c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
Still, there's no question that US sanctions have damaged Russia's currency and contributed
to a rise in borrowing costs. And whether Russia - which relies heavily on energy exports - can
convince buyers of its oil and natural gas to accept payment in rubles remains an open
question. Increased trade with China and other Asian countries has helped reduce Russia's
dependence on the dollar. But the greenback still accounted for 68% of Russia's payment
inflow.
But, as Putin has repeatedly warned, that won't stop them from trying. The fact is that
Russia is a major exporter, with a trade surplus of $115 billion last year. As the FT pointed
out, Russia's metals, grain, oil and gas are consumed around the world - even in the west,
despite the tensions surrounding Russia's alleged involvement in the Skripal poisoning and its
annexation of Crimea.
To be sure, abandoning the dollar as the currency of choice for oil-related payments would
be no easy feat. But China has already taken the first step and show that it can be done by
launching a yuan-denominated futures contract that trades in Shanghai - striking the most
significant blow to date against the petrodollar's previously unchallenged dominance.
That should embolden Putin to continue with his experiment - not that the US is leaving him
much choice.
"... Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure" instead. ..."
"... Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world). ..."
"... we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War, which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation. ..."
"... the "real" US economy is only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy ..."
"... at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing war. ..."
"... Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution." ..."
"... The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now becoming exponentially worse ..."
"... If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is natural, and to be expected. ..."
It is rather surprising that the Democrats who have demonized Donald Trump at every turn
have voted in favour of the this extremely bloated defense budget, putting even more military
might into the hands of a President and Commander-in-Chief that they seem to despise and who
they are demonizing because of his alleged collusion with Russia.
We've been in WW3 for several years now. Bolton went "Full Monty" with his
declaration that U.S. forces will stay in Syria until Iran vacates. The introduction of a
Yemen War Powers Resolution in the House last week is a hopeful sign. A reason to root
for a Blue Wave in November. Dem leadership, already on record backing the War Powers
Resolution, would be obligated to block U.S. enabling genocide in Yemen.
I disagree with Eric Zusse's belief that USA wants to start WWIII. I think they want to
contain/constrain discontent of allies and citizenry as they attempt to destroy the Russian
and Chinese economies. War is only a last resort. But heightened military tensions mean that
the major protagonists have to divert resources to their military, causing a drag on the
economies.
Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the
period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't
seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure"
instead.
The big concern for me is that "maximum pressure" also means an elevated chance of
mistakes and miscalculations that could inadvertently cause WWIII.
Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies
when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late
2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is
not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world).
PS IMO Trump election and the Kavanaugh and Gina Haspel nominations are key to the pursuit
of global hegemony.
Most warnings have centered on a financial meltdown, as this article
reviews . As most know, IMO we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War,
which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation.
As noted in my link to Escobar's latest, the EU has devised a retaliatory mechanism to
shield itself and others from the next round of illegal sanctions Trump's promised to impose
after Mid-term elections.
In an open thread post, I linked to Hudson's latest audio-cast; here's what he said on the 10th
anniversary of the 2008 crash: "So this crash of 2008 was not a crash of the banks. The banks
were bailed out. The economy was left with all the junk mortgages in place, all the
fraudulent debts."
Another article I linked to in a comment to james averred the "real" US economy is
only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy . Hudson again:
"Contrary to the idea that bailing out the banks helps the economy, the fact is that the
economy today cannot recover without a bank failure ." [My emphasis]
Wh at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open
eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire
for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing
war.
As Hudson's stated many times, the goal of the 1% is to reestablish Feudalism via
debt-peonage. All the other happenings geopolitically serve to mask this Class War within the
Outlaw US Empire. Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political
upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution."
Many predict that this crisis will be timed to occur in 2020 constituting the biggest
election meddling of all time.
The crisis will likely be blamed on China without any evidence for hacking Wall Street and
causing the subsequent crash -- a Financial False Flag to serve the same purpose as 911.
Much can occur and be obscured during wartime. The radical changes to USA from 1938-1948
is very instructive--the commonfolk were on the threshold of gaining control over the federal
government for the first time in US history only to have it blocked then reversed (forever?)
by FDR and the 1% who tried to overthrow him in 1933.
Same with the current War OF Terror's use to curtail longstanding civil liberties and
constitutional rights and much more. To accomplish what's being called "Bail-In" within the
USA, Martial Law would need to be emplaced since most of the public is to be robbed of
whatever cash they have, and World War would probably be the only way to get Martial Law
instituted--and accepted by the military which would be its enforcer.
A precedent exists for stealing money from the people--their gold--via Executive Order 6102 , which
used a law instituted during WW1 and still on the books.
The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now
becoming exponentially worse . Critical graphs are going off their charts. The end is
near.
If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities
it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is
natural, and to be expected.
Like individual humans, the human population as a whole can pursue activities that
maintain it's health, or it can indulge in activities that create disease and hasten it's
death. Humankind is deep in toxifying behaviors that signal it's demise in the near
future.
A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules
over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way,
individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this
simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning
political system.
Wade says: September
24, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT 300 Words @Tyrion 2
Nice try. But to me this falls flat. First of all I don't think Ron has literally blamed Jews for
all the world's evils any more than Southern Christians like me have been blamed for all the
world's evils by Hollywood.
The issue is that Zionist leadership plays really dirty. And they are good at it. But having
them in control of the West's media means that their negative impact on society goes unremarked
upon while the positive things they do are trumpeted from the rooftops. We are allowed to notice
Jewish power in relation to their main accomplishments, but we are referred to the nearest
holocaust museum when we notice any negative impact that Jewish power has. It's one of the
many wars on "noticing" the media is engaged in.
I don't see how all of this ends in mass pogroms, let alone a holocaust if you want my
opinion. We're just hoping for a much overdue correction in perspective. Topics like Israel's
founding and influence in US politics, The Holocaust, WWII and 911 are being desacralized so they
can be discussed rationally, and that's good for everyone. Those who doubt Oswald was the lone
assassin have been treated for decades with a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories about JFK
ranging from Cuba and Castro, to anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, The Mafia, the KBG, the CIA all being
cast as possible suspects, but not even once has Israel being fingered by anyone anywhere (except
by the indefatigable Michael Collins Piper) as a possible suspect, even though they had as clear
(or clearer) motives and opportunity than nearly anyone else. Why hasn't this possibility been
more fully explored by JFK researchers? Everyone needs to know how much Israel has benefited from
911. Their role in this also needs to be explored much more by researchers and brought out into
the open.
The Unz Review is a tremendous site. It attracts superior writers as well as commentators. And
Ron Unz, fortunately, is untouchable. The ADL understands this. Better for them to remain
silent. They want to keep you as obscure as possible. Thus, the silent treatment.
Thus, the MSM would rather talk about crude 'white power' sites than the perspicacious Unz
Review. But you can bet, Ron, that they will pounce on you if given the opportunity.
Says Ron: "I do think [the ADL] may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained
within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what
keeps them far, far away." That covers it. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the UNZ
review grow in influence and readership.
The quote "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
comes from Tacitus The Life of Agricola
other nice quotes are-
"It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one
thinks."
― Tacitus, Histories of Tacitus
"It is a principle of nature to hate those whom you have injured."
― Tacitus
"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity." Annals
and finally
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by
greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by
false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their
wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ...
shared values and consensus
which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power
and swag remained."
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand
the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
If we consider the state of the
nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of
profound political disunity within the elites
pop out:
The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now
commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the
mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of
law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are
ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the
governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown
:
disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.
It's impossible to understand the
divided Deep State
unless we situate it in the larger
context of
profound political disunity
, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose
slim but insightful volume
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
I have been recommending since 2009.
As I noted in my 2009 book
Survival+
,
this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse.
The shared values and
consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for
what power and swag remained.
A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats:
such
rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation
together. The public sees the value system at the top is
maximize my personal profit by whatever means are
available
, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and
rentier rackets
, and they follow suit by
pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the
disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.
But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding
wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens
the already yawning fissures in the body politic.
Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing
, as
Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no
longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or
disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.
As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left
to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been
co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity.
I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant
public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is
trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in
the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and
the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.
What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically
unstable.
Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes
(the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.
The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system
because
each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial
Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political
order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.
Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial
and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new
book
Ages
of Discord
.
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we
understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
There is no other possible
output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of
these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
"... According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016 US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Perhaps it is Donald Trump's business background that leads him to believe that if you
inflict enough economic pain on someone they will ultimately surrender and agree to do whatever
you want. Though that approach might well work in New York real estate, it is not a certain
path to success in international relations since countries are not as vulnerable to pressure as
are individual investors or developers.
Washington's
latest foray into the world of sanctions, directed against China, is astonishing even when
considering the low bar that has been set by previous presidents going back to Bill Clinton.
Beijing has already been pushing back over US sanctions imposed last week on its government-run
Equipment Development Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission and its director Li
Shangfu for "engaging in significant transactions" with a Russian weapons manufacturer that is
on a list of US sanctioned companies. The transactions included purchases of Russian Su-35
combat aircraft as well as equipment related to the advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile
system. The sanctions include a ban on the director entering the United States and blocks all
of his property or bank accounts within the US as well as freezing all local assets of the
Equipment Development Department.
More important, the sanctions also forbid conducting any transactions that go through the US
financial system. It is the most powerful weapon Washington has at its disposal, but it is
being challenged as numerous countries are working to find ways around it. Currently however,
as most international transactions are conducted in dollars and pass through American banks
that means that it will be impossible for the Chinese government to make weapons purchases from
many foreign sources. If foreign banks attempt to collaborate with China to evade the
restrictions, they too will be sanctioned.
So in summary, Beijing bought weapons from Moscow and is being sanctioned by the United
States for doing so because Washington does not approve of the Russian government. The
sanctions on China are referred to as secondary sanctions in that they are derivative from the
primary sanction on the foreign company or individual that is actually being punished.
Secondary sanctions can be extended ad infinitum as transgressors linked sequentially to the
initial transaction multiply the number of potential targets.
Not surprisingly, the US Ambassador has been summoned and Beijing has canceled several
bilateral meetings with American defense department officials. The Chinese government has
expressed "outrage" and has demanded the US cancel the measure.
According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from
Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress
named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which
sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016
US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of
cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation.
Explaining the new sanctions, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert issued a
statement elaborating that the initial sanctions on Russia were enacted "to further impose
costs on the Russian government in response to its malign activities." She added that the US
will "urge all countries to curtail relationships with Russia's defense and intelligence
sectors, both of which are linked to malign activities worldwide."
As engaging in "malign activities" is a charge that should quite plausibly be leveled
against Washington and its allies in the Middle East, it is not clear if anyone but the French
and British poodles actually believes the rationalizations coming out of Washington to defend
the indefensible. An act to "Counter America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" is, even as the
title implies, ridiculous. Washington is on a sanctions spree. Russia has been sanctioned
repeatedly since the passage of the fraudulent Magnitsky Act, with no regard for Moscow's
legitimate protests that interfering in other countries' internal politics is unacceptable.
China is currently arguing reasonably enough that arms sales between countries is perfect legal
and in line with international law.
Iran has been sanctioned even through it complied with an international agreement on its
nuclear program and new sanctions were even piled on top of the old sanctions. And in about
five weeks the US will be sanctioning ANYONE who buys oil from Iran, reportedly with no
exceptions allowed. Venezuela is under US sanctions to punish its government, NATO member
Turkey because it bought weapons from Russia and the Western Hemisphere perennial bad boy Cuba
has had various embargoes in place since 1960.
It should be noted that sanctions earn a lot of ill-will and generally accomplish nothing.
Cuba would likely be a fairly normal country but for the US restrictions and other pressure
that gave its government the excuse to maintain a firm grip on power. The same might even apply
to North Korea. And sanctions are even bad for the United States. Someday, when the US begins
to lose its grip on the world economy all of those places being sanctioned will line up to get
their revenge and it won't be pretty.
"... The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a "final solution" to the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided "race war" in which a few antisocial malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against "uncorrected" humanity. The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of corporatist genocide. ..."
In El-Akkad's dystopian vision, the War on Muslims mutates into the War on Southerners --
but has nothing to do with race. Instead, the Yankee Terror State turns its savagery against
the New Rebels of the Free Southern States because those good ole boys and girls (of all shades
of skin pigmentation and sexual preference) refuse to give up fossil fuels, choosing instead to
secede from the Union.
Al-Akkad's vision of blue vs. red global-warming-driven war run amok in a near-future
America that has completely forgotten about the whole concept of race is surprisingly
plausible, at least while you are reading it. (Civil War I, after all, was really
about economics not race , so why shouldn't Civil War II also be over an economic issue?)
The plot turns on the adventures of Sarat, a young Red State woman of mixed and meaningless
(near-black Chicano and po' white trash) ancestry who awakens politically and goes after the
Blue State occupiers in pretty much the same way the Iraqi resistance went after George W.
Bush's storm troopers.
... ... ...
C.J. Hopkins offers a deeper, more accurate, vastly funnier, more genuinely subversive
vision. His far-future America, which bears an uncanny resemblance to our nightmarish present,
features drone-patrolled hyper-surveiled cities, each of which is divided by an Israeli-style
Wall complete with Israeli-style checkpoints and incursions featuring Israeli-style killings of
hapless untermenschen. But instead of Israelis vs. Palestinians, the divide here is between the
Normals on one side of the wall and the Anti-Socials on the other. The Normals -- good
corporate citizens who are submitting to pharmaceutical and genetic correction so they can work
and consume and conform and live meaningless lives like everybody else without batting an
eyelash -- are conditioned to fear and loathe the Antisocials, who retain enough humanity to
rebel, in whatever pathetically insignificant way, against corporatist dystopia.
Zone 23 , like American War , imagines the future as post-racial: Hopkins'
Normal vs. Antisocial divide isn't about race. But it is, nonetheless, very much about
behavioral genetics. In this (not so) far future, the Hadley Corporation of Menomonie,
Wisconsin has developed a variant-corrected version of the MAO-A gene. Inserted into embryos
via germline genetic engineering, this patented DNA produces "clears": people who are
intelligent but incurious, incapable of emotionally-driven fight-or-flight aggression
(including the most common defensive variety), "easily trained, highly responsive to visual and
verbal commands," and so on. In other words, perfect corporate citizens!
The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a "final solution" to
the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered
babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided "race war" in which a few antisocial
malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against "uncorrected" humanity.
The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of
corporatist genocide.
Hopkins' ferociously funny yarn is not just a satire on our ever-worsening techno-dystopia.
In imagining a genetic basis to the difficulties many of us experience adjusting to
hyperconformist "technologically-enhanced" lifestyles, and in portraying individuals struggling
and flailing against the uber-civilization around them like flies caught a spider web, Zone
23 resonates with the great
critiques of technological civilization .
A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules
over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way,
individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this
simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning
political system.
@Tyrion 2
Nice try. But to me this falls flat. First of all I don't think Ron has literally blamed Jews
for all the world's evils any more than Southern Christians like me have been blamed for all
the world's evils by Hollywood.
The issue is that Zionist leadership plays really dirty. And they are good at it. But having
them in control of the West's media means that their negative impact on society goes unremarked
upon while the positive things they do are trumpeted from the rooftops. We are allowed to
notice Jewish power in relation to their main accomplishments, but we are referred to the
nearest holocaust museum when we notice any negative impact that Jewish power has. It's
one of the many wars on "noticing" the media is engaged in.
I don't see how all of this ends in mass pogroms, let alone a holocaust if you want my
opinion. We're just hoping for a much overdue correction in perspective. Topics like Israel's
founding and influence in US politics, The Holocaust, WWII and 911 are being desacralized so
they can be discussed rationally, and that's good for everyone. Those who doubt Oswald was the
lone assassin have been treated for decades with a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories about JFK
ranging from Cuba and Castro, to anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, The Mafia, the KBG, the CIA all being
cast as possible suspects, but not even once has Israel being fingered by anyone anywhere
(except by the indefatigable Michael Collins Piper) as a possible suspect, even though they had
as clear (or clearer) motives and opportunity than nearly anyone else. Why hasn't this
possibility been more fully explored by JFK researchers? Everyone needs to know how much Israel
has benefited from 911. Their role in this also needs to be explored much more by researchers
and brought out into the open.
The Unz Review is a tremendous site. It attracts superior writers as well as commentators. And
Ron Unz, fortunately, is untouchable. The ADL understands this. Better for them to remain
silent. They want to keep you as obscure as possible. Thus, the silent treatment.
Thus, the MSM would rather talk about crude 'white power' sites than the perspicacious Unz
Review. But you can bet, Ron, that they will pounce on you if given the opportunity.
Says Ron: "I do think [the ADL] may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained
within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what
keeps them far, far away." That covers it. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the UNZ
review grow in influence and readership.
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to
distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should
believe.
We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt,
while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say
something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very
limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly
and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.
If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our
advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a
friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.
This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to
recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest,
at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are
forms of power.
Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by
the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media,
the political class, and the security services.
But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the
relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful
institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or
her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political
systems in which they have to operate.
Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than
we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth
and success depend.
And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework
underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.
Narrative control
It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he
has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small
group of people around you.
It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm
– the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.
It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from
the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a
Richard Nixon.
But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the
reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over
knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we
wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about
it.
Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see –
structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be
felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten
the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.
The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to
absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they
have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies",
those who stand in their way to global domination.
No questions about Skripals
One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have
recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to
murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.
I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian
security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury
to kill the Skripals.
What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the
British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that
the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative
or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have
been entirely passive too.
That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from
the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider
such as Craig Murray.
A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions
that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the
intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the
inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only
are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks
critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid
accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's
pocket.
That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised –
like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and
the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The
evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is
keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.
And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.
Ripples on a lake
Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image
as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that
guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those
who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.
It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals,
that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to
identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those
structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on
individuals.
That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities –
celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the
ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.
News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could
not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.
Up against the screen
If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system
– neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they
offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX
screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a
complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth,
the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.
Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism
that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It
exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth
that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several
centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.
But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new
means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of
economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and
the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of
children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.
These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and
entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being
exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or
even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class
on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.
In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less
corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.
Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you
wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more
power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of
this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known
to mankind.
A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A
globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and
chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our
craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a
narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news
programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.
Assumptions of inevitability
Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves
that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we
established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use
of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.
Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are
no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how
inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a
vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.
David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the
context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to
assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and
without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being
aware that they are conspiring in the system.
When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the
movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected
for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society
– tend to respond to events in the same way.
Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball
bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will
form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first
layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably
produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect
crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.
The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the
real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key
resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control
that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a
class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour
needed to make them productive.
Our place in the pyramid
In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of
the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will
rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below.
They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently
superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.
And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain
and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase
profits and sell brands.
All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our
small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the
power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring
and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would
be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms
manufacturers.
And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that
distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed
to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist,
dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being
anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin,
pro-Assad, a Marxist.
None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the
system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is
easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians
and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.
In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the
moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real
danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back
from the screen, and see the whole picture.
Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election
that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and
trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit
Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a
decade ago?
Profit, not ethics
Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth
through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the
pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven
not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.
The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task
of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing
for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It
lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate
tomorrow.
And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group,
any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.
If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read
a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are
sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed
for us.
Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future
you wish for your grand-children.
In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its
appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are
increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their
expense.
Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change
, which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates
Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the
power elite he does little to change anything
Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter
any of his promises that might threaten them
As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of
Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system,
rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the
establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.
Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched
US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still
failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife
era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social
security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced
NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has
been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the
power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First
@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself...
however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how
relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook
summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and
wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and
has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the
anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top
of uk dynamics..
(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that
necessitates (a)
Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of
conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and
crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality.
Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?
The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration.
This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing
the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to
fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took
place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked
off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his
promise, as every President has done since .
psychohistorian | Sep 24, 2018 11:43:23 PM | 123 "I hope for capitulation by the private
finance folk so society can evolve into some sort of meritocracy."
Unfortunately, the Cheney/Greenspan/Kagan kind does not capitulate voluntarily. They are
the impulsive leeches and born traitors. The deficit of decency shows in their progeny as
well -- see the disgusting youngsters from the Cheney, Bush, and Blair clans. All of them
openly enjoy the ill-gotten wealth that is soaked in the blood of the innocent. All of them
are subhuman deformities morality-wise.
"... The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests. ..."
That was mild, though, compared to the "bloodbath" (Kaplan's word) that ensued after
Mearsheimer teamed up with Harvard's own iconoclastic realist, Stephen M. Walt, to produce a
2006 magazine article on the U.S.-Israel relationship, later expanded into a book entitled
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy .
The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the
country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests.
"... Friday morning, in response to Murphy offering praise to Menendez, Hugin released a statement saying, "If Bob Menendez were a Republican, and had been indicted for bribery and found to have violated federal law by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, would Governor Murphy be singing the same tune? Of course not." ..."
"... Adele Malpass is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She was formerly chairwoman of the Manhattan Republican Party and money politics reporter for CNBC. ..."
The New Jersey Senate race was supposed to be a done deal with incumbent Bob Menendez easily cruising to
re-election. It's rated solid or likely to remain Democratic by most election watchers, and the Democrats were
certainly putting it in their win column as they mapped out plans to retake the Senate.
But someone forgot to tell New Jersey voters that this race was uncompetitive.
The polls
show it to be tight -- Menendez simply has not shaken Republican challenger Bob Hugin in a state Hillary Clinton
carried by 14 points over Donald Trump two years ago.
Part of the reason seems to be that despite his acquittal in court on federal corruption charges, Menendez has not
escaped the taint that came with his 2015 trial. Another is that Hugin, the wealthy former CEO of a biopharmaceutical
company, had already spent nearly $16 million in the race. Throw into this mix a state with the worst affordability
index in the country and an expected increase in the gasoline tax on Oct. 1 -- on top of significant increases in
state taxes enacted this spring. It seems a combustible mix in which an attractive and well-funded outsider with a
sterling resume can give the political establishment heartburn.
Meanwhile, Menendez has a lot of baggage to defend. In 2015, he was indicted on federal corruption charges pursued
by his fellow Democrats -- the first U.S. senator to be indicted by the administration of his own party in 30 years.
He was accused of doing favors for Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, who is now serving 17 years in prison for
Medicare fraud. Prosecutors presented evidence of 19 free private plane trips and campaign donations, which they
asserted came in exchange for political favors. According to prosecutors, one such trip to the Dominican Republic
supposedly involved underage prostitutes. Menendez strongly denied those allegations, but in the #MeToo era, any
lingering suspicion is unhelpful for a politician. And though he was not found guilty by the jury, Menendez was
rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee.
While he may have survived his legal battles, New Jersey voters have apparently not forgotten. In a June primary,
an unknown Democratic opponent who raised less than $5,000 got 38 percent of the vote against Menendez. That
challenger, Lisa McCormick, didn't have enough money to run ads reminding the electorate of Menendez's legal
troubles. But Bob Hugin did. Hugin's campaign began running hard-hitting television spots against the incumbent in
February. Menendez was pounded by ads titled "Guilty," "Screwed" and "Dead Last." By July, Menendez was leading Hugin
by two percentage points, and in an August poll he was up by only six.
The damage had been done. In an August Quinnipiac poll, only 29 percent of the voters had a favorable opinion of
Menendez and 49 percent of the voters believed he was involved with serious wrongdoing, compared to 16 percent who
did not. While Menendez only spent $800,000 through June, he's now playing catch-up and recently started both
positive and negative television ads.
The economic climate in New Jersey is not necessarily conducive to incumbents. Since 2015, the Tax Foundation has
rated New Jersey as having the worst tax climate for business and the highest property taxes in the country. For some
homeowners in the state, it's possible to pay 15 percent of their income toward property taxes. This spring,
Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy raised corporate and personal income taxes amid the already high tax environment. "The
affordability crisis in our state continues to get worse," said Hugin. "We're losing millennials at the highest rate
in the nation and Trenton politicians just made things worse by raising taxes another $1.6 billion."
Friday morning, in response to Murphy offering praise to Menendez, Hugin released a statement saying, "If Bob
Menendez were a Republican, and had been indicted for bribery and found to have violated federal law by the
bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, would Governor Murphy be singing the same tune? Of course not."
Though Hugin allowed that the governor is "by all accounts a good man," he added that "[h]is loyalty to his
party over his principles when it comes to Senator Menendez is embarrassing. Sadly, it's a testament to how toxic and
divided our politics are today."
As the polls have started to look positive for the challenger, he's been able to capitalize on this environment by
getting endorsements from four local Democratic officials. In 2015, the New Jersey Star-Ledger, the largest paper in
the state, called for Menendez to resign amid the corruption charges, even though the paper had endorsed him in the
past. "Menendez is hurting other down-ballot candidates, especially in competitive congressional races," said Hugin's
spokesman, Nick Iacovella.
With Donald Trump's approval rating in the mid-30s in New Jersey, Menendez has made criticizing the president his
top priority and accuses Hugin of being a Trump Republican. In a state where Democrats out-register Republicans,
Menendez is hoping that an anti-Trump sentiment and a large Democratic turnout will still lead him to victory. Hugin,
however, is hardly a Trump clone. A Princeton grad who earned a master's degree in business at the University of
Virginia, he has supported the president's tax cuts and most economic policies. But he's also described himself as
pro-choice on abortion, favors a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and has opposed the administration's
policy of separating families at the border.
In a session with the media in late spring, Hugin complained that the administration's plans to cut Hurricane
Sandy relief were "ridiculous."
"I think my philosophy is very clear: New Jersey first,"
he said that day
. "I support President Trump in every way when he does something that's good for New Jersey. And
I'll fight anybody who's not doing good things for New Jersey."
Adele Malpass is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She was formerly chairwoman of the
Manhattan Republican Party and money politics reporter for CNBC.
Lots of interesting information regarding conversations between Bill Clinton and Yeltsin
but allow me to focus on the NATO bombing of Serbia:
Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia
tempered Moscow's enthusiastic partnership with the West.
"Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with
NATO," the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. "I remember how difficult it was for
me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West,
towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that."
Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of "our relationship" and
"peace in Europe."
The declassified White House Yeltsin files reveal the drama at the turning point in
US-Russia relations, when Yeltsin pleaded, threatened and despaired trying to make Clinton
call off the bombing of Yugoslavia.
"It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of
future developments in strategic nuclear weapons," Yeltsin reminded his US
counterpart.
But Clinton wouldn't cede ground.
Clinton to Yeltsin on Milosevic: "It will be your decision if you decide to let this
bully destroy the relationship we worked hard for over six and a half years to build up I'm
sorry he is a Serb. I wish he were Irish or something else, but he is not."
"Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that
Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your
region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our
future," Clinton told Yeltsin.
It was much more than the all-out bombing campaign by NATO. Serbia resisted for more than
70 days by courage and intelligence including bagging at least one stealth aircraft and its
army remaining virtually untouched and ready to take on a NATO land invasion.
Well, as long as you support the #METOO-ish school of legal doctrine, i.e. whereupon a
simple charging is sufficient to establish culpability, you will surely enjoy the following
article, on The Nation, The Harvard Boys Do Russia, May, 1998, which you can search for and
fact-check with your own tools of choice.
Perhaps consider the idea that within Russia in the 1990s that was systematically sold off
to US interests, facilitated by Russian government officials, the Russian social immune
system kicked in and gave rise to Vladimir Putin to protect his homeland's interests.
Consider further that Trump is dealing with a horde of malignant backstabbing little bitches
that are doing their best to rape their own homeland. Maybe the US social immune system is
working better than you think, despite attempts to deflect blame towards Trump and Putin, and
actual, indictable charges against Clintonian operatives cannot be suppressed much
longer.
If Trump is a Deep State puppet, then why Deep stat fight it with such intensity. Why "Steele dossier", w3hy Mueller, why "Mistressgate"
But it is true that Trump essentially conduct typical Republican President policy, like Obama betraying his electorate.
Notable quotes:
"... So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has surrounded himself with. Lol ..."
"... offshore money coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the next housing market collapse. ..."
Stormy Daniels supposedly said she was surprised to hear Trump was running for President
because he had said to her he didnt want to be be President. After all, why would he? Rich
guy with maybe 5 years left to live. Who needs it?
So why did he run. He had no choice. Look at the ease in which government can bring dawn
anyone with tax and money laundering charges and look at his partners and a number of his
dodgy financial dealings not to mention the ongoing audit firing his campaign. His buddy
Felix Sater cut a deal and so didn't Trump. Run and serve and keep your wealth and stay out of
jail, and make a few billion with insider deals while you are at it.
So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it
includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired
intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending
to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and
anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has
surrounded himself with. Lol
So what is the endgame for this Russiagate and this phony Deep State vs Trump nonsense?
Why Trump?
Not sure I know for sure. Polarizing and dividing the US with perhaps a civil war when
Trump gets impeached and resigns, or at least imposition of permanent martial law. Get
support for massive censorship which all authoritarian regimes need. And of course as the US
goes down this path its puppet states in EU, UK and elsewhere will follow. I guess we will
have to wait and see.
In the meantime, Trump will feed the beast (tax cuts for rich, tarrifs for middle class,
higher Military spending, cuts to Medicare/Medicaid/social security, higher insurance
premiums/HC costs, phony economic figures to mask deteriorating economic conditions for the
median (remember when Trump said the same of Hillary using the same bogus figures)
Fewer people are working in the US under Trump as more people are disappeared from the
work force. GDP growth per MH is due to higher extraction of wealth from middle class by the
rentier class, and stock market growth is due to central bank purchases, offshore money
coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a
major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the
next housing market collapse.
A little-known unit in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is conducting
a covert surveillance, espionage and blackmail campaign against American citizens on a large
scale. Not since the arrest of Jonathan Jay Pollard and the 1992 expose of the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai Brith's espionage against civil rights activists has the Israeli government
been so actively involved in clandestine influence and espionage against American targets.
The unit is Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, headed by director general Sima
Vaknin-Gil. Vaknin-Gil reports personally to PM Netanyahu. Vaskin-Gil is a former Brigadier
General in the IDF, who once was the Chief Israeli Military Censor. Her Ministry has spawned a
"private" security firm, Israel Cyber Shield, headed by former Ministry official and Israeli
National Police officer Eran Vasker. According to Haaretz, ICS is part of the spy network
gathering dossiers on anti-Israel activists from the BDS movement in the United States.
The existence and mission of the Ministry first came to prominence in a four-part
documentary produced by Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based international news organization. In 2016,
Al Jazeera successfully infiltrated the American Zionist apparatus via James Anthony Kleinfeld,
a British Jew who graduated from Oxford, spoke six languages and was well-versed in Middle East
affairs. Kleinfeld infiltrated The Israel Project and other pro-Israel US organizations to such
an extent that the leadership welcomed him with open arms and let down their guard about their
collusion with the Israeli government, in targeting pro-Palestine organizations and other
Israel critics.
Armed with a hidden video recorder, Kleinfeld obtained large amounts of material on the
inner workings of TIP, AIPAC, the Israeli-American Council, the Maccabee Task Force and the
Zionist Organization of America. He got "straight from the horse's mouth" that the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies is a spy agency working as an unregistered agent of the Israeli
government. One TIP official confided to Kleinfeld that they had to be very careful, because
they were "a different government working on foreign soil."
Earlier this year, Al Jazeera was scheduled to air four 50-minute documentary segments on
Kleinfeld's findings. But, Al Jazeera was required to first inform the organizations that were
to be featured in the documentary about the pending airing of the series. At that point, the
full weight of the US Zionist apparatus along with the Israeli government came down on the
Qatar government to press for censorship of the documentary. Suddenly, the US Zionist lobby,
which had allied with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in denouncing Qatar as a terrorist state,
backing Hamas and other jihadist organizations, reversed positions and gave their support to
Qatar. The documentary has never aired.
But bootleg copies of the devastating documentary are clearly circulating around. Alain
Gresh wrote a lengthy summary for The Nation on August 31, based on his having viewed the
entire four-part series, courtesy of a friend in the Middle East. Sooner or later, the entire
series will surface, despite the Qatar censorship decision. Excerpts have already been posted
on some websites.
I like to think this is a story that is too big to bury for long.
Thanks Harper and hats off to Kleinfeld, this was a brave thing to undertake. I assume
not posting the name of the documentary nor links to the cited article was a deliberate
decision not to invite a return of a hasbara plague here. They are easy to find anyhow.
The Electronic lntifada certainly seem to have a copy and are publishing extracts
weekly at present. Please let us know as soon as the whole thing makes it into the public
domain. It will be very interesting to see how far they are willing to go to try and
suppress it. It will also be interesting to see what effect its inevitable release (and
the timing of it) has on Russiagate.
"I like to think this is a story that is too big to bury for long."
Harper, what do you think could be the outcome if the story does indeed surface?
I'm very skeptical that there would be much coverage in our corporate media and even
if there were it would be to discredit the story among accusations of anti-semitism. I
don't see anything in our current environment to shake loose the noose that the ziocons
have our political and media establishment in.
FDD is the successor organization of a group called EMET, an education initiative
founded earlier in 2001 as part of an effort to gain support for Israel's response to the
Palestinian Intifada and to diminish public outcry against Israeli actions.[11] Regarding
EMET, Slate reported in mid-2015: "On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors
incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for 'truth'). In an application to the
Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, [FDD president Clifford May] explained
that the group 'was to provide education to enhance Israel's image in North America and
the public's understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.'"[12]
It seems to be a fact that the
FARA is being selectively enforced.
If that is true (and who would deny that it is?), then the pertinent question
becomes: "Just what are the criteria that determine when FARA is enforced?" .
Some examples seem pertinent:
1) Obviously, the prosecution of Manafort is directly related to turning him against
Trump. Even a federal judge, Judge Ellis, has asserted this.
2) Has anyone ever been prosecuted as being an agent for Israel? Rather transparently,
there is AIPAC which seems to have Teflon around it.
3) According to
your Wikipedia biography , you yourself registered under FARA:
"For a period prior to and during the Iraq War, [Lang] registered under the U.S.
Department of Justice's Foreign Agents Registration Act, for his work on behalf of a
Lebanese politician and industrialist." Interesting. One may wonder what made you so
register (i.e., did somebody suggest that you do so?), and also if there is a double
standard held against people, depending on, say, whether they are working for Israel vice
an Arab person or organization.
I suspect Giraldi knows quite a bit about this subject.
Finally, here are some Politico articles that are pertinent:
What does my FARA registration have to do with Giraldi? I was a corporate officer in a
commercial enterprise that manufactured building materials in the Arab Gulf, Europe and
the US. I also ran the owner of the company's family foundation. He was a Muslim and he
put his Zakat (tithing money) into the foundation. We did building trades, agriculture
and language training in Lebanon, microcredit lending to women and supported Henry
Siegman's ME Project at the CFR in NY. That project put money into policy papers on ME
subjects that were given to the State Department and NSC staff. Corporate counsel advised
me that because these policy papers recommended policy positions for the US I should
register and I did so. When I stopped working for this company in 2006 I deregistered.
My intent was that
"I suspect Giraldi knows quite a bit about this subject."
be applied to the statement immediately above it, namely,
"One may wonder ... if there is a double standard held against people, depending on, say,
whether they are working for Israel vice an Arab person or organization."
But the influence by Israel in the US seems to be of more long data than that of
Bibi´s tenure...Just may be with Bibi, like it happens with The Donald, all is more
obvious, more blunt, and less subtle....as it is the man himself....
Wow! I guess a commenter here has a wider audience than perhaps one might have thought.
No one has ever been afraid of me in my entire life, or even cared too much what I said.
It'll take some getting used to. I doubt I can swing it.
Al Jazeera did two simultaneous Israeli influence investigations and produced two
four-part documentaries: one about Israeli activities in the UK, and another one about
those in the US.
https://www.haaretz.com/whd...
Israel fought the release of the UK version in the UK on anti-Semitic grounds, but
lost. That series called "The Lobby" already aired there and is available on Al Jazeera's
site.
Israel switched tactics to supress the US version by attacking Qatar and Al Jazeera
directly, pressuring them to cancel its release here (US), thus avoiding the political
bribes necessary to subvert the US Constitution's First Amendment. Unfortunately, they
probably would have had many US politicians supporting their accusations of anti-Semitism
and could have had it censored anyways - damn the bothersome US Constitution. Killing the
US documentary at the source was far less messy PR-wise and just as effective at
silencing any journalism critical of Israel's interference in US. Elections, policy and
other matters of state.
"An unforeseen effect of the Iraq war is that it has allowed more Americans to speak
freely about the role of the Israel lobby. When and how was it born? While it is
generally understood that American interest groups played a crucial role in creating the
state of Israel in 1948 and supporting politicians who would stand up for Israel, other
facts have remained elusive. Grant F. Smith reveals that many of the functions the Israel
lobby smoothly and quietly executes in political life today were formed in the late 1950s
and early 1960s: the crucial political contributions and unrelenting campaign to convince
Americans that Israel and the United States share common interests and enemies, whether
the old Communist bloc-or Islamic radicals in the 21st century. Smith documents the
lobby's awesome resistance to public accountability for its actions before Congress and
the Justice Department. That fascinating history is the terrain of this book. Referencing
over 1,000 previously classified documents released under a Freedom of Information Act
filing, Smith follows Isaiah L. Kenen's path from registered foreign agent for the
Israeli government to founder of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC.
Smith unearths a formerly secret non-prosecution agreement, the "subvention caveat"
reached between the Israel lobby and the US Department of Justice. The agreement reveals
a great deal about the latitude of the lobby's operations and the US government's
institutional aversion to challenging it. America's Defense Line may forever change the
debate about US Middle East policy formulation."
As Mark Twain said, its easier to fool somebody than to convince them they have been fooled,
its even easier (former) and tougher (latter) when you control the narrative and news, not to
mention education.
That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and
other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!
Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion
argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix
Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the
KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
The timing is interesting. Hillary Clinton was one-on-one wiht Maddow "for the hour" last
night (I didn't watch) and has/had an "important" broadside againt TRump in the Atlantic
(covered extensively also in the Guardian) .... trying to claw her way back into the
limelight or just promoting the **newly released** paperback edition of "What Happened" with
and extensive "caboose" or adendum (caboose being irrc HRC's term).
I suspect some of the powerful are realizing what an impending disaster and "anti-climax"
Mueller's investigation appears increasingly likely to be. It was !!! Breaking News !!! a few
nights ago that Mueller was ready to sentence Flynn (guilty plea ages ago) for the single
count of lying to the FBI ... don't hold your breath because it's -- OMG -- happening in
December 2018. As far as I could tell, the significance (OMG) seems to be that Mueller feels
Flynn's cooperation has been completed. (Flynn may be reassured, given given Papadopoulos'
sentence).
People may have said unwise things and acted in unwise fashion, proving conspiracy to
commit an actual crime (which is a crime even in the absence of a crime occurring) may be
prove unconvincing.
The role of the media is pure and simple BS generation and dissemination , nothing
else. The BS has several clearly discernible patterns:
1) the one b mentions - the title and the first few paragraphs say one thing, after >90%
of the text is passed the truth is mentioned - perfectly matched to the readers attention
curve (b you could have mentioned the psych research); the purpose - claim objectivity,
2) the first bits reported about some important event are usually the most truthful because
the BS generation machine has a turn-on lag; the morning news 7 am about what happened last
night are the most truthful because the masters of narratives do not wake up at 6 am to BS,
they come to work comfortably at 9 am; the BS portion increases during the day, for the most
watched 8pm and/or 10pm news to become pure unadulterated BS.
And so on, I have more patters but for another discussion.
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com . ..."
by Scott | Sep 14, 2018
| Interviews |
0 comments Larry Wilkerson, former army Colonel and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State
Colin Powell, is interviewed on his new article at LobeLog "
The Neoconservative Comeback " on the growing influence of neoconservatism in the Trump
Administration. Trump's Syria and Afghanistan policy are discussed, as well as the old axiom,
personnel is policy.
Well, well, well, spying in the USA and subverting both its citizens and congress
critters. Another brilliant article by Alain Gresh in Le Monde Diplomatique: The truths that
wont be heard.
I don't support many of Trump's policies (making peace with Russia, drawing down our wars
not withstanding) and the man, to me, is a childish buffoon. But what's categorically worse
than having a childish buffoon as a sitting president? A deep state cabal of neocons and
neolibs cheered on by the left and MSM so emboldened by the success of their usurpation that
they brag about it on the pages of the leading newspapers in the country. As much as pains me
to say, it's the behavior of the left in America that is truly sickening in the whole sordid
affair.
It's his own fault. He should've and could've fired everyone from DAY ONE. He kept hold overs
from all the previous administrations and now he's stuck with them. Trump PHUCKED up big time
by not bringing in ALL of his supporters to fight for him and those that do are FIRED. So go
suck on it Trumpy.
So much of mainstream journalism has descended to the level of a cult-like formula of bias,
hearsay and omission. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters
is 'perception'...
The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter.
Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared
much in common.
Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry
exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016,
they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used
chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.
Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry
set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a
stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved
evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."
Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has
changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the
1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of
corporate dictatorship.
This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it,
dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.
Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the willful abandonment by the
"MeToo" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and
anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world
war.
With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a
corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis:
true journalism sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, wsws.org, truthdig.com,
globalresearch.org, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for
those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while
political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of
narcissistic spectacle.
Propaganda Blitz
In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the
remarkable Media Lens -- remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only
writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the
usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, The
Guardian , Channel 4 News.
Cromwell and Edwards (The Ghandi Foundation)
Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when
they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose
essential facts or promoted discredited myths.
The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if
they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.
I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky
and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and
demystifies the media's power.
What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is
a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality
of journalism -- a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity -- is a bracing quality of
their online Media Lens dispatches.
I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book,
Propaganda Blitz , in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all
do.
Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell
describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain's pioneering
health service.
The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as "austerity", with
its deceitful, weasel language of "efficiency savings" (the BBC term for slashing public
expenditure) and "hard choices" (the willful destruction of the premises of civilized life in
modern Britain).
"Austerity" is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked
banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service
have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes.
Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being
deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off. The Labour Party of
Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any
of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.
Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous
title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal
obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which
the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate
themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.
Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way
through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to "providing a breadth of view" and to
properly inform the public of "matters of public policy," the BBC never spelt out the threat
posed to one of the nation's most cherished institutions. A BBC headline said: "Bill which
gives power to GPs passes." This was pure state propaganda.
Media and Iraq Invasion
Blair: Lawless (Office of Tony Blair)
There is a striking similarity with the BBC's coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair's
lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed. A study
by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line
"overwhelmingly" while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the
BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the
invasion. The corporation's much-vaunted "principle" of impartiality was never a
consideration.
One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted
by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers.
The Guardian' s campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most
disturbing. Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and
largesse to The Guardian , was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to
a vituperative – and cowardly -- onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood
movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as
a "damaged personality" and "callous." They also disclosed the secret password he had given the
paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy
cables.
With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police
outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh."
The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote, "I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of
flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd."
Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange,
she had suffered "vile abuse." Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her: "That's a real shame, sorry
to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone 'the most massive turd'? Vile
abuse?"
Moore replied that no, she would not, adding, "I would advise you to stop being so bloody
patronizing." Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote, "It's difficult to imagine what
Ecuador's London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved
in."
Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine
Viner, as "thoughtful and progressive." What is the root of this vindictiveness? Is it
jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his
snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be "one of us" and shames those who
have long sold out the independence of journalism?
Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of "fake news" is not
only trollism, or the likes of Fox News, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a
false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in
reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony
Blair, whom The Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.
"[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives," wrote Katharine
Viner. Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who
supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as "a form of narcissism."
"How did this man .," brayed the Guardian 's Zoe Williams, "get on the ballot in the first
place?" A choir of the paper's precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on
their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the
media.
Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit,
Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent
journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists
in Syria, including those related to ISIS.
Leni Riefenstahl (r.) (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)
Supported by a "psyops" campaign
funded by the British Foreign Office and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow of the government in Damascus,
regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.
The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency called Purpose, funds a group known as
the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be "Syria Civil Defense" and are seen uncritically on
TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit
themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.
The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their
media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their
exploits are not questioned by major news organizations is an indication of how deep the
influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no
"mainstream" reporter reports Syria.
In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon,
who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of
journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as "propagated online by a
network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the
Russian government."
This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply.
The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document. I saw the list of
questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet -- "Have you ever
been invited to North Korea?"
So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and
outrage are proof enough. What matters is the "perception."
When he was U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a
war of perception conducted continuously using the news media." What really mattered was not
the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as
always, an informed and critical public at home.
Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose
propaganda mesmerized the German public.
She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on
the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.
"Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.
"Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."
Propaganda Blitz by David
Edwards and David Cromwell is published by Pluto Press.
I gave up on the Guardian's comment site myself, 10 years ago, as the censorship on there
made it pointless. Has something changed?
There was one prolific commenter there, MrPikeBishop, who was so popular, he was even
commissioned to write articles above the line. Then one day, bam, he is banned, and his entire
posting history gone. That did it for me; little emperors not fit to clean his boots, just
rubbed him out. I spat on the site that day and never went back. Proclaiming themselves the
bastion of free speech, when they actually the enemies of it.
Actually, I was caught out here in the UK, by the demise of the old five pound note, and
then the ten pound note, because I stopped reading and watching MSM years ago. It's worth it,
to get their irritating buzzing out of my head.
Back to the linked Guardian article; this is indeed interesting – these questions
asked by the journalist:
– Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France and/or Israel
attack?
– Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate?
– Do they even understand how close we're coming to global war, whenever a NATO country
operates in Syria?
– How long can we rely on Russian common sense to avoid WWIII?
Maybe the landing approach thesis works – experts in Russ aviation would know if Russ
equivalent to(US/UK) AN/APS-13 aft approach radar, used since 1942 in a series of versions,
was/is fitted to Il20 in question.
Seems that anybody smart enough to build radar would fit tailradar in combat zone, and
leave it on. Note actual radar may have been superseded by an infra red detector a question
for experts. Has been long time since 1942, technical methods improve. And the search
radars?
Ok, pilot, engineer, copilot are doing approach and busy and everybody else just being
inattentive? F 16 were not tracked the entire time? Again, maybe. Radar works at 6000 feet
and horizon still 152 km away F16 can't sneak up unseen fast but not that fast
I always maintain situational awareness in war zones, helps to live longer.
software of S200 can not target friendlies, system was is integrated.
"... Exactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and reduce it to a failed state is a non starter. ..."
"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and Russia
has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have organized
their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"
Exactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working
overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it
means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and
reduce it to a failed state is a non starter.
Syria is the keystone. The geography is a primary target for the destruction of ME. It has
cultural and economic ties that bind most of the region. Destroying Syria is primary for US
Hegemony and Israeli dominance.
But Turkey, Iran, Iraq and now Russia stand in the way. With Hezbollah, Lebanon is joined
to the alliance against the US-Israeli aggression. And strategically, Jordan will facilitate
what it can to stabilize the region.
This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel, the US, UK and
France will long be remembered across the Motherland. Syria now more than ever is a land of
sacrificed sons of Russia. The stakes are now eternal.
This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half of
Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These
people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate
people at home.
The two preceding comments seem to be mutually exclusive, i .e., in direct contradiction:
1. "This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel,"
2. "This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half
of Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These
people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate
people at home."
But, "the point" in (1) seems, actually, to be the exact opposite.
So, has the incident alienated Russians from Israel? Or, can Russia not "afford" to be
alienated from Israel because there are too many Russian Israelis?
Or is it the other way around? That Russian Israelis will not stand for their government's
treatment of Russia? Somehow I suspect that Russian/ex-Soviet Israelis won't give a flying
eff about their govt's treatment of Russia, and the same goes for their relatives inside
Russia. They hated the USSR and couldn't wait to get away. Why does Putin have to cater to
the views of these emigres to Israel, Russian Israelis, or to their families back in Russia?
How do the latter differ from Zionists in the USA who have dual loyaties?
BTW, it is my understanding that the USA paid for the resettlement of Soviet Jews in
Israel in the eighties, not the USSR .
1.3 million Russians in Israel, are Russian jews, and are likely identify primarily as
jewish.
Their aims and concerns, are jewish ones. Their likely only concerns regarding Russia, are
that Russia does not obstruct Israeli ambitions, and that the network of jewish influence in
Russia does not diminish, but thrives. Their interest is for Russia to be another of Israel's
golems, like the USA is.
I moot that true Russian interests, conflict with their own, and they will absolutely
follow their own. Same as AIPAC in the USA, and equivalents everywhere else.
Their ancestral home country might be Russia, but I moot there is nothing Russian about
them.
All my humble opinion. I stand to be corrected. Russia does not have a fifth column in
Israel, it is the other way round.
Look, I'm not a military expert, but I have followed the events in the Middle East fairly
closely for over 30 years. I, and many others, have stated repeatedly that Russia's clearly
demonstrated unwillingness to use its military forces to protect Syria from Western and US
strikes can only lead to disaster.
The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from
the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by
the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the
region by the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from
intervening directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that
could go nuclear).
Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian
operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military
planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria
would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in
Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.
How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are
challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those
red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no
longer have any credibility in Syria.
My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike
the SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria
to ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will
have a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that
they will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the
Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how
could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over
Syria?
You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an
Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3.
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the
ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated.
There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at
Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken
out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not
even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would
not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite
psychotic.
The Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means
available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made
things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's
interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end.
It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their
holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to
the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt
with.
This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without
going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in
NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of
course.
I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I
sincerely hope that I am.
That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if
the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the
enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else
they need to find a new weak spot to poke.
Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are
not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'
Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical
as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.
Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia
(and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the
ever unreliable Turkey..
Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really
the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes
free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the
world.
The questions raised: Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France
and/or Israel attack? If France are attacking Russia/Syria what prompted this? What do they
have to gain? Is it possible for Syria to "accidentally" bring down an allied plane? Don't they
have IFFs? Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate? Will
Russia retaliate against Israel? They have claimed that right already. What will they expect to
extract as a quid pro quo on this issue? How will the media report this? Will they call
it a "near miss"? That's surely what it was. Do they even understand how close we're coming to
global war, whenever a NATO country operates in Syria? How long can we rely on Russian common
sense to avoid WWIII?
I notice you don't advocate that Russia should have immediately retaliated militarily. All
the things you do advocate (well, most) – quite rationally – would not have shown
any results as yet, so we don't know they haven't been done, do we?
But, to repeat, you don't defeat a man who is trying to lure you into a fight by punching
him in the face. Intelligence is underrated by the non-intelligent. Subtlety is unappreciated
by the crass. The Russian govt's actions tend to be both subtle and intelligent –
whether you approve of them or not, and so can go unappreciated by many on all sides of the
debate.
As to ascendancy – Syria was intended to be a new Libya by now. That this has
been avoided, that the various terrorists are in retreat, that the country remains largely
functional, and all without direct confrontation between east and west (so far), is an
achievement anyone with any intelligence should recognise, and which the Russia government
has every right to be proud of.
Forgive me, but people have been saying variants of "if Putin doesn't DO SOMETHING HUGE
right now he's going to burn" for at least the last four years, and they are still saying it,
despite the fact he hasn't burned (and neither have we), and, if their sage advice had been
followed, we might all be cinders on a dead and cindered planet right now.
The only reason it hasn't come to that yet is that the ground was not prepared fully before.
Russia is slowly being pushed back to the ropes, the average Western citizen is being
conditioned to racially hate Russians (did you read Nikki Haley's comment today that Russians
are culturally conditioned to lie and cheat?) and the consent is being steadily manufactured.
As I said in my original comment, by showing "restraint" and not that he has teeth, Putin is
encouraging his country's enemies. Personally, I don't give a damn about what he does
about people he doesn't like, but he's not a private citizen; he is in control of Russia, for
good or ill. Most of my Russian friends, all of the far left variety, despise him,
incidentally, but that's neither here nor there. The simple fact is that if Russia is to
avoid a big war it has to actively deter one, not act like someone attempting to disarm an
armed drunk by logical words and sweet reason. That is not going to work.
If the Russians got a cruise missile down the funnel of the French frigate Auvegne (assuming
there is a funnel) what do you think NATO would do? Would they shrug and say it serves Macron
right or would they take off the safety locks and blast Russia from every direction in order
to protect their partner who had been so 'wrongly' attacked? Haven't they been waiting for
the chance for years? Aren't they already loaded up expecting the 'chemical weapons' shout to
go up this very week? It would be vey foolish of Russia to take the bait of these
provocations and it makes for uneasy reading when Westerners, sitting comfortably in safety,
complain that Russians aren't prepared to die for us in large enough numbers to keep them
safe. You first guy!
When provoked so blatantly you need to look to see what the guy is hiding behind his back. In
this case the West had built up their forces for a full scale attack on Syria as soon as the
White Helmets released their video of choking children filmed a week or so ago. Putin
disappointed them by coming to an agreement with Turkey that means the jihadis are further
isolated and pushed into possible conflict with radicals.
The time scales of the agreement are vague/unknown but it's unlikely we will see a Jihadi
Caliphate set up under Turkish protection.
Like the Syrians it's the crazy foreign fighters that alarm the Turks, the Chinese
especially of whom there are 6000 heavily armed in the South. Turkey is keen to see the
extremists pushed South making it difficult for them to enter Turkey. Putin's reaction is far
more sensible than firing the gun for a major conflict which Russia is most unlikely to
win.
Russia is still on track to squeeze the jihadis into smaller and smaller areas where they
might be eliminated. It might make liberals happy to see Russia sacrifice herself a la 1941
but it's not going to help anybody except their enemies.
You can't help thinking Putin knows exactly what he's doing.
There can never be a non-nuclear war between the US and Russia. Every strategist worth
anything knows this. It's the belief – created by the PNAC neocons – that this
isn't true that drives the hardcore nuts in Washington and London and elsewhere.
This is the problem. They are delusional and believe they can fight a limited war with
Russia. Those who know they are wrong, and that any such war would go nuclear very very fast
are stuck in a profound dilemma. – How to defend oneself and one's interests while
avoiding the conflict the lunatics want, which will destroy life on earth?
Answers on a post card please for anyone who thinks they can do better than the current
Russian govt is doing.
It's a complex web.. one has to bear this in mind.. the inter-relationships.. the
connections.. Putin for example has to tread the razor edge and fight with one hand tied
behind his back due to the Zionist influence atop the Russian hierarchy .
S-200 uses the SAHR guidance system. The radar signal is fairly wide, and if multiple objects
fall within the signal, the one with the largest cross-section will be targeted. The Russian
IL is much larger than the American F-16. Larger missiles like the 200's 5V21 also tend to
hit from above (they come down in a parabolic arc after the motors burned out). So if the
F-16's stayed a little behind and below the IL they'd basically guarantee the IL get's
killed.
As "Partisangirl" claims, but does not properly understand, Russia integrated Syrian AD
into their network some time ago. The purpose of such a integration was to avoid similar
accidents.
One problem: That was only for the newer stuff.
A Pantsir, for example, can be told where targets are and what to shoot at by a larger
system (they work in a pyramid hierarchy). S-200s are older than h*ll though. It's basically
a dumb system from the 60's. (even dumber than a BUK)
What it'll do is spot a target, fire the missile and then when the missile "thinks" it's in
the right area (the kill box), it's seeker head goes active (it's a semi active seeker). It
starts looking for radar 'reflections' and then homes in on the biggest one it can see. It
doesn't actually know what it's looking at and doesn't care. Just goes for the shiniest thing
it can detect.
My favourite part is how all these lies are held up as if they merit discussion and as if
they deserve to be given equal treatment with what actually happened. It's like holding a
"discussion" as to whether or not Aliens rule the Earth.
I tend to agree with you, on the whole, Mulga, about issues to do with Israel, though perhaps
not so stridently. But on this occasion I think Matt is honestly telling things how he sees
it.
On the other hand, one should ask why Israel is arbitrarily attacking targets in a
sovereign country that is not threatening it. Of course, the answer is that this is what
Israel does with impunity – witness USS Liberty among many others. On this occasion, it
appears, from what I have read, that Israel was targeting the delivery of Iranian S300 copies
to Syria – that is weapons to defend from this kind of attack in future. In reality,
far from attacking Israel, Syria has even done nothing about recovering territory lost to
Israel in 1967, though in international law Israel – that Israel signed up to –
it should be given back to Syria. A few days ago, Israel attacked Damascus airport during an
international fair with many visitors and potential for massive loss of life. It seems clear
that Israel is trying (probably with US approval) to provoke a response.
Putin always keeps his eye on the long term view but it is time for him to put a stop to
this activity if he is to maintain credibility with his allies and his voters. This attack
will serve to weaken Putin's hitherto Israel friendly stance unless he wants to lose support
in Russia. Putin is the best friend Israel has in Russia. It seems that Russian military is
saying that there will be a response – much stronger than Putin.
On the other hand – re my previous comment, Matt, IAF was clearly using the Russian
ELINT plane as cover. It is tantamount to using civilians as human shields. Though the crew
were Russian military, they were not involved in the action, apparently, and Israel had
agreed not to target Russian assets in Syria. One cannot absolve Israel on this and the
Russian military know it. They will be looking to Putin to permit a response.
Then you surely would not object if Russia were to ask Israel to hand over the pilots
involved so they can explain in a Russian military court or a similar setting their actions
and the thinking and expectations that motivated them to hide their jets in the Ilyushin
transport plane's radar shadow.
Yes, there is a large element of theatre at play in this conflict. What many people don't
want to accept is that they have no way of knowing what the entire truth is. All the
information about situations and events comes from partisan organizations with vested
interests. Expecting the side one personally favours to present objective truths is wishful
thinking at best, downright delusional at worst.
The post-truth era means everybody walks around believing they have 'figured out' the
truth, no hard evidence required, but they can't all be right can they?
Not so long ago Netanyahu was pleading with Putin [successfully] not to supply the S300 anti
aircraft system [defensive] to Syria, at the same time Israel was the first country to get a
fleet of F35's [offensive] from the US. Putin defers far to much to the US/Israel, we now see
the results. Incidentally how come Saudi Arabia can buy the S400 system, when they were one
of the instigators of Syrian regime change. Russia's "partners" want Syria destroyed, the
warmonger McCain always said the US should take on Syria and that Russia would 'do nothing',
was he right?
Let's recall the realities here and not succumb to hysteria. One of the reasons these
provocations are happening is that Russia is winning in Syria, militarily and politically.
Loading...
Harry has touched on an important point: that Russia and Israel are becoming closer and
closer strategic Russophone partners. Russia was the first country in the world to recognise
W Jerusalem as Israel's capital (before even Trump). There was only one foreign dignitary at
the May 9th Victory Parade their growing economic, military and cultural ties (Customs Union
negotiations and visa free travel for instance) cannot be ignored.
The IDF's 200 strikes in 18 months must lead to serious consideration of tacit Russian
approval because they could be quite quickly stopped without it? But that would escalate the
situation. Where does Iran stand in this, because VVP made quite clear to Netanyahu that Iran
was Russia's principle strategic partner in the region. Is that set to change?
Netanyahu has met VVP what, three times this year, behind closed doors. What was said, and
what agreements were made? It is also reputed that they have a direct one-to-one encrypted
comms network (though I can't confirm it was activated). But that they are in regular contact
is undoubted.
There is a lot more going on beneath the surface than first meets the eye. VVP's relations
with Netanyahu blurs the boundaries and greys the narrative. The fact that VVP is saying it
"looks accidental" doesn't ring true it looks anything other than accidental to me. Was there
a communication breakdown as VVP is in Hungary?
I do not know, and based on what we have been told, neither does anyone else. The FS
Auvergne fired missiles just as the Il-20 HQ went off screen. They weren't firing at the IDF,
I wouldn't be too sure they were "window dressing" for them either. Whatever went on, we are
being kept in the dark. Not precipitating WW3 is a good thing. Other than that, Russia's
foreign policy and ME relations are a 3D chess game that we know little of the motivation
behind: but I can infer that Russia's strategic needs are primary. At what point can that be
labelled imperialist?
Are you expecting to be spoon fed? And by the biased BBC, Guardian, etc!
It's pretty clear that Assad has won with Putin's support. China is on side too as
evidenced by recent military manoeuvres. What is happening now is the US, UK, France, Israel,
Turkey, Saudi just saving face and been allowed the odd small success or two.
However, Israel royally fucked up last night and Netanyahu will lose a plane or three if
he tries it again.
You didn't really read my comment: this "odd small success " has happened 200 times in the
last 18 months with the downing of how many IDF planes 1? Russia providing S-300s, or S-400s,
or upgrading the 1960's SAM 2s would secure Syrian airspace. But these supplies are not
forthcoming. Because Israel will not allow them.
The situation is a lot more complex: and no, I don't want to be spoonfed by the BBC. The
Saker posits a "Zionist 5th Column" in Russia that VVP has to accommodate. You seem to want a
simplistic ZioNATO v Russia narrative, all I am saying it is a lot more nuanced than that.
And I didn't get that from the Graun!
200 IDF strikes in 18 months, that could be stopped by turning on their S-400s, would be an
instance.. Israel has lobbied successfully to prevent Syria from securing its own airspace.
The majority of these attacks are to prevent Assad acquiring what Haaretz terms "lethal
weaponry" a euphemism for Iranian supplied air defences that could secure Syrian airspace. As
could a Russian declared NFZ (though the IDF would just standoff over Lebanon or the Med, and
not penetrate Syrian airspace). Or Russian supplied S-300s.
So my answer is yes and no. The Russophone alliance of Russia and Israel seems to be
ascendant over Syrian sovereignty. Or it was, until Monday. There appears to have been a
breakdown in the de-confliction agreement, or a deliberate misuse and provocation by Israel.
The jury is out on that one for the moment. If the attacks are stopped, I would tend to agree
with you.
There is the small matter of the international silence surrounding the FS Auvergne firing
missiles concurrent with the downing of the Il-20 HQ. These either hit the Il-20 or Latakia.
Has anyone considered the Il-20 WAS the target? That there was no accident, but a deliberate
targeting? Did the IDF or French take out the Russian early warning system and electronic
warfare capability to leave Latakia vulnerable? I don't know, and Rothschild Macron said no!
It is worth considering though, I feel.
Integrated into the systems view of militaristic, imperialistic, and sub-imperialistic,
and extractivist proliferation: it hardly matters who did what when. They are not giving us
an insight into their collective insanity and power games, where the stakes are humanities
very survivability. Russia only seemed to remember on Monday that the serial numbers on the
MH-17 BUK, means it was made in 1986. What else have they forgotten? What else do they not
know?
Humanity has no strategic allies within the global neoliberal ruling class. Arming the
world is a "pro-conflict policy", wouldn't you agree? Where militaristic proliferation can't
facilitate peace: the only possible de-confliction becomes system change? There are good and
bad actors within the current globally hegemonic cultural system: VVP is possibly the best,
so it would be unfair to heap the woes of an essentially evil system upon him especially in
isolation. So it must fall to those outside the transnational globally integrated system to
call out where this insanity will lead. That's you and me?
What I am suggesting is rather than the inevitably favourable comparison of VVP, and well,
just about anyone else let's look at the bigger picture. International World Capitalism, as
Guattari termed it, has faced us with the choice of three suicides. Without a radical
transformation of the oppressed consciousness (a la Guattari, Deleuze, Freire, Bookchin,
Naess, but better still the secular Buddha) there will soon enough come the day that does not
dawn Monday night was a foreshadowing of that very day?
The idea a head of state can function as a moral paragon is naive of course. Putin pursues
Russia's interests, not world peace and brotherhood. But at the same time we can't ignore the
fact he does so while adhering to the requirements of international law far more than the
west does. In that sense, he has some claim to respect from those who value ethical conduct.
Whatever his motives may be this fact deserves to be stated and made clear.
"Israel is unlikely to freely use Syrian airspace in the wake of the crash of a Russian
Il-20 military aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Yakov Kedmi, a former high-ranking
Israeli intelligence official, told Sputnik.
"There was an agreement between Israel and Russia that the actions of Israel in Syria's
airspace would not endanger lives of Russian troops. Israel breached this commitment What
happens next will depend on the position of Israel. Most likely, Israel will no longer be
able to enjoy the same freedom in the sky of Syria as it did before the incident," Kedmi
said.
"Israel's attack in itself, regardless of the consequences, was an irresponsible step,
because there is not a single facility on the territory of Syria that might have been used by
Iran and whose destruction would have justified an attack on it, which could endanger the
Russian troops," Kedmi said."
The US must be the worst nation on the face of the Earth. Everywhere it goes, death and
destruction follow. To top it all off, the blatant hypocrisy is too much to handle. America
is treacherous and duplicitous in the extreme. It has supported terrorists of all stripes in
the Middle East and elsewhere for its own selfish geopolitical reasons. It is an entity not
to be trusted, ever!
Regarding (the long tradition of ) British-French-Israeli collusion
"Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the
air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had
switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns – most likely to avoid
being somehow involved in the exchange of fire over Latakia." (source: Haaretz)
we should remember Sykes-Picot and "Operation Revised" (the 1956 Suez-deception)
"The documentary evidence does not leave any room for doubt that at Sèvres, during
the three days in late October 1956, an elaborate war plot was hatched against Egypt by the
representatives of France, Britain and Israel. The Protocol of Sèvres is the most
conclusive piece of evidence for it lays out in precise detail and with a precise time-table
how the joint war against Egypt was intended to proceed and shows foreknowledge of each
other's intentions .
The central aim of the plot was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser. This aim is not
explicitly stated in the protocol but it emerges clearly and unambiguously from all the
records of the discussions surrounding it. Yet each of the three partners had a very
different perspective on this war plot, and it was not at all clear how even the agreed aim
was to be achieved.
The French were the most straight-forward, unwavering and unabashed advocates of military
force. As far as they were concerned, Colonel Nasser supported the Algerian rebels and that,
along with his nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, was enough to justify a war to
overthrow him. For their part, the French did not need any further pretext for taking
military action. It was the British, unwilling to incur Arab hostility by appearing as ally
of Israel, who needed a pretext and Israel was able and willing to provide it but only at a
price. Israel also required the elimination of Nasser's air force, for which task Britain
alone had the heavy bomber bases sufficiently near at hand."
I was also struck by the Haaretz report that "Something strange was definitely in the air
over Syria on Monday night with British and French forces reportedly present." I hope this
open thread may bring more information on this alleged NATO involvement. I am beginning to
think this incident may have rather more actors than we've been told. Loading...
Yes – agreed. FUKUS ships have moved closer to the Syrian coast in the last few days,
presumably in anticipation of an attack (chemical or otherwise) that they could justify a
response to. The Russians have been doing a great job in the (non-Western) media of
predicting potential chemical fake attacks and thereby defusing them. The one minute warning
from Israel suggests the possibility (no more than that) that the Israelis saw the ELINT
plane approaching the airfield and quickly decided to use it as cover for whatever reason.
As I've said in other posts, the Israelis have narrowed Putin's options. Of FUKUS +I they
are the easiest to pick off.
A very different and is some ways attractive theory is presented here:
I am not totally convinced – Matt's view on the capability of the Syrian SAMs seems
more convincing and it is not clear that Russian fighters could have scrambled in time,
especially as the Israelis had agreed not to target Russian assets, but if true it perhaps is
a clever – nay Machiavellian – way of opening up options for Putin vis-a-vis his
Israeli/Russian Jewish oligarchs and hanging the Israelis out to dry.
Is there any information about whether the Auvergne did or didn't fire missiles? The Syrians
(and Russians?) said they had witnessed the firing of missiles which seemed to be aimed at
the same government buildings as that being attacked by Israel which suggests collusion.
Loading...
The US and NATO's compliant poodles are clearly willing to risk WWIII as they think Russia
will simply back down when they instigate open warfare and regime change in Syria. My own
belief is that poor honest broker Russia has been left to decide the fate of world peace.
Personally, for all our futures, I believe Russia must declare a no fly zone over Syria
– anyone entering to bomb will be at mercy of S400. Otherwise this will continue and if
the US gets Syria it will be Iran next and WWIII – that is, armageddon.
The entire of the West has now become simply a huge collective criminal enterprise operating
completely outside the bounds of international law and threatening to bring about armageddon
in the process. Of course one would never know this by reading or watching Western media
where our clueless psychopathic leaders are portrayed as gallantly fighting for "human
rights" and "democracy" through "regime change" and endless slaughter.
BTL SyrPer Auslander on September 18, 2018 · at 7:54 am EST/EDT
Israeli plane apparently passed just in front of the plane, SAA got a lock, Israeli
doglegged left, missile lost lock and chose the biggest target ..our plane. Israel violated
protocol, called one minute before the attack, not enough time for our bird to get out of the
way. The french frigate was window dressing.
Here are a couple of quotes that show how far the system has been rigged/corrupted:
"one of the things we need to do is give young Jewish people the confidence to be proud of
their identity – as British, Jewish and Zionist too .. There is no contradiction
between these identities and we must never let anyone try to suggest that there should be
..
"You can also count on my commitment to Israel's security .. I am clear that we will always
support Israel's right to defend itself."
– UK Prime Minister Theresa May, at the United Jewish Israel Appeal
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them (Israel). It
just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all
the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
– U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
The significance of direct military involvement by Israel and France is that the facade of a
"civil war" (albeit by proxy) can no longer be maintained. The only thing that prevents it
from being a regular war between nations is the omission of a declaration.
Is it possible for Syria to "accidentally" bring down an allied plane? Don't they have
IFFs?
Yup, and kinda. It's perfectly possible to do it and IFF doesn't really work the way a lot
of people think. (IFF transponder beacon works by transmitting a signal to the ground station
or launcher).
If the ground station recognises the beacon it labels the aircraft as friendly and either
denies launch permission or warns the operator beforehand.
However with a system like the S-200 that will not actually matter. The SA-5 (S-200) is an
old system from the 60's which uses a semi active radar homing missile and how it works is
quite simple.
When the ground system detects a target it illuminates the target with it's radar like a
torch and launches the missile.
The missile then follows the radar reflection from the target until it gets close enough
to detonate, goes bang, shoots plane down.
However the beam from the radar 'torch' can be quite wide (miles wide), F-16's are quite
small, IL-20's quite big.. and the missile itself is pretty dumb.
As such by hiding in behind the larger aircraft the smaller aircraft can almost guarantee
an incoming missile will prioritise the large aircraft reflection and kill that instead. It
doesn't actually matter if the missile was launched against the smaller target in the first
instance or if IFF came into play. The missile itself is too dumb to care. It just goes for
the largest thing it can see.
Thanks for clearing that up: but it raises the question that the Il-20 was on a pre-planned
flight path known in advance to both Russian and Syrian air traffic control (whom I believe
are sitting next to each other?) Knowing what you have just posted (which I do not doubt) it
can hardly be termed "accidental"?
I suspect the FS Auvergne fired its Aster missiles, but I'm not expecting a clarification
of that. The situation is greyed by the burgeoning Russian-Israeli Russophone alliance. A
simple narrative will not be forthcoming, I suspect.
The IL-20's been on station flying figure 8's on constant rotation for months so it's flight
and landing path would be known to everyone with half assed radar or even functional
eyeballs.
Putin can't afford to get it wrong – for everybody's sake. His power is limited. He has
done an excellent job in defeating the West in Syria but how could he react to missiles from
the French frigate without triggering a massive NATO attack not just on Syria but Russia? In
the current climate and the West's readiness it could happen in hours. He has always
emphasised he puts Russian interests first – and those included eliminating thousands
of Russian Jihadis before they returned home to create mayhem. He has never said he'll take
on the World. So the French missiles were a mirage and the plane an accident? Well that's
better than an even bigger war maybe?
If the French and Israeli's attacked at the same time then they must have liased with each
other. Or conspired is another way of putting it. Shades of 1956? But nowadays there wouldn't
be the slightest outrage at such a collusion; it's oar for the course. And where is the
missing partner, the UK? "No longer up to it" the French would say. "Too busy" say the Brits.
NB which bit of Syria are the French after this time? Or do they see it descending into the
chaos of a Libya, their last successful destabilisation.
Note Russian and IDF planes in direct line from s-200 being fired ..with French frigate
..looks like deliberate coordination to provide cover for each .but if frigate attacked then
IDF planes available to directly attack Bashir in Damascus .and frigate to provide a source
of provocation for excuse for Nato forces to launch their massive attack they desparately
wish to do .especially as Putin agreed no military attack in Idlib ..and Russian MoD
presentation yesterday it was a Ukraine BUK .in fact it is tempting to say Nato did this to
get back at Russian MoD and punish them for this and expose in any way Russia's belief in
trust and agreements and hotlines as a laughing stock ..and they have succeeded .a Russian
plane shot down by an outdated Russian missile launched by Syria and Russia failing to supply
s-300 but Turkey and everyone else can have s-400 which might ? have not ended up like
this.
And did not Russia promise to deal with the "launch source" of any more missiles against
Syria since the previous lot? Surely their are Russians in Latakia
The elephant in the room is Iran .no responses from them yet even though Israel uses excuses
to say it is defending itself from them and continues to attack what tjey call Iranian assets
or anything they might vaguely claim have any connections to Iran ..does Iran follow Putins
example to keep calm and carry on .thinking their"partnership" is being put to the test as of
course it is in order to provoke it to invite a response by usa and associates .does it say
to Putin enough is enough we are going to do our thing as you have said Russia is only in
Syria to protect its own interests so cannot we do the same ..what options covert or overt
does Iran have one wonders ..
One question you didn't ask is whether this act, which appears to be an Israeli provocation
assisted by the French, is related to the Sochi talks/agreement? Seems that supporters of the
Syrian Opposition, of which France is right behind Turkey, might not like the agreement,
partly because it stalls the plans for a "Syrian gas attack" by removing the pretext.
However I think the wider question is why and how has France been involved in this, described
on SBS as "Israeli and French forces conducting aerial attacks on Syrian State assets"?
Israel is a law unto itself, but France's intervention without any pretext whatsoever is a
blatant war crime and escalation. The whole thing looks like a provocation, and one wonders
when Russia will break. If Putin was unhappy having to make a peace agreement with the psycho
Erdogan, he will be more unhappy now.
If Russia was 'obliged' to retaliate to Israeli or French attacks its inherent weaknesses
would be exposed. It remains a relatively poor country and Putin must be well aware it can't
take on the US, Israel, the KSA and the other Gulf Emirs as well as France and the UK. It's
done a fantastic job saving Syria but it can't take on The Rest of the World. If it has
accepted Syrian missile defences brought it down that may well be the way out of a bigger war
– this time.
I agree, Paul X. These are not only perilous waters, but untested to boot. In fact not one of
the military powers you cite has had its strength tested against a non third world adversary.
I know there are infantile tendencies crying "bring it on!" – as though speaking of a
long awaited prize fight involving their heavyweight boxer of choice – but saner voices
can only express alarm and profound dismay at what Western rulers seem bent on dragging us
into. I say enough of this macho nonsense about who would prevail. I do take some comfort in
the possibility –
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/-
that US military power is overstated, but it is comfort of the bleakest possible kind.
Loading...
The point is this, Russia can take on the whole World if it had to, but it would be a pyrrhic
victory, because to do so would require nuclear weapons which no nation could survive.
However, Russia has many allies, the largest of which is China, so it probably would only be
taking on one major opponent, the US and a few of its erstwhile allies (France, Britain
etc.), not by any stretch of the imagination, the whole World!
China is even weaker than Russia and not long ago said it was 10 years behind the US in
military terms and it's hard to see they'd welcome a bit of sacrifice to pull Putin's
chestnuts out of the fire. That Alliance is for the future. Right now a full blooded NATO
response would be quite enough. Many in America would be delighted if Russia used a nuke;
total annihaltion of Russia would follow, something they've been dying to do for 75 years.
And of course they might go for the First Strike.
I have to agree up to a point that this attack was a "full test of the EW capabilties of the
western & Israel armies". This was not just an Israeli attack. Israel just supplied four
attack jets. The French were (as Russia observed) firing missiles. British aircraft were high
overhead providing surveillance and attack data. U.S. surveillance aircraft similar to the
IL-20 are more or less full-time orbiting off the Lebanon/Syria coasts gathering data,
probing electronic systems and providing aerial data link relays for the planes and ships
below. We should all stop calling this an "Israeli attack". It was basically a NATO
attack on Syria.
It's evident that the Russian and Syrian forces were not prepared for
such a combined attack as this.
NATO "won" overwhelmingly.
And this was just a "warmup" for
the next, bigger attack to come. Russia must up it's game drastically or it's going to face a
crushing defeat in the next attack.
"Israeli military delegation led by air force commander to travel to Moscow to share
information on Il-20 plane crash.
The Israeli military delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin will
travel to Moscow on September 20 with information about the crash of a Russian Il-20
reconnaissance aircraft off the Syrian coast that killed 15 military personnel, the IDF press
service said Wednesday."
Will be interesting to see how or maybe if it correlates with Russian intelligence?
The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from
the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the
region by
the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from
intervening
directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that could go
nuclear).
Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian
operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military
planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria
would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in
Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.
How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are
challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those
red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no
longer have any credibility in Syria.
My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike the
SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria to
ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will have
a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that they
will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the
Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how
could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over
Syria? You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an
Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3.
Reply
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the
ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated.
There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at
Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken
out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not
even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would
not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite
psychotic.
The Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means
available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made
things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's
interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end.
It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their
holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to
the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt
with.
This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without
going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in
NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of
course.
I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I
sincerely hope that I am.
That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if
the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the
enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else
they need to find a new weak spot to poke.
Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are
not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'
Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical
as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.
Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia
(and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the
ever unreliable Turkey..
Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really
the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes
free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the
world.
Which is why the provocations won't stop. Honestly, I don't see how Putin can think he can
shrug them off and continue with the job at hand in Syria. He will try but Zion will continue
to double-down.
I believe the West has seen enough of their schemes foiled by Putin and his playing the
long game. The strategy now is to take the long game from him. The advantage in this goes to
the West as they can be as provocative as they want while Russia has to be careful not to be
seen as an aggressor lest it wreck Nord Stream, Turk Stream and the thaw in relations with
Germany.
Putin has sounded conciliatory, maybe even weak in some eyes. He did, however, note that
Russia's attitude towards this incident is expressed in the MoD statement, which is
noticeably less conciliatory.
Perhaps that, along with some concrete actions (I favor a limited no-fly zone), will deter
outside interference while the essential work at Idlib can continue. We can only hope.
May I remind you Saker that this incident was not just a provocation. It is a promise or
threat being honored. For months we have we have been hearing high ranking American officials
openly advocating that their goal in Syria was to make as many as possible Russian military
return home in body bags. From Senators to directors of intelligence have unabashedly and
unapologetically said so openly on American TVs. And they are doing it whenever possible.
So the question for Mr. Putin is whether he's gonna let them continue with impunity. I don't
know how old most commentators on this site are, but for those who remember the denouement of
the Vietnam war you will remember that the only war the US ever lost was when the American
people had enough of hundreds of their soldiers returning home every week in body bags.
remember the Tu 20 was used a RADAR shield for the 4 Israeli F-16. These are obviously
aircraft and operate from an Israeli military base.The Russians know the geographical
coordinates of these bases to the accuracy of a few meters. The Russian SSBM can stay in the
Black Sea and the Caspian Sea Flotilla can repeat their Deir ez Zoor feat again testing the
Iron Dome an Davids Sling in the process.
This potential threat will cause the Israeli military planers some sleepless nights.
I have read that the fire works capabilities of Hezbollah have somewhat improved in recent
years. The possible components of a "no fly zone" over Israel and western Syria. Not that it
will happen but making the protection racket in Washington foam at their Snouts is worth
something too. IMHO
Lets not forget China has people (Special Forces, Logistics people, medics etc) on the ground
in Syria. Some brigades of the special forces are embedded with the Syrian Arab Armies Tiger
Division and 4th Armored Division. The spearheads of most campaigns.
China has major plans foe the Levant, as far as connectivity with the OBR Silk Roads. They
already have plans to rebuild Syria.
With cheap Chinese weapons, and a large volume of such, the Arabs, Assyrians of Syria will
achieve their ultimate victory. The same applies to Iraq, where the U.S. , British and French
position looks more and more precarious.
By 2030, the U.S., Britain and France will have been expelled from the MENA/Central Asian
regions, only to have China fill the vacuum. Russia or not, China is coming, its rising
fast.
I agree with you 100% that there is no hope for the Western globalist elite. That's because
they're incompetent, psychopathic, loser scum who are only a few bricks short of a load and
their ponzi scam is only a few moves from mate.
I wouldn't say that at all. They are still in positions of power with enormous economic and
military sources. They are in decline but not that far down the road. Russia won't act
strongly because the US/NATO/Israel/Saudi alliance is waaaaay more powerful and still very
united in the Imperial project. Only a very tight China-Russia-Iran alliance would cause the
Empire to hesitate to play their current game of continual micro-aggressions against
Russia/Syria/Iran. Putin will not respond because he does not have as close an alliance with
the Chinese as the US has with their "allies (vassals)." Washington can no longer dictate
terms in world affairs but is more influential than Russia/China/Iran and any other minor
players.
Kfeto
You need to do your homework before posting comments. Erdogan had nothing to do with with the
shooting of that Russian SU-24. This was done behind his back, with pro-US elements in Turkey
hoping to create a rift between Russia and Turkey. It was a provocation. The pilot of that
Turkish F-16 was a Turk of Albanian origin, who was subsequently placed under arrest. When
the US instigated that coup d'etat against Erdogan, it was the Russians who both warned him
and saved his life, as his plane was targeted by Turkish F-16's flown by conspirators, who
backed off, having Russian Sukhois behind them and Russian missiles in Syria pointing at
them.
The shooting of that Russian reconnaissance plane in Syria was another provocation, Israel
hoping to provoke Putin to retaliate and starting a mass war in Syria, bearing in mind that
NATO brought additional ships to the Syrian coast. It did not work, as Putin stayed cool.
However, Russian and Syrian AA missile systems have now become integrated. When it comes to
this latest provocation, it could have been greater than it appeared. Commentators have
pointed to that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of missile was that ? An AA
missile, or a cruise missile ? Did the French shoot that Russian plane down ? If so, then we
were facing a very real threat of wider war, because had the Russians retaliated, then NATO
would have had an excuse to attack Syria, now that it's little false flag plan has been
exposed, another chemical "attack" by Assad, as if Assad was foolish enough to do such a
thing.
The point is that Putin does not fall for provocations. He has proved it again.
I concur. Israel is a rogue state, and this was a provocation.
A firm response is required. The world is watching. Anything short of a firm response
would negate Vostok 2018.
Does Putin stand with, and behind his own Minister of Defense, who layed the blame firmly
on Israel.
Russia needs to secure Syrian and Lebanese airspace to Israeli provocations. AS a starting
point. And Russia should make a lot of noise at the U.N., giving them a headache there, as
well as points against the U.S..
Israeli arrogance should not be let go by superpower Russia.
amarynth
You are correct. I am wondering what really happened. Officially that Russian plane was
mistakenly shot down by Syrians, who were targeting Israeli F-16's that were hiding behind
the Russian plane. Both the Syrian radar operators and their Russian advisors must have known
about that Russian reconnaissance plane, making such a mistake improbable, but not
impossible. Then we have reports of that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of
missile was that ? An AA missile, or a cruise missile ? No additional data has been provided.
I wonder why.
NATO ships are still off the Syrian coast. Why ? For what purpose ? Just keeping them at
sea must cost millions of dollars. Are they waiting for something ?
That false flag chemical
"attack" which the US planned, hoping to frame Assad, has been exposed. Putin and Erdogan
make a deal on Idlib. After that we have that Israeli attack, with the French giving a
helping hand. Was NATO provoking Putin to make a retaliatory attack, either against Israel or
against that French frigate ? Time will tell. However, as The Saker has stated, Russians have
patience.
Patience is not always a virtue. Stalin paid dearly for his patience with Hitler even though
his plans for Lebensraum and expansion eastward were not hidden. Careful Mr. Putin that you
not pay dearly for your patience with the American Empire when it's plan "Project for a New
American Century" has been clearly spelled out.
Yes Saker as you say let's wait and see what the Russian response will be.
Over the years – this always is the knee jerk reaction of the armchair warriors and
anti-Putin/Russia trolls – whenever Russia is attacked in Syria or elsewhere. Some
still don't learn that Russia is slow to saddle and quick to ride. The MOD statements have
already set down who is to blame and a reply to this disgusting provocation will be answered
in their own way and in their own time. Putin also agreed with the MOD statements and hinted
himself to watch this space.
"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and
Russia has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have
organized their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"
This was a very important point, I also noted. I also read that the II-20 plane was
returning from reconnaissance over Idlib and was just coming into land .take from that what
you will ..
I think a basic question here is whether the Israelis were deliberately trying to down the
II-20. Is it a coincidence that the Israeli attack took place precisely when that plane was
landing? The Israelis have done worse. I think they had foreknowledge of 9-11, for example,
and were unwilling to help their American "friends".
Given that 15 Russians were killed Russia probably does need to respond. The challenge
will probably be to avoid actions that restrict Russian choices, especially given that Trump
& Co. are willing to play nuclear chicken. The Russians want to avoid being forced into a
sequence of actions that lead to WWIII or other bad outcomes. They want to make the choices,
not others.
The Israelis have a history of trying to provoke others. For example, before they invaded
Lebanon they tried to provoke a PLO military response to some attacks so that they could
claim their invasion was self-defense against PLO "aggression". The PLO didn't take the bait
but the Israelis invaded Lebanon anyway.
I haveto challenge your cleverly hidden piece of misinformation. The WTC was brought down by
controlled demoliton and the sheer scope of the operation (3 sites, NORAD exercise) clearly
points to the involvment of state actors. So about what should the the Israelis warn their US
comrades?
Its true building #7 appears to have been destroyed by a controlled demolition but we don't
know for sure at this point who was responsible, although Israel is high on my list of
suspects. (Incidentally, there is evidence that the 1993 WTC bombing was an Israeli black op.
too.) However, we do know that an Israeli spy ring followed the 9-11 hijackers for months and
a group of these spies cheered during the 9-11 attack. This convinces me that while the plot
was carried out by Al Queda, the Israelis were in the background making sure they succeeded.
It also convinces me that the Israelis are perfectly capable of deliberately downing the
II-20 or worse.
We know who said this: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've
had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made
that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
I know the US is in the grip of AIPAC, the Neocon's and their Billionaire masters etc
(including Trump). But it's time for the American people to accept responsibility for their
part in what is happening. It is not OK to accept medals and money for military service
overseas to support the Empire. Occupying foreign nations and killing foreign people in order
to pay for college and to pay the mortgage and set up an retirement plan is weakness, not
strength. "Thank you for your service", indeed. Too many Americans still worship at the altar
of the Pentagon.
It's time for Americans to kick the MIC to the curb, give up the Petrodollar and
corruption that comes with it, and come up with a saner national business model and way of
life. I know that many, many American soldiers have paid a heavy price for their "service" or
even "servitude", but not more so than the nations they have ruined during their service.
It's time for the American people to come together and accept that "War" cannot be the
solution to every problem facing America in it's foreign or domestic policies. It is time to
Down Tools and clean up the corruption in DC and on Wall Street and in the US establishment
in general.
I believe these sentiments are not shocking to most Americans, but this also means the
sense of desperation in the US/Zio elites wedded to War is growing, another reason they push
so hard and so frantically. They know time is running out for them. On this front and many
others.
Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
@ Christian,
I have Serbian roots, and US & its NATO poodles bombed and finished their decade long job of destroying my country in 1999.
That nightmare just doesn't end.
But my definition of evil is worth noting. Evil can put a bullet in your head, but where is the fun in that? Put the gun in
the hand of a good person, deceive them, and get them to do it. THAT's true evil, and there in a nutshell is what has been
done to the US.
I struggled to understand as a child, why lying was as great a crime in Christianity as murder and stuff, but I later
understood; deceit is the greatest evil, it turns good people into monsters. There is no anger like righteous anger.
All that evil needs to thrive, is ignorance. The American people as a whole, are grossly ignorant, but they are not evil;
they are simply deceived, just like Brits actualy. A good number of yanks on Zerohedge wish Putin was their own president, so
some are awake. Overall, the US citizenry actually can't give a hoot about Russiagate. There is no mass ill will towards
Russia.
So those are just my thoughts. I just want the American, and European people to wake out of their trance.
The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret
influence campaign on Facebook
Censored film reveals The Israel Project's secret Facebook campaign
The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret
influence campaign on Facebook.
This is revealed in The Lobby – USA, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that has
never been broadcast due to censorship by Qatar following pressure from pro-Israel
organizations.
In the newest clips, David Hazony, the managing director of The Israel Project, is heard
telling Al Jazeera's undercover reporter: "There are also things that we do that are
completely off the radar. We work together with a lot of other organizations."
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
"... Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin. ..."
"... The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views. ..."
I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:
a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and
b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values,
freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market
purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.
Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and
usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.
We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents
(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained
surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal
disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are
always justified in terms of (a).
Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers,
extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying
on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.
The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied
about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible'
republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's
tacit support of his views.
Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.
"... Another example is the Danish newspaper "Information" founded during WWII, as very leftist it has today morphed, in the dark, into a center right neo- liberal rag, full of no- news and idiotic scribbles by irrelevant formerly known peoples talent-less sons and daughters. ..."
"... Wel thanks b, for telling the truth and letting me start my Sunday moderately depressed, I guess news that Washington D.C had been swallowed by a giant sink-hole, would cheer me partly up. ..."
Den Lille Abe , Sep 16, 2018 12:47:49 AM |
49 ">link
Thank you b, for yet another good article!
Your article made me reflect the situation in general. While it is good the The White
Frauds have been called out as an Empire front and as Western propaganda psy-op, I do thing
the real Enemy is the MSM. These crimes by our governments, the White Frauds, Isil, ect,ect,
would not be possible without the control of the MSM. But I am completely at a loss how to
fight them, or just diminish their influence.
The Guardian s a blatant example, and its turnaround from "reasonable reliable" to "paid
shill" was clumsily and obviously executed. Looking at the UK for real news , there is only
the blogoshere left, all opposition has been subverted. And it is not only in the UK.
Another example is the Danish newspaper "Information" founded during WWII, as very
leftist it has today morphed, in the dark, into a center right neo- liberal rag, full of no-
news and idiotic scribbles by irrelevant formerly known peoples talent-less sons and
daughters.
The situation in Sweden is even more depressing (it is!) the newspapers here are on level
with the Sun and the Daily Heil.
Wel thanks b, for telling the truth and letting me start my Sunday moderately
depressed, I guess news that Washington D.C had been swallowed by a giant sink-hole, would
cheer me partly up.
During a hearing last
week, Judge William Walls seemed to signal that argument was dead on arrival by citing a recent Supreme Court ruling
that has vexed public-corruption investigators across the country. "I frankly don't think
McDonnell
will allow
that," Walls told prosecutors, referring to the decision in
McDonnell v. United States
that fundamentally
changed the standard for bribery.
Walls eventually decided to let the case proceed, declining to throw out most of Menendez's charges. But the close
call underscores the continuing fallout from
McDonnell
last year. That ruling, like a series of others from the
Court in recent years, recast actions once eschewed in politics as reasonable behavior for elected officials. The
justices have portrayed these rulings as necessary on First Amendment grounds. But the long-term effects could imperil
the public's faith in democratic institutions.
"There's a way in which
a lot of the Supreme Court decisions have been ever narrowing what corruption means," Tara Malloy, a staff lawyer at the
Campaign Legal Center, told me. "And
McDonnell
is one further example of it."
The case narrowed what could be defined as an "official act" under federal corruption statutes -- the quo of a quid pro
quo, so to speak. Since
McDonnell
, it only applies to direct exercises of a government official's power, like
voting for legislation or signing an order. More seemingly mundane activities, like urging other officials to intervene
in someone's favor or setting up meetings for donors, do not qualify.
Before the decision, federal prosecutors brought cases against Democrats and Republicans alike by arguing that
"official act" applied to all sorts of actions taken by public officials. Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a
Republican, was convicted in 2015 after taking more than $175,000 in luxury gifts, personal loans, and more from Johnnie
Williams, a Virginia businessman who received favors from the governor. On appeal, McDonnell argued his actions were
part of being an elected official and fell beyond what federal bribery laws could prohibit.
The Supreme Court agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the Court's opinion, appeared to anticipate a public
backlash. "There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," he wrote. "But our concern is
not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the
government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute." All eight justices sided with McDonnell, with the
ninth seat vacant after Antonin Scalia's death in February.
"The concern of the Court was that the prosecution not define 'official act' -- which is what the statute there
required -- too broadly," Malloy said. "They thought that 'official act,' according to the prosecution, was basically
anything a public official did by reason of their position or through the resources of their position. And the Court
said, 'No, no, no.'"
At the same time, Roberts also took an exceedingly generous view of McDonnell's activities. Where the Justice
Department saw an elected official providing special perks for a lucrative donor, the chief justice saw the risk that
"conscientious public officials" could be hauled in by prosecutorial zealots. "Officials might wonder whether they could
respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from
participating in democratic discourse," he mused, as if to suggest judges and juries would not be able to tell the
difference.
Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor, described
McDonnell
to me as "a lawyerly opinion in the worst sense of the word." By focusing on just one aspect of the statutory definition
of "official act," he said, the Court missed the broader issues with the relationship between McDonnell and an
influential donor who showered him, and his wife, with lavish gifts. He offered a jarring hypothetical that illustrates
how officials could leverage their power in a post-
McDonnell
world:
Currently, I could set up a system where I'm a governor and I tell everybody who might want to meet with someone
in my cabinet to make a pitch, or try to get a contract, or advocate for some program. I could say, "Okay, I'll set
up a meeting for you. The cost is $10,000." And that just goes in my pocket. That's not a campaign contribution; it's
not going to be reported to the public anywhere. That's just going to be a gift for me, and I'll set up the meeting.
I'm not going to tell anybody what to do, I'm not going to tell them what to decide, I'll just get you in the room.
And if you don't pay me, no meeting.
Eliason and other legal observers had thought McDonnell could prevail in his appeal, but the scale of the ruling came
as a surprise. "I mean, access is valuable, right?" Eliason told me. "And you can just pay for access as long as the
official doesn't actually agree to decide something for you, but can get you in the room with the other movers and
shakers who are going to do it. Now that's not considered corruption."
Three months after the ruling, the Justice Department abandoned its efforts to prosecute McDonnell and his wife.
"After carefully considering the Supreme Court's recent decision and the principles of federal prosecution, we have made
the decision not to pursue the case further," it said in a terse press release. McDonnell celebrated the outcome,
telling reporters his "wrongful" conviction was "based on a false narrative and incorrect law."
If it hasn't already,
McDonnell
could affect how prosecutors build corruption cases and limit the range of
behaviors for which they'll pursue charges. Those watching the Menendez case in New Jersey could be even more motivated
to do so. But Malloy also warned that
McDonnell
fits into a broader pattern of how the Roberts Court approaches
corruption in politics, and what it could do in future cases.
"We're not simply talking about these criminal prosecutions. We're talking about the full range of laws that attempt
to protect the integrity of government," she said, citing statutes on ethics, political transparency, and campaign
finance the justices have taken a narrower view of. Malloy attributed the shift to the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor
in 2005.
"Once upon a time, for instance, a campaign-finance law could be justified if there was a concern that money could
provide influence or access to officials," she explained. "The Supreme Court in recent years has said, 'No, no, no, we
don't really care if your campaign contribution gets you access or ingratiation or a whole bunch of favors. We think
corruption is much more like quid pro quo and maybe even just cash for votes.'"
In the 2003 case
McConnell v. FEC
, for example, O'Connor voted with the majority to uphold most of the
McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law. Seven years later, a five-justice majority -- including Samuel Alito,
O'Connor's replacement -- overturned
McConnell
in
Citizens United v. FEC
to allow unlimited independent
expenditures in political campaigns. And in 2014, the Court struck down aggregate limits on campaign donations in
McCutcheon v. FEC
.
Following the justices' decision last year,
McDonnell
's impact quickly reverberated through other
public-corruption cases, including two high-profile prosecutions in New York. In July, a three-judge panel in the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the conviction of Sheldon Silver, once the powerful state-assembly speaker. The
judges ruled that the jury instructions had conformed to the pre-
McDonnell
standard of "official acts"
and couldn't be reconciled with the Supreme Court's ruling. Three months later, in September, the Second Circuit
also overturned the conviction of Dean Skelos, the state senate's former majority leader, on similar grounds.
Silver had been convicted of extortion, fraud, and money laundering in 2015. Prosecutors said he
helped funnel
state funds to a Columbia University cancer researcher in exchange for millions of dollars; they also
connected him to favorable-treatment deals for two real-estate development firms. Skelos was found guilty of eight
corruption-related charges the same year for allegedly
using his influence
to secure jobs and payments for his son. Federal prosecutors plan to seek retrials for both
Silver and Skelos, who were known as power brokers in the state.
McDonnell
also
came down as federal prosecutors were preparing to go to trial against Menendez, a senator since 2006. At the crux of
the case is his friendship with Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist and frequent campaign donor.
Prosecutors have depicted Menendez as a
personal legislator of sorts
to Melgen. He allegedly used his political influence to help obtain visas for Melgen's
girlfriends, secure contracts for him in the Dominican Republic, and intervene in a
Medicare billing dispute
with the Department of Health and Human Services.
Menendez has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyers argue the favors don't rise to the newly heightened standard of
official acts. Federal prosecutors, for their part, argue that the stream of benefits that flowed from Melgen to
Menendez meet the threshold under federal law without linking specific quids to specific quos. Even though Walls
declined to dismiss the charges against the lawmaker, he could still dismiss some of them later in the trial if the
prosecution fails to present enough evidence. And like McDonnell himself, Menendez could also challenge any convictions
under the stream-of-benefits theory on appeal.
Behind these legal doctrines and prosecutorial theories are questions about the popular legitimacy of the republican
system -- about voters being able to trust that the officials they elect aren't the puppets of the country's richest
patrons. What
McDonnell
and other recent public-corruption rulings risk are institutions where cash and favors
flow freely, where consequences are exceptional, and where public vice is made indistinguishable from civic virtue. No
Americans expect a government of saints, but they expect their government to be able to root out the sinners in its
midst.
... "What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing
virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that."
... From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian
troops allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July. Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the
publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise
he's been banned.
..."I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate
media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering actions of the
US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish."
..."The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify
the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.
Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because
our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer. Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going
to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are
disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.
Notable quotes:
"... But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect. ..."
"... alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader needed to be overthrown ..."
"... The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other. ..."
"... On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German) ..."
"... "In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant into the West's orbit and away from Russia's. ..."
"... But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European region. ..."
"... By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government. ..."
"... "Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity. ..."
"... Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned. ..."
"... "Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. ..."
"... let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned, Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces. ..."
"... your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll ..."
"... What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that. ..."
"... I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate media - ..."
"... We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior 'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes. ..."
"... The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. ..."
"... The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer. ..."
"... The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting. ..."
JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 12:26
"Look at the Moscow apartment bombings"... look at any number of CIA false flag operations. As for "most of the national T.V
is Putin press." ... Murdoch has a controlling interest in printed press and a large share of TV news in Australia and the UK.
Maybe you are one of the CIA-employed agitators against Russia, or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder about a failed relationship
with a Russia bride. I can't be sure from your comments.
But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which
started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means
that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect.
Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 12:24
I don't see a big issue with that list. If some people from that list travel anywhere, it will be considered wasting tax payer
money anyways. They aren't even embraced by a majority in their own countries, some of them belonging to totally irrelevant weird
initiative, shouting and crying about this and that.
For others on that list, being linked to military organisations, the should be banned naturally. As for vacation, I don't think
Russia was on those guys list either
JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 12:14
alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader
needed to be overthrown(e.g. Egypt's Morsi). If we take your "Hitler was elected" argument, we can apply that one
to any election outcome. If you won your high school "class monitor" election ... we'll Hitler won an election too. It's nothing
more than a lazy smear by association. If we take your "rigs the right of the opposition" argument, well there goes Israel's claims
to democracy. They arrest/ban viable Arab opposition figures to prevent them standing in elections. Also, we have to eliminate
Ukraine, who have assassinated about 12 of Yanukovich's inner circle since the coup.
uzzername 31 May 2015 12:09
The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other.
Russia, along with the rest of BRICS is an emerging economy. While in the developed economies big corporations scramble for
every penny they rip off off the consumers, the BRICS are a goldmine for adventurous capitalists as you can score quite a bit
of dope in one scoop if you invest enough in it.
That's why some of them suits on the list are pissed off. Obvs not because their summer holiday in Siberia has gone into smithereens.
umweltAT2100 31 May 2015 12:04
According to a report in ARD (German state media) the entry ban is a reaction / retaliation in response to the entry ban imposed
on Russians in connection with the Crimea annexation. Approximately 200 people are on the Russian black list. The largest number
are from the USA, with the Republican John McCain declared "persona non grata", followed by Canadian politicians.
On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the
Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not
anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German)
Russian entry ban for dozens of politicians – Moscow's black list is out. (Hermann Krause, ARD Radio studio, Moscow,
30.05.2015)
Russische Einreiseverbote für Dutzende Politiker Moskaus "schwarze Liste" ist raus. Von Hermann Krause, ARD-Hörfunkstudio Moskau,
30.05.2015
Victoria Nuland and the neocons to be more precise,
"In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have
invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant
into the West's orbit and away from Russia's.
But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished
Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted
natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European
region.
Nuland was soon at work planning for "regime change," encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies
to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn't seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev's Maidan square had hoisted
a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and
whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.
By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new
government.
"Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic
experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served
as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity.
As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed
with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera's anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during
World War II.
With the crisis escalating and scores of people killed in the street fighting, Yanukovych agreed to a E.U.-brokered deal that
called for moving up scheduled elections and having the police stand down. The neo-Nazi storm troopers then seized the opening
to occupy government buildings and force Yanukovych and many of his aides to flee for their lives." https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/
JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 11:53
What proof do you have that the Russian elections were phony ? The results were in line with independent opinion polls. Which
referendums was phony ? The first Iraqi election after Sadam was toppled was certainly phony. The US military whisked away the
ballot boxes for a week after voting was completed before announcing that the Shia (60% of Iraqis) had failed to get a majority
(despite the 20% Bathist Sunni boycotting the election so only the 20% Kurds voted against the 60% Shia).
geedeesee -> SnarkyGrumpkin 31 May 2015 11:50
From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian troops
allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July.
Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares,
not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the
jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned.
JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 11:45
"Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know
that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. That's more than many of the US/UK allies can say (take your pick
of the Gulf state leaders). Don't buy into the mindless anti-Russian propaganda doing the rounds. I suspect that it's intended
to soften public opnion for anti-Russian attrocities committed in our name to come.
Huo Fu Yan -> David Port 31 May 2015 11:36
It's true, 1/3 the list are politicians and military leader from Poland and baltics with no intend to enter Russia anyways.
The rest are merely people engaged in military organisations (should be banned naturally) or weird political groups and initiatives.
Furthermore, there are a few irrelevant politicians on the list for whatever reason. To be frank, a few people from that list
you wouldt want in your own country either.
meewaan 31 May 2015 11:07
let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned,
Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary
of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces.
Not sure about banning Nick Clegg, - has his wife remunerated by her work for companies linked to the US? Take, for example,
Mrs Clegg's firm's advertisement (again, on its website) of the fact it makes considerable sums from helping rich people avoid
inheritance tax, saying that it offers 'personal estate planning advice and financial and tax-planning services to high net worth
individuals'.
'We combine sophisticated estate planning skills with international resources . . . We help U.S. and non-U.S. trustees and
beneficiaries transfer wealth efficiently through lifetime and testamentary trusts designed to minimise tax exposure.'
SuchindranathAiyer 31 May 2015 10:35
It required a "Tit for Tat" to establish that sanctions are working? Here is the geo-political back drop:
Reigan and Gorby arrived at certain agreements and understandings which Clinton (the husband) violated. He pulled Poland and
others into NATO and bombed Russian ally Belgrade, violating international law, while a helpless Russia fumed, for 84 days to
given Islam its first ethnically cleansed enclaves (Bosnia and Kosovo) after 1489.
Bush (the son), declared the "Star Wars" missile shield in direct violation of the Regan-Gorbachev agreements while Russia
continued to fume, but began to re arm and prepare itself for war. Apart from, of course, violating International Law and invading
Russian ally Iraq to distract anger over 9/11 from Saudi Arabia and its Nuclear-Terrorist sword arm Pakistan and threw thriving
communities of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, discos and bars that the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis resented into the maws of Islam.
Russia fumed and continued to rearm and began to rally around Putin's nationalism. The US commenced "regime change" operations
in Russian (and Iraqi) Secular ally Syria, throwing even more Jews, Christians, Yazidis and Kurds into the maws of Islam. US was
to weakened by Iraq to wage war unilaterally in Syria. China and Russia blocked the US at the UN. Putin wrote an open letter to
Obama on Syria in the NY Times which gained traction with the American Citizens, bending Obama's nose and driving the US regime
change operation in Syria further under ground (covert). Prince Bandar (what an appropriate name!) head of Saudi intelligence
went ot Moscow to bribe Putin to back the putsch in Syria. Putin refused and told Bandar that if Islam tried a Beslan at Sochi,
he would bomb the Q'aba. This bent the Saudi nose. So the US commenced operation regime change in Ukraine. This sparked the secession
of Crime to Russia. The US fumed and fretted because its more develoed and intelligent NATO allies (France and Germany) would
not back the US backed fascist regime in Ukraine. The US shot down MH-17 in a false flag operation and started a canard against
Russia to revive NATO. There is a NATO now imposing US-Saudi conceived sanctions on Russia. We are now in the Second Cold War
so NATO won't go away. Russia and China will ally because, Clinton to Obama, the US has demonstrated the dangers of a unipolar
world, particularly as Islamic Petro Dollars own the decision and opinion makers of the West and have used the US military to
further the Islamic agenda as much as carry on with the old anti-Communist prejudices. (While Russia is not Totalitarian, China
is. India is really the last Soviet franchise in the World with its "Animal Farm" totalitarian Constitution and thinking which
is why the US is an ally of Pakistan and as hostile to India as to Russia. Consider that as recently as 2012, the man who lolls
in Lutyen's drawing room today moved "retrospective" legislation in the same Parliament that nationalized 20% of private (non
minority) education and removed the truth from Govt approved History text books, in the highest traditions of Nehru, Ambedkar
and Indira Gandhi.)
wilpost37 -> AbsolutelyFapulous 31 May 2015 10:33
Absolutely/Goman
Almost all the tourists of Crimea were Ukrainians before 2014. They stopped coming, and likely are spending their vacation
elsewhere.
Crimea is rebuilding its infrastructures (Kiev had neglected them for 22 years), and its tourist base.
It expects to have over 4 million visitors in 2015 and 5 million in 2016, because many Russians are no longer going to EU countries,
and are going to Crimea, Sochi, etc., instead. It will take time, but Crimea is a beautiful area.
Crimea became part of the Russian Empire by conquest over the Tartars in 1793.
The Tartars had been kidnapping nearby people (several million over many decades) and selling them to the Turks. Catherine
the Great put an end to that.
Khrushev was stupid to give it to Ukraine in 1954.
After the CIA/FBI-assisted coup of Kiev, the Crimean people, 67% Russian, feared for their future, as did the Donbas people.
SHappens 31 May 2015 10:24
"Just one thing remains unclear: did our European co-workers want these lists to minimise inconveniences for potential 'denied
persons' or to stage a political show?"
It is pretty clear that it turned out to be another media circus.
Socraticus -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 10:12
Lesson 1 - everyone on this site is a guest, you included
Lesson 2 - the majority of posters herein are actually westerners, not 'Russian trolls'
Lesson 3 - all politicians lie to advance their own social/economic/political agendas
Lesson 4 - all MSM distort/suppress the truth to support governmental narratives
Lesson 5 - many of us westerners actually bother to investigate the true facts
Lesson 6 - if a leader's being demonized its because they won't capitulate to the US
Lesson 7 - every illicit invasion is preceded by demonization of a leader/country
Lesson 8 - your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll
Lesson 9 - you can educate yourself or remain blind to facts - your choice
Lesson 10 - you will learn the consequences of your choices
UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 10:12
You realise that Russia is one the most important members of the BRICS and that they group has recently established a development
bank? That's hardly the sign that the other BRICS nations are not reading from the same hymn sheet as Russia...
What did anyone expect flowers from russia from the unfair treatment it's getting. The west paying for Ukraine part nazi government
and creating a coup in a democratically ekected president last february. Then sanctioning the Russian people expecting them to
turn in yheir president. The west should be ashamed of what they accomplished that being fronting a proxy war against Russia.
Vijay Raghavan -> Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 09:54
Developing all-round military-to-military relations. China's armed forces will further their exchanges and cooperation with
the Russian military within the framework of the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia,
and foster a comprehensive, diverse and sustainable framework to promote military relations in more fields and at more levels
They made that statement in their white paper issued last week.Offcourse Guardian or BBC will not keep up with such "Breaking
News".
UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 09:49
1) Yes, the BRICS countries are very much behind Russia.
2) Russia, unlike the US, has tabled a resolution to condemn Nazism and Nazi movements in the highest forum possible (the UN).
The US, along with Canada, and its puppet government in Ukraine, voted against it (in defiance of most of the world's nations).
You would think, with all the technology at the disposal of the US security state, that it might (just might) be able to provide
us with real, irrefutable evidence of a ground invasion. You know, perhaps some high resolution satellite imagery, the odd photo
of a modern Russian tank moving over the Ukrainian border, some chatter from the wires between embassy officials and security
personnel, etc., etc.
But of course we have nothing of the sort. What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense
from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We
are in very, VERY short supply of that.
UnsleepingMind -> ponott 31 May 2015 09:34
I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western
corporate media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering
actions of the US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish.
UnsleepingMind -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 09:30
'Because we have the right to ban people who invade other countries'.
That's why we've recently arrested George Bush (who, with the help of Tony Blair invaded Iraq and Afghanistan), Barack Obama
(who bombed Libya, engineered coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and is now funding Islamic extremists in Syria)...
We reserve the right to ban, but we use that 'right' to ban official enemies (i.e. anyone daring to follow a geopolitical game
plan that is distinctly at odds with our own).
Also, your suggestion that Putin's Russia has invaded 'other countries' is preposterous. The western media has been spewing
this nonsense for months now and yet there is not a shred of real evidence (including hi-res satellite imagery) to back it up.
And if you are referring to Crimea, let me say this: Russia troops have been staged in Crimea for many, many years; moreover,
the people of Crimea voted to break with Ukraine in a recent referendum (not that that squares with your hectoring rhetoric).
PyrrhicVictory 31 May 2015 09:27
The doors of the gravy train for politicians like Clegg are fast closing. When we exit the EU, then the Brussels gravy train
will also be beyond him. He might, just might, having to start behaving like an honest politician for once and earn a decent wage
based on truth not lies.
johnsmith44 -> NegativeCamber 31 May 2015 09:25
Why dont you go spread democracy to some oil-producing Third World country, together with your poodles the brits? And make
sure you do it properly, so that monstrosities like ISIS are guaranteed?
ex-CIA personnel openly describing their involvement in the dowining of Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on
August 30, 1983 and I believe it becomes apparent who downed MH-17.
Jerome Fryer -> Popeyes 31 May 2015 09:11
We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do
so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior
'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes.
davidncldl 31 May 2015 09:10
The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. Mr Putin is their democratically
elected leader and he is enormously popular. Only an imbecile would be surprised or indignant about Russia retaliating for unjust
EU/US sanctions. What do the globalisers and bankers' friends at the Guardian expect? I imagine you think that the ruination of
the Venezuelan and Russian economies by the manipulation of the oil price is just "free market" activity.
Hass Castorp 31 May 2015 09:07
"More than 6,200 people have been killed in fighting between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists."
This is a language of propaganda, Guardian. Last i checked Guardian advertised to be a newspaper, not a bulletin of The Ministry
of Truth.
My reformulation; "More than 6200 (in some estimates up to 50.000) have been killed and up to 1 million civilians displaced
(who mostly fled to Russia) by Ukrainian government troops and private terrorist kommandos of Ukrainian oligarchs."
Jerome Fryer -> henry919 31 May 2015 09:03
The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify
the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.
Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with
Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer.
Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem
doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.
(If your argument must be protected against criticism then it is a weak argument.)
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
The White Helmets as a brand had their website first registered by Ali Weiner of Purpose
Inc (Brooklyn advertising agency) on 2014-08-11T19:50:31Z
I had noticed their activity shortly after that date but it wasn't labelled White Helmets
as such. I recall a series of setpiece rescues with someone who looked like Hadi Alabdullah
giving a running comment and speeches denouncing Assad.
The setpiece rescues always had a small diesel fire and usually some white smoke, a bunch
of rescuers who ran into the building while the commenter gave a speech, and then rescuers
ran the rescued infants past the camera while the narrator gave a 'moral' speech.
There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted
in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a
longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a
dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).
In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex
administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted
the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or
anyone who got in the way.
Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego
Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different
women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,
the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband
did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now
has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress,
(Wikipedia).
It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte
who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by
parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it.
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or
President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To
which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with
John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause
until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your
fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for
eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In
fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back.
Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as
they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them
stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a
wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you
think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy
proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him
inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped
down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want,
except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the
nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could
have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they
please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours
alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger
demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire
country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals
airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American
economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet
love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in
Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't
Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White
House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway
Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international
spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for?
China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing
politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my
campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get
rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig
holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and
make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel
have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things
should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do
with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will
qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the
American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the
vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and
only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot
seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life.
Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the
North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our
problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have
backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five
percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a
shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and
Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of
martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has
68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many
homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in
Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are
out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled
with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at
least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No
federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding
schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will
go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to
localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a
free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be
inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in
Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme
measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems
to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their
way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't
spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of
illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying
microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism,
any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum
containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a
helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can
do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico
with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
I think it is impossible to discuss modern conservatism, especially its neocon variety
without discussing neoliberalism. Too many people here concentrate on superficial traits,
while the defining feature of modern conservatives is the unconditional support of "hard
neoliberalism." There is also a Vichy party which supports "soft neoliberalism" ...
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been
promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative." But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to
Pinochet's
Kabaservice Contra Corey -- Thoughts About How To Think About Conservatism -- Crooked
Timber Chile -- one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively
applied -- "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a
democratic government devoid of liberalism." The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which
sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the
pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining mean the freedom to suppress wages.
Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge
iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax
means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
The other important area is the attitude to the existence and maintenance of the global US
empire and the level of indoctrination into "American exceptionalism" which I view as a
flavor of far-right nationalism. But here we need to talk not about conservatism but
neofascism.
In a way, the current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (one of the features of which was
de-legitimization of the neoliberal elite which led to the election of Trump) develops with
strange similarities with the events of 1920-1935 in Europe.
Further to the criminal act perpetrated by the Ukrainian government, namely the cutting off
of water supplies to the Crimea, one has to admit that as regards this matter the foreign
minister of the Ukraine, Pavel Klmkin, is one obnoxious little twat:
It is not the Ukraine that has cut off the Crimea from water: Russia did it, by its
cutting off of the Crimea from the Ukraine by force. In its own right, the occupation of the
Crimea is a terrible violation of international law and the rights of all
Crimeans.
Yes, and they have desalination plants. The water from the canal that runs from Kherson is
chiefly for irrigation. When they first closed the sluice in the Ukraine, the Crimea harvest
suffered. No doubt Crimea-Tatar farmers were very pleased about this.
Crimean water resources are limited, failing to fully meet the drinking and economic
needs of the region. Over 50 years, the problems of water resources in Crimea were solved by
using Dnieper water supplied through North-Crimean Canal; however, after the integration of
Crimea into Russia, Ukraine suspended water supply. At the aggravation of political situation
between Russia and Ukraine, the situation in the water-management sphere in the Republic of
Crimea looks very complicated. The water-management problems of Crimea should be solved based
on its own potential. Groundwater resources are the leading factor of sustainable development
of Crimean Region at the present stage.
My understanding is that in 2015, Russian geologists discovered three aquifers in Crimean
territory so pipelines have been built to connect the aquifers to the North Crimean Canal and
to supply water to people living in eastern Crimea near Kerch. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201504041020474871/#ixzz3WNLsZ6sG
Right. Indulging the will of the very great majority of Crimeans is a terrible violation of
international law, and that same population consequently deserves to be without water even
though the supply they depended upon comes from Ukraine. Pull the other one, Pavlo. Not even
a day-one civil-rights lawyer would buy that argument. The west has never contested that the
decision of Crimeans to sever their ties to Ukraine was that of the majority – not
really, It has danced around with that voting-at-the-point-of-a-Kalashnikov bullshit, but the
vote was not even close. If there were a do-over with the strictest supervision of western
officials, and Kuh-yiv itself got to write the referendum question, Crimea would still vote
to secede, and the west knows it. If it was such a loyal part of Ukraine before, why was it
the autonomous republic of Crimea?
The Ukraine-Crimea affair should stand as a textbook example of how the country that lost
territory did absolutely everything wrong in its attempts to get it back.
@anarchyst I see stuff written about the Vietnam war and it never fails they don't talk
at all about the whole picture. The Vietnam war was a war to stop the spread of Communism in
Southeast Asia. In that aspect it won some and lost some. Vietnam had nothing to do with oil
or Colonialism. Any look at a map would show it's vast strategic location for the Communist.
It has one the best ports in Asia. They talk about Tet defeating us. Nothing could be further
from the truth. It ended forever the Viet Cong in the South. From then on all the attacks
were from the North. The next big attack...
And in Viet Nam the North sent 150,000 men south with as much armor as the Wehrmacht had
in many WW II engagements. That was in 1973, and of that 150,000 fewer than 50,000 men and no
armor returned to the North, at a cost of under 1,000 American casualties. Most would count
that an outstanding victory.
(Alas, in 1975 North Viet Nam had another army of over 100,000 and sent it South; the
Democratic Congress voted our South Vietnamese 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man, but
refused naval and air support; Saigon predictably became Ho Chi Minh city as we pushed
helicopters off the decks of out carriers in our frantic evacuation; but that is hardly the
fault of the US military).
The South lost when they ran out of ammunition. During the time we were fighting in
Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies attacking them were fighting
also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid a harsh price. By all
measurement of what we went to Vietnam for we didn't lose. It did stop the spread of
Communism to all Asia. Rarely in any wars do you get all you want.
The Democrat party has been saying that the Vets fought a losing war when in actuality the
Democrats directly are responsible for the loss of South Vietnam. There are only a few
highways leading South and they were packed with tanks and troop transport in 75. It would
have been a complete turkey shoot like the war in Kuwait. We even had battleships at that
time that could have pounded them from the coast. If we would have attacked it would have
probably caused them such a defeat that they would have never attacked again maybe even the
government of the North would have been overthrown by the people for such incompetence.
Unfortunately the Nixon was gone and Ford was directly told if he helped the Vietnamese with
air power he would be impeached.
The idea that the Vietnam vets died for nothing is a huge psyops by the Democrats. The
South had defeated all the guerillas. All they needed was support to hold off the North and
the Democrats sold them out. If the South Vietnamese had not fell it's very likely that the
Cambodian Genocide would have never happened.
The Democrats had said the war was lost so many times that they had to prove it so by
actually losing it.
we were fighting in Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies
attacking them were fighting also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid
a harsh price.
On the other hand, the Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia was precipitated by the U.S.
bombings:
Estimates vary widely on the number of civilian casualites inflicted by the campaign;
however,as many as 500,000 people died as a direct result of the bombings while perhaps
hundreds of thousands more died from the effects of displacement, disease or starvation
during this period.
The Khmer Rouge, previously a marginalized guerrilla group, propagandized the bombing
campaign to great effect; by the CIA's own intelligence estimates, the US bombing campaign
was a key factor in the increase in popular support for the Khmer Rouge rebels. After their
victory in 1975, the Khmer Rouge oversaw a period in which another one-to-two million
Cambodians died from execution, hunger and forced labour.
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or
President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To
which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with
John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause
until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your
fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for
eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In
fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back.
Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as
they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them
stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a
wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you
think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy
proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him
inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped
down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want,
except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the
nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could
have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they
please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours
alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger
demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire
country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals
airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American
economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet
love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in
Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't
Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White
House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway
Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international
spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for?
China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing
politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my
campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get
rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig
holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and
make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel
have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things
should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do
with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will
qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the
American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the
vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and
only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot
seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life.
Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the
North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our
problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have
backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five
percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a
shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and
Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of
martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has
68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many
homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in
Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are
out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled
with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at
least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No
federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding
schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will
go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to
localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a
free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be
inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in
Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme
measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems
to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their
way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't
spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of
illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying
microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism,
any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum
containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a
helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can
do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico
with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
"... My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate." Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively – "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution to free thought and free speech to do so. ..."
"... Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive ..."
"... Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence. ..."
"... The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition. ..."
"... The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom, nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries. ..."
"... To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they serve only their own . ..."
The rather obvious suppression of the English version of what was a "best seller" in Germany suggests that the Western system
of thought manipulation and consent manufacture sees itself as weaker and more vulnerable than one might at first imagine.
We can see from a year+ of "Russiagate" that Western media is a clown-show, much of so called "alternative media" included.
My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate."
Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively – "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright
by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution
to free thought and free speech to do so.
Just like "200 years together" by Solzhenitsyn which was never officially published in English despite Andrei having authored
many works which were big sellers. Just an example of other private business and corporations are often fully responsible
for pro-establishment censorship.
The treatment of the book aroused suspicion because of its content – ie supine news outlets forever dancing to the tune of western
military imperatives.
Ongoing support for illegal wars tell us that the MSM has hardly been at the forefront of informing readers why war criminals
like Hilary and Obama keep getting away with it. In fact Obama, just like Kissinger was awarded a peace prize – so obviously something
has gone very wrong somewhere.
It may be, although it seems unlikely that the mis-handling of an important theme like this is simply due to oversight by the
publisher (as Matt claims) but neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody has had a word with someone in the
publishing world, perhaps because they are not overly keen on the fact Udo Ulfkotte has deviated from the media's mono-narrative
about why it is necessary for the US to destabilise countries and kill so many of their citizens.
Lets face it – it would be harder for the pattern to be maintained if the MSM was not so afraid of telling the truth, or at
least be more willing to hold to account politicians as the consequences of their disastrous policies unfold for all to see.
Maybe you want to have a go at answering the obvious question begged by such self evident truths – why are the MSM usually
lying?
Somebody said banning books is the modern form of book burning, and like Heinrich Heine said two centuries ago, "Where they burn
books, in the end, they start burning people."
Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent
the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people
what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive. If enough water sources are lost to fracking, and enough food sources
lost through poisoned seas and forest fires, many people will go to their camps as refuge but few will survive them. This ecological
destruction is for future population reduction.
In the US they use newspeak to say what the Nazis described with more honesty. Their master race became the indispensable nation,
their world domination became full spectrum dominance, and Totalerkrieg became the global war on terror. There will be others.
Farzad Basoft anyone ? Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations
have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence.
Maybe I am taking what you wrote out of context but I don't find it strange at all .It is just that someone, Udo, on the inside
has become a whistle blower , and confirmed what most suspected .The establishment can't have that.
As the economy growth has this so-called invisible hand, journalism also has an 'invisible pen'. One of the questions that
need an answer: how come feminists are so anti-Putin and anti-Russia? Easy to connect to dots?
The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance
newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and
paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of
credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition.
Those days
are gone: none of the newspapers make financial profits, they now exist because they have patrons. They always did, of course,
but now they have nothing else- the advertisers have left and circulation is diminishing rapidly.
The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom,
nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries.
As to competition that is restricted to publishers competing to demonstrate their loyalty to the government and their ingenuity
in candy coating its propaganda.
Anyone doubt that Luke Harding will be in the running for a Pulitzer? Or perhaps even the Nobel Prize for Literature?
For what it's worth, I skimmed through this very long link by Matt, and could find no mention of poison gas -- certainly no denunciation
-- just horrific conventional arms : Der Spiegel 1984:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13508659.html
Also for what it's worth, the German publisher's blurb which I got Google to translate above, says there is much more to the
book than old Soddem: the author names names and points to organizations.
Now, without any evidence, based only on my faulty memory and highly biased interpretation of events strung together on a timeline,
here is my conspiracy story about a very nice country called Iraq and a very nasty Iraqi called Saddam who came to a very nasty
end at the hands of his much more nasty friends, who first gave him a boost and then put in the boot.
1914 Great Britain invades Iraq and BP takes over the Iraqi oilfields.
1968 Iraqi govt member under Yaya wants to nationalize the oil. CIA coup replaces Yaya with Saddam as a safe pair of hands.
1970 Saddam the dirty dog does the dirty on the friends who put him in power; he nationalizes Iraqi oil. And nationalizes Iraqi
banks. From now on Saddam is a dead man walking. Like Mossadeq in Iran whom the US-UK replaced with the Shah
1978 But in Iran the Shah is replaced by the Islamic Socialist Republic -- who again nationalize Iranian oil. Saddam's
friends now face a dilemma: kill him first, or kill the Ayatollah's first? They decide to first go for the Ayatollahs -- with
Saddam's help.
1980 Saddam invades Iran with help from US and Germany -- including, strangely enough, generous supplies of poison gas.
1984-1989 Saddam's invasion of Iran flops. Reports about use of poison gas by Saddam begin to emerge, first in German newspapers
then even debated US govt.
1990 Saddam thinks he has restored credit with the US & Germany by using their weapons against Iran, and now has the green
light to invade another country. Finds out his mistake in the Gulf War. He is once again, a dead man walking. So is his country.
2001 Saddam is accused of harbouring Islamic terrorists who knocked down 3 skyscrapers by flying 2 passenger planes into
them. The idea of Secular Baathist Saddam in league with religious fanatics is ridiculous, but what the heck it's a story.
2003 Saddam hanged for, inter alia, use of chemical weapons; likewise his minister whom the MSM have a field day comically
calling "Chemical" Ali.
2017 Who's next? The Ayatollahs, of course. And anyone else who dares to nationalize "our" oil. Or "our" banks.
That is more than plausible. Unfortunately. Hard not to sympathize with the Iraqis and feel shame for what has been done in the
name of the US and UK. Rotten to the core, and sanctimonious to boot.
To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists
and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever
there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they
serve only their own .
The Guardian sells space to lobbyists too. Not ad space – article space. It's literally hiring itself out to whomever wants to
buy the right to publish an article under its name.
Well one things stands out in bold and that is the fear that such a revelation is associated with. 'Broad spectrum dominance'
of a central intelligent agency is a reversal of the wholeness of being expressing through all its parts.
Fake intelligence
is basically made up to serve a believed goal. The terrorism of fear generates the goal of a self-protection that sells true relationship
to 'save itself'.
This goes deep into what we take to be our mind. The mind that thinks it is in control by controlling what it thinks.
If I can observe this in myself at will, is it any surprise I can see it in our world?
What is the fear that most deeply motivates or drives the human agenda?
I do not ask this of our superficial thinking, but of a core self-honesty that cannot be 'killed' but only covered over with a
thinking-complex.
And is it insane or unreal to be moved by love?
We are creatures of choice and beneath all masking, we are also the creator of choice.
But the true creative is not framed into a choosing between, but feeling one call as the movement of it.
When the 'intelligence' of a masking narrative no longer serves, be the willingness for what you no longer claim to have, and
open to being moved from within.
I am so tired of the simmering fury that lives inside me. This bubbling cauldron brim full of egregious truths, images and accounts
accumulated over nearly 40 years of looking behind the headlines. I disagree that the usurpation of journalists and media organisations
is in any way a recent phenomena. It certainly predates my emergent mind. And even the most lauded of anti-establishment hacks
and film makers self-censored to some degree. True, the blatant in your face propaganda and thought control agenda has accelerated,
but it was always there. I do not believe Chomsky, Oliver Stone, Pilger and their like could have done much more than they have,
that is to guide us in a direction counter to the official narrative. And to insinuate they are gatekeepers, when our heads never
stretch above the parapet, is really just a reflection of our own frustration that despite their work the only change remains
for the worse.
Yet I fear worse is to come. Our safe bitching in glorious anonymity has been all that we have had as solace to the angst that
pervades us, the other 1%. But the the thumbscrew is tightening. We may be as little as months away from any dissent being entirely
removed from the internet by AI algorithms. I have already been receiving warnings on several sites anyone here would call legitimate
that have had their security certificates removed and the statement that the site may contain malicious code etc. How prepared
are we for blackout?
A foundation should be set up in remembrance of Udo and sponsored by all true journalists and truth seekers. Maybe some day there
will be a Udo Ulfkotte award to the bravest journalist of the year .Wouldn't that be something .Udo's work would not have been
in vain . That would throw a monkey wrench into orgs like the Guardian and their ilk .Just dreaming out loud maybe , but with
good intentions.
Thank you Alun for the link to the German edition, which I have managed to download (naughty me!) I think the suggestion of retranslating
important sections and dressing these in some commentary for (presumably legitimate) publication on e.g. Off-G would be a good
idea. I'm quite fluent in German and would be glad to help.
Mods: do you see any legal pitfalls?
That depends on who holds the rights to the English language version and the original and whether they would want to take issue.
If it's Ulfkotte's family they may be happy to see his work get some sort of airing in English. If it's his publishers we can
imagine they will see things differently – as indeed would whoever it is that seems to want the book buried.
I heard it is blocked in many western countries, as the site is well known for its disregard for copyright. Fortunately not the
case where I am (NZ). If you're technically inclined, a VPN or anonymising application may help, although a VPN that 'exits' in
a western area won't get you any further ahead.
One hopes. I also hold out hope for F. William Engdahl's "Geheimakte NGOs." Here's a Dissident Voice article in which Engdahl
discusses the role of NGOs in aiding and abetting the US regime change program:
Yes, it has also been interesting to note that in 2015 the Guardian published a review of Richard Sakwa's book 'Frontline Ukraine'
in which the author was critical of both NATO and the EU, in fomenting this crisis. The 2014 'coup' which was carried out in February
2014 was, according to the independent geopolitical publication, Strator, 'the most blatant in history.' The appraisal which was
carried out by Guardian journalist Jonathon Steele was generally favourably disposed to Sakwa's record of events; however, Mr
Steele now rarely publishes anything in the Guardian. Read into this what you like.
As to Sakwa's latest book,'' Russia Against the Rest'', – nothing, not a peep, it doesn't exist, it never existed, it never
will exist. It would appear to be the case that the Guardian is now fully integrated into the military/surveillance/media-propaganda
apparatus. The liberal gatekeeper as to what is and what isn't acceptable. Its function is pure to serve the interests of the
powerful, in much the same way as the church did in the middle ages. The media doesn't just serve the interests power it is also
part of the same structure of dominance, albeit the liberal wing of the ruling coalition.
During the British war against the Boers in South Africa, at the turn of the 19/20 century, the then Manchester Guardian took
a brave and critical stand against the UK government. This lead to its offices in Manchester being attacked by jingoistic mobs,
as was the home of the then editor C.P.Scott, whose family needed police protection. In those days 'Facts were Sacred', unlike
the present where opposing views are increasingly ignored or suppressed.
Having just watched the documentary film tribute to I.F. Stone, "All Governments Lie", I was struck by the fact that no-one mentioned
Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist (who outed General McChrystal, but whose Mercedes went mysteriously out of control,
hit a tree and exploded, throwing the engine 200 yards clear of the wreck ). Here was a film about control and self-censorship,
yet no-one even breathed the acronyms C.I.A. or FBI. Matt Taibbi referred to a silent coup, but none dared to mention the assassinations
of JFK, MLK and RFK. These doyens of Truth included the thoroughly dodgy Noam Chomsky. Finally, the Spartacus website suggests
that the saintly I.F. Stone was in the pay of the CIA. Other terms unspoken were CIA Operation Mockingbird or Operation Northwoods.
There was a clip of 9/11, but zero attempt to join up all the dots.
RIP Udo Ulfkotte. CIA long ago developed a dart to induce all the signs of a heart attack, so one is naturally somewhat suspicious.
Lies and assassinations are two sides of the same coin.
The only thing harder to find than Udo Ulfkotte's book is a Guardian review of it.
I daresay any mention of this book, BTL, would immediately be moderated (i.e censored) followed by a yellow or red card for
the cheeky commentator.
The level of pretence on this forum has now reached epic proportions, and seems to cuts both ways, ie. commentators pretending
that there are not several subjects which are virtually impossible to discuss in any depth (such as media censorship), and moderators
pretending that 'community standards' is not simply a crude device to control conversational discourse, especially when a commentators
point of view stray beyond narrow, Guardian approved borders.
Books, such as 'Bought Journalists' (which expose the corruption at the heart of western media) are especially inconvenient
for the risible 'fake news' agenda currently being rammed down the readerships throat – some of these people at the Guardian have
either absolutely no insight, or no shame.
Ulfkotte and Ganser in their ways are both telling a similar story – NATO, i.e an arm of the US military industrial complex
are mass murderers and sufficiently intimidating to have most western journalists singing from the same hymn sheet.
Since the Guardian follows the party line it is only possible to send coded or cryptic messages (BTL) should commentators wish
to deviate from the approved narrative.
For example, I was 'pre-moderated' for having doubts about the veracity of the so called 'Parsons Green tube bomb', especially
the nature of the injuries inflicted on a young model who looked like she was suffering from toothache.
https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.628812:1505494262/wo16-web-parsons-green.JPG?f=16×9&w=1024&$p$f$w=e135eda
Been there, done that. What ordinarily happens if the submission is proper and cannot be censored on the basis of impropriety
or foulmouthedness or any other good reason, but exposes a Guardian sacred cow in an embarrassing light, is that it is said to
be off topic. Now this is really unaccountable, and truly subjective.
The community in community standards is "them" and has close ties to the 1%, if I hazard a guess.
Prime Minister Teresa May took
to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police
had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal
attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the
Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared,
were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not
explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian
behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the
world," she intoned.
At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a
major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that
Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked
Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false
flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a
military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book
claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump --
all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims
"total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding
that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump,
or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is
a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by
someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known
to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work
for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly
part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral,
unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the
25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In
public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as
President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little
genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United
Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of
Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to
impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew
better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against
the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word --
repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly
historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will
be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every
African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was
Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations
with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking
place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015,
and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to
2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in
2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation
taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from
poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung,
Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial
masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had
taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive
the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia
and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire,
that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special
relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led
by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a
shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup
attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger
is great, and the time is short.
May 28, 2018 - A Memorial to the Great War Disaster
Books about World War I are not popular in the USA because they are depressing. The
world's great European powers destroyed a generation of men in pointless bloody battles. Few
Americans realize that World War I was America's worst foreign policy blunder that killed
millions and set the stage for World War II.
When the "Great War" began in 1914, royals and generals hoped for swift victories.
However, advances in technology, mostly machine guns and rapid fire artillery, allowed
concentrated firepower to annihilate attacking formations. The war in France bogged down into
a bloody stalemate and the construction of fortified positions ensured that any offensive
would grind to a stop. The king of England and Germany were first cousins who grew up
together, so a peaceful resolution was likely in 1916.
The problem was that British bankers had loaned its government lots of money and most
could not be repaid. They wanted to win the war so they could loot Germany by requiring
Germans to pay reparations so the British government could repay them. If they could lure the
powerful USA to join the war, victory was assured. They blocked peace efforts and used their
agents of influence to manipulate the USA into joining the war. Soon after President Wilson
was elected with the promise to stay out the war, he worked with Congress to declare war.
As a result, the war dragged on for two more bloody years before enough American men and
material arrived in France to turn the tide. The war was unpopular back home, leading Wilson
to censor the US mail by blocking anti-war newsletters and magazines. He threw thousands of
political opponents in jail, implemented a draft to fill out the Army, and sent these
reluctant Americans into battle with little training and poor equipment. The Americans fought
bravely, but the Germans had three years of combat experience and chewed up American units
foolishly thrown into frontal attacks that had little chance of success. After four years of
war, the Germans had no more manpower to replace losses, and surrendered based on a just
peace promised by President Wilson. That never happened and Germany was looted and
humiliated, which led to the rise of the Nazis and World War II.
So this Memorial Day, remember the 116,516 Americans President Wilson killed in that
senseless war. Moreover, the American intervention extended the war and resulted in World War
II. American GIs slaughter Germans so British bankers could collect debts, with interest! I
was inspired to write this blog post after reading the brilliant David Stockman's recent
essay about America's disastrous intervention in World War I.
https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2018/05/16/why-the-empire-never-sleeps-the-indispensable-nation-folly-part-2/
I have to agree with much of what stated in his reply. But I would like to also add my own
in-depth notes
I tend to concentrate my military studies on World War I (in addition to the "War for
Southern Independence" and the inter-war years (1919-1939)). And as everyone here has
concluded, World War I was an abomination of an atrocity.
Professor Bacevich, a man I have great respect for, did however make some minor but
critical errors in this piece.
Kaiser Wilhelm had no desire to enter into a world conflagration. When he realized that
events were spinning out of control, he did everything in his power to contact his cousin,
the Russian Czar, to request that Russian Mobilization be halted, the actual cause of the
start of the conflict. Due to the fact that diplomacy, unlike the military (which had adopted
wireless and wired communications), was still using traditional methods of face-to-face
discussion or formal letters for diplomacy, the Kaiser was unable to get through to his
cousin in time to stop what the Czar most likely could not halt in any event. Mobilization of
forces at the time had taken on a life of their own due to the technologies of modernized
train transport.
In 1915 or 1916, the German high command attempted to offer to negotiate peace with
Britain and France but Britain, with the war being run basically by Churchill (a warmonger of
the first order) refused to talk to the Germans, since he loathed them for whatever
reasons.
The war was won by Germany in the winter of 1917 at which point the megalomaniacal Woodrow
Wilson pushed the US into the conflict with his god-like notion that he could create peace on
Earth. The man was truly clinically insane (but functional) as much recent documentation has
attested to (see the late Thomas Fleming's, "Illusion of Victory" for a thrill ride through
Wilson's addled thinking).
Had the US not entered the war, there would have been an amenable peace developed in 1917
among the European belligerents. And probably as a result, no World War II.
England was the cause of the war indirectly with her centuries old "balance of power"
politics applied to continental Europe. In this vein, fearful of the loss of her dominance on
the high seas as a result of the Kaiser's excellent buildup of the Kaiserliche Marine
(Imperial Navy), which in turn would threaten her empire, the British military started to
collude with the French military, I believe as early as 1906, to develop joint operational
plans in case of war with Germany. This latter of course, the British were very much hoping
would happen. And with Churchill being one of the most influential cabinet members on the
matter, there was little doubt that Britain would need very little pretext to enter a
conflict.
However, it was France's alliance with Russia that was directly responsible for the
initiation of the entire conflagration. This alliance was centered upon loans to Russia from
France for Russian domestic development and French fears that if Germany attacked her she
would be left on her own to defend herself. Russia agreed in principal to ally herself with
France but used the French loans instead to rebuild her military (though it did her little
good against superior German arms).
Germany, bound in alliance with Austro-Hungary, did in fact support Austria's punitive
strike into Serbia and provided what some have called a "blank check", which provided for
military and financial support as a result of the alliance. Austria's military, one which had
a very spotty historical record of being on and off again as far as quality was concerned,
was definitively off in 1914 and was summarily defeated by superior Serbian Forces.
Franz-Josef of Austria had no expectation of a world war when he committed Austria to such
an incursion into Serbian territory and by that time no else did either as a result of the
assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand since royal assassinations had become pretty common
place in Europe from 1880 onward. However, on the Austrian side we have general Conrad von
Hotzendorf to thank for this strike at Serbia. He hated Serbia probably as much as Churchill
hated the Germans but Conrad had good reason to since the Balkan nation was always causing
all sorts of problems on the Austro-Hungarian borders. Unfortunately, Conrad was not all that
good a military man and cost Austrian hundreds of thousands of combatant deaths during the
conflict.
As a result, this assassination, a real non-event, has been touted to school children ever
since as the cause of World War I. In reality, it was simply window dressing for idiots in
the US educational system to latch onto.
The reaction of Russia to the attack on Serbia was to fully mobilize her military, which
up through World War II has always been seen as an imminent sign of war.
This automatically dragged France into war, which in turn dragged England as a result of
the secret military partnership. Austria then was forced to follow suit and formally declare
war, which brought the final player into the conflict, Germany, who with the exception of
some in the German high command really had questions about engaging in such a widening war,
which was supposed to be a localized conflict.
Seeing that there was no hope to ending the conflict on amenable terms, the Kaiser
abdicated in 1918 and fled for the Royal Netherlands where he was taken in and granted
political asylum. However, by this time General Ludendorf had become a de-facto military
dictator of Germany. And though both he and his senior military aide. Max Hoffman, , who did
the majority of the planning, developed superior battlefield strategy, Ludendorf's political
decisions caused untold problems for the German social infrastructure, some of which was a
reaction to the new pressures that US Forces were finally bringing to bare on German
arms.
The original number of deaths for World War I began at around ten million but had been
upgraded over the years to around twenty million. However, this does not take into account
the highly damaging effects of what would become known as the Spanish Flu in 1918. Recent
research into this aspect of the war is now postulating of up to sixty million deaths all
told.
The Spanish Flu was actually a very mild flu; not the devastating epidemic that again
idiot educators and historians have touted over the years. What made this particular strain
of Flu so devastating was not the virus itself but the need for adequate health-care and
recovery. However, within the field armies that were facing each other, the deprivations that
the war had brought to continental Europe, and the very poorly developed 33 US training camps
in the States, affected personnel and civilian populace did not have the proper facilities
and health-care required to allow them to recover quickly and properly from this disease. The
result was that patients lingered in terrible conditions making recovery impossible and
allowing death to ensue.
Finally, it was not just British bankers who wanted their loans paid back but the US banks
desired it as well for their own loans; a first in the annals of military history between
allies. However, the Wilson Administration never considered the US an ally to Britain or
France. It instead viewed itself as an "associated nation", whatever that meant. However,
Wilson was famously known for his ridiculous vagueness and slogans ("saving the world for
democracy", which even at the time no one could quite figure out the meaning of). As a
result, the US would not sign a peace agreement until 1922.
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading
British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human,
and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.
Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate
attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again
with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.
But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their
profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the
instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so
many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for
the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great,
big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be
a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is
no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side
will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing
and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently
the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this
curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of
furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as
earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and
all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who
ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen
will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man
will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that
the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of
grotesque self-deception'.
- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)
Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its
war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given
our reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of
the fight is no longer required.
Yep, I was looking for a quote like this. We have a mercenary military now so the ruling
elite can send them anywhere they want with little agitation from the general public. That's
why I advised my son not to join, not that he was leaning in that direction anyway.
(Grin)
I posted this in another thread, but here it is more appropriate:
That's what happens when hubris replaces strategy. In the US today only MIC has a strategy:
produce any fakes necessary to keep the gravy train rolling. The leadership of the country is
wholly owned by MIC and allied forces (AIPAC is one of those) and mostly resembles biblical
blind lead by the blind
Andrew J. Bacevich is hard at work writing a book about how we got Donald J. Trump.
Buying his book would be a waste of money I can tell you for free.
Trump was elected out of the sheer desperation of a large number of Americans fed up to
death with a corrupt government and noxious [neo]liberalism. period.
Unfortunately he was a fraud ..but the most desperate are still clinging, hoping against
hope.
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they
supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.
I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public,
always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or
that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public
about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what
is wrong with the U.S. today.
As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate
stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for
there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to
govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself
surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with
them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving –
they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia.
Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with
dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.
I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to
propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are
indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of
dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be
better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and
the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention
something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we
throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was
attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about
it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably
be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't
like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly
beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry
chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are
simply being ignored.
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap?
You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to
JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.
Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They
can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge.
CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy
the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your
bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison
CIA SIS or GTFO.
I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to
propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are
indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of
dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be
better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and
the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention
something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we
throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was
attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about
it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably
be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't
like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises - and he was quickly beaten
down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry
chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are
simply being ignored. While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected,
salaried members of the elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are
Pharaohs and massively powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.
Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then
a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must
divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here
the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are
extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.
I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could
beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and
Pharaohs because they are global.
" The United States of
Amnesia ." That's what Gore Vidal once called us. We remember what we find it convenient to
remember and forget everything else. That forgetfulness especially applies to the history of
others. How could their past, way back when, have any meaning for us today?
Well, it just might. Take the European conflagration of 1914-1918, for example.
You may not have noticed. There's no reason why you should have, fixated as we all are on
the daily torrent of presidential tweets and the flood of mindless rejoinders they elicit. But
let me note for the record that the centenary of the conflict once known as The Great War is
well underway and before the present year ends will have concluded.
Indeed, a hundred years ago this month, the 1918 German Spring Offensive -- codenamed
Operation Michael -- was sputtering to an unsuccessful conclusion. A last desperate German
gamble, aimed at shattering Allied defenses and gaining a decisive victory, had fallen short.
In early August of that year, with large numbers of our own doughboys now on the front lines, a
massive Allied counteroffensive was to commence, continuing until the eleventh hour
of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, when an armistice finally took effect and the guns
fell silent.
In the years that followed, Americans demoted The Great War. It became World War I, vaguely
related to but overshadowed by the debacle next in line, known as World War II. Today, the
average citizen knows little about that earlier conflict other than that it preceded and
somehow paved the way for an even more brutal bloodletting. Also, on both occasions, the bad
guys spoke German.
So, among Americans, the war of 1914-1918 became a neglected stepsister of sorts, perhaps in
part because the United States only got around to suiting up for that conflict about halfway
through the fourth quarter. With the war of 1939-1945 having been sacralized as the moment when
the Greatest Generation saved humankind, the war-formerly-known-as-The-Great-War collects dust
in the bottom drawer of American collective consciousness.
From time to time, some politician or newspaper columnist will resurrect the file labeled
"August 1914," the grim opening weeks of that war, and sound off about the dangers of
sleepwalking into a devastating conflict that nobody wants or understands. Indeed, with
Washington today having become a carnival of buncombe
so sublimely preposterous that even that great journalistic iconoclast H.L. Mencken might have
been struck dumb, ours is perhaps an apt moment for just such a reminder.
Yet a different aspect of World War I may possess even greater relevance to the American
present. I'm thinking of its duration: the longer it lasted, the less sense it made. But on it
went, impervious to human control like the sequence of Biblical plagues that God had inflicted on the
ancient Egyptians.
So the relevant question for our present American moment is this: once it becomes apparent
that a war is a mistake, why would those in power insist on its perpetuation, regardless of
costs and consequences? In short, when getting in turns out to have been a bad idea,
why is getting out so difficult, even (or especially) for powerful nations that
presumably should be capable of exercising choice on such matters? Or more bluntly, how did the
people in charge during The Great War get away with inflicting such extraordinary damage on the
nations and peoples for which they were responsible?
For those countries that endured World War I from start to finish -- especially Great
Britain, France, and Germany -- specific circumstances provided their leaders with an excuse
for suppressing second thoughts about the cataclysm they had touched off.
Among them were:
mostly compliant civilian populations deeply loyal to some version of
King and Country, further kept in line by unremitting
propaganda that minimized dissent; draconian discipline -- deserters and malingerers faced
firing squads -- that
maintained order in the ranks (most of the time) despite the unprecedented scope of the
slaughter; the comprehensive industrialization of war, which ensured a seemingly endless supply
of the weaponry, munitions, and other equipment necessary for outfitting mass conscript armies
and replenishing losses as they occurred.
Economists would no doubt add sunk costs to the mix. With so much treasure already
squandered and so many lives already lost, the urge to press on a bit longer in hopes of
salvaging at least some meager benefit in return for what (and who) had been done in was
difficult to resist.
Even so, none of these, nor any combination of them, can adequately explain why, in the
midst of an unspeakable orgy of self-destruction, with staggering losses and nations in ruin,
not one monarch or president or premier had the wit or gumption to declare: Enough! Stop this
madness!
Instead, the politicians sat on their hands while actual authority devolved onto the likes
of British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, French Marshals Ferdinand Foch and Philippe Petain,
and German commanders Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. In other words, to solve a
conundrum they themselves had created, the politicians of the warring states all deferred to
their warrior chieftains. For their part, the opposing warriors jointly subscribed to a
perverted inversion of strategy best summarized by Ludendorff
as "punch a hole [in the front] and let the rest follow." And so the conflict dragged on and
on.
The Forfeiture of Policy
Put simply, in Europe, a hundred years ago, war had become politically purposeless. Yet the
leaders of the world's principal powers -- including
Allow me to suggest that the United States should consider taking a page out of Lenin's
playbook. Granted, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, such a suggestion might
have smacked of treason. Today, however, in the midst of our
never-ending efforts to expunge terrorism, we might look to Lenin for guidance on how to
get our priorities straight.
As was the case with Great Britain, France, and Germany a century ago, the United States now
finds itself mired in a senseless war. Back then, political leaders in London, Paris, and
Berlin had abrogated control of basic policy to warrior chieftains. Today, ostensibly
responsible political leaders in Washington have done likewise. Some of those latter-day
American warrior chieftains who gather in the White House or testify on Capitol Hill may wear
suits rather than uniforms, but all remain enamored with the twenty-first-century equivalent of
Ludendorff's notorious dictum.
Of course, our post-9/11 military enterprise -- the undertaking once known as the Global War
on Terrorism -- differs from The Great War in myriad ways. The ongoing hostilities in which
U.S. forces are involved in various parts of the Islamic world do not qualify, even
metaphorically, as "great." Nor will there be anything great about an
armed conflict with Iran , should members of the current administration get their
apparent
wish to provoke one.
Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war.
By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given our
reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of the fight
is no longer required.
There are also obvious differences in scale, particularly when it comes to the total number
of casualties involved. Cumulative deaths from the various U.S. interventions, large and small,
undertaken since 9/11, number in the hundreds of thousands . The precise tally
of those lost during the European debacle of 1914-1918 will never be known, but the total
probably surpassed
13 million .
Even so, similarities between the Great War as it unspooled and our own
not-in-the-least-great war(s) deserve consideration. Today, as then, strategy -- that is, the
principled use of power to achieve the larger interests of the state -- has ceased to exist.
Indeed, war has become an excuse for ignoring the absence of strategy.
For years now, U.S. military officers and at least some national security aficionados have
referred to ongoing military hostilities as " the Long War ." To describe our conglomeration of
spreading conflicts as "long" obviates any need to suggest when or under what circumstances (if
any) they might actually end. It's like the meteorologist forecasting a "long winter" or the
betrothed telling his or her beloved that theirs will be a "long engagement." The implicit
vagueness is not especially encouraging.
Some high-ranking officers of late have offered a more forthright explanation of what "long"
may really mean. In the Washington Post , the journalist Greg Jaffe
recently reported that "winning for much of the U.S. military's top brass has come to be
synonymous with staying put." Winning, according to Air Force General Mike Holmes, is simply
"not losing. It's staying in the game."
Not so long ago, America's armed forces adhered to a concept called victory , which
implied conclusive, expeditious, and economical mission accomplished. No more. Victory
, it turns out, is too tough to achieve, too restrictive, or, in the words of Army
Lieutenant General Michael Lundy, "too absolute." The United States military now grades itself
instead on a curve. As Lundy puts it, "winning is more of a continuum," an approach that allows
you to claim mission accomplishment without, you know, actually accomplishing anything.
It's like soccer for six-year-olds. Everyone tries hard so everyone gets a trophy.
Regardless of outcomes, no one goes home feeling bad. In the U.S. military's case, every
general gets a medal (or, more likely, a
chest full of them).
"These days," in the Pentagon, Jaffe writes, "senior officers talk about 'infinite
war.'"
I would like to believe that Jaffe is pulling our leg. But given that he's a conscientious
reporter with excellent sources, I fear he knows what he's talking about. If he's right, as far
as the top brass are concerned, the Long War has now officially gone beyond long. It has been
deemed endless and is accepted as such by those who preside over its conduct.
Strategic Abomination
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military
bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term,
but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called
defense contractors, and the " emergency
men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the
national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some
quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits,
promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course,
that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they
come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service
rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this:
in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they
have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation,
they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning
hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and
departing after a couple years to
make way for someone else to give it a try.
It tells us something about our prevailing standards of generalship that, by resurrecting an
old idea -- counterinsurgency -- and applying it with temporary success to one particular
theater of war, General David Petraeus acquired a reputation as a military genius. If Petraeus
is a military genius, so, too, is General George McClellan. After winning the Battle of Rich
Mountain in 1861, newspapers
dubbed McClellan "the Napoleon of the Present War." But the action at Rich Mountain decided
nothing and McClellan didn't win the Civil War any more than Petraeus won the Iraq War.
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly
report and from whom they nominally take their orders. Of course, under the heading of
politician, we quickly come to our current commander-in-chief. Yet it would be manifestly
unfair to blame President Trump for the mess he inherited, even if he is presently engaged in
making matters worse .
The failure is a collective one, to which several presidents and both political parties have
contributed over the years. Although the carnage may not be as horrific today as it was on the
European battlefields on the Western and Eastern Fronts, members of our political class are
failing us as strikingly and repeatedly as the political leaders of Great Britain, France, and
Germany failed their peoples back then. They have abdicated responsibility for policy to our
own homegrown equivalents of Haig, Foch, Petain, Hindenburg, and Ludendorff. Their failure is
unforgivable.
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election
already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to
declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white,
that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
"... It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests. ..."
"... Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. ..."
1. "The only way for Syria and Iran and Russia to defend Syria is to clearly tell
Washington, London, Paris (the main ZOGs) and Israel that attacks on Syria will be responded
to by attacks on Israeli military and intel sites. The introduction of any nuclear device of
any size will result in a full-scale nuclear response.
That is the only play otherwise Syria simply bleeds to death as t he Jews get their
puppets to keep fomenting terror and dropping bombs on SAA efforts to fight those
terrorists . We come to the moment when Russia either defends Syria by hitting Israel or
it decides to accept the Long Death of Anglo-Zionist megalomania."
2. "I really do wish Russia would just instantly bomb Israel. That would be the best way
to separate us from that satanic rope around our necks."
3. "I call everyone in the military to disobey orders for attacking anything in Syria
except Isis. Need to spread this on social media. Don't be mercenaries of Israel
."
-- Your "most victimized" have squandered all and any sympathy for your "incomparable
sufferings" by promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. The Jewish State and its
subordinate zionized US have become the gravest danger to humanity.
This whole issue is so surrealistic. The last time the OPCW didn't confirm their accusations,
but now they know who is going to commit a chemical attack right now, and they don't even
wait for the actual events to be cocksure about it. Apparently they want a nuclear Mexican
standoff. This is the problem that last time maybe Russia wasn't convincingly committed to a
nuclear war, and so they are trying to explore this perceived weakness. It will get to a
point where the US will call Russia's "bluff" which will turn out not to have been a bluff.
Jews undermined and
destroyed their own society, as routinely as they undermine Western Civilization. The OT
reveals the historic pattern of Hebraic self-destruction, and depravity; which was repeated
in the 1st Century, and chronicled by Josephus.
Jews are not as problematic, as the Muhammadans.
So, 1st things 1st. The ziocon-supported "rebels" of A Qaeda (see Washington Post
editorial written by Israel firsters) are preparing a children sacrifice for the glory of the
the mythical Eretz Israel: https://www.rt.com/news/438282-white-helmets-film-chemical-attacks/
"The militants have selected 22 children and their parents from several villages in the
Aleppo governorate who will play parts in staging fake chemical weapon attacks.
Another group of children is comprised of orphans kidnapped from refugee camps, who are meant
to be used for the footage of death scenes. It is currently kept in one of the buildings of
the Ikab prison controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group.
Signs of activities to prepare staged chemical weapon attacks were reported in Kafir-Zait,
the military claims, also naming two villages where toxic chemicals have been delivered to
stage provocations."
-- Not a peep from the "humanitarian" Jewish State that has been waiting impatiently a
resumption of the slaughter of civilians in the sovereign State of Syria. Nothing pleases the
Jewish State more than the death of kids in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Iran. This is your
tribeswoman:
" Paul Joseph Watson reported that at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups are pledging
allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate group responsible for killing
American troops in Iraq.
"Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and
massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and
making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners," Watson wrote.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even admitted to BBC that these Syrian rebels
on the same side as the U.S. in Syria are terrorist groups
President Obama has been openly supporting the Syrian rebels "
"We know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert
operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster.
Eventually, it brought in both ISIS as a splinter group to the jihadists that went in, it
also brought in Russia.
So we have been digging deeper and deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and
not continue to throw missiles, not have a confrontation with Russia."
"Syria is only part of a much larger problem. It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli
concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is
not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests.
Congress and the Special Counsel are
investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the
other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. Netanyahu
and his crew of unsavory cutthroats are hardly ever cited for their malignant influence over
America's political class and media. Bomb Syria? Sure. After all, it's good for Israel."
-- The bloody, murderous, perfidious Jewish Power is guilty of the rivers of blood and
mounds of human flesh in Syria. Close your holo-biz museums already.
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in
an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would
prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money
or more power...
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty
guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for
monopoly and vested interest.
Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is
directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power
of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head
of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli
and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback
means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny,
nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs
Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power
in 1990s on.
Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history.
Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation.
Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power
in 1990s on.
https://youtu.be/SdJiJ53TexI
Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history.
Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation. "Their war-mongering
is a way of compensation.."
"In an editorial Friday, the [Washngton] Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad's ruthless [?] recapture of his country
"pathetically weak." To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be "another damaging
abdication of U.S. leadership."
– Very clear. The WP is heavily zionized. The Al Qaeda (euphemistically called by the WP "compensators" the "rebels in Idlib")
is a great asset for the dreamers about Eretz Israel. The authors of the editorial are cowards of zionist persuasion, who would
never ever stand for the US interests and for such western values as the freedom of information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQbYCY9Cr7o
– Here is the presstituting Martin Baron, Executive Editor at The Washington Post. "Baron was born to a Jewish family. His
parents immigrated from Israel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron
-- And Israel is a place where Martin Baron's heart belongs to. It would be great if his body and his whole family also belong
to the Land of Dancing Israelis, instead of using the resources of the US citizenry in propping the warmongering and supremacist
Jewish State.
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head
of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli
and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback
means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny,
nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent. Cheney stated he had "other things to do" during
the Vietnam War. Bolton stated he had no intention of dying in a war that was already lost. Ironic, given the eagerness with which
both chickenhawks send young Americans to their bloody end in desert wars.
@reiner Tor The issue is that, while most
likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly
how close we are to a nuclear war, because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can
the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which would in turn lead to some US response
and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear
superpowers will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they don't use their nukes in
20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error
is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea. The biggest tragedy here is that the (((people))) in control
of the US/UK/France want a war against Iran/Russia/China. Their speciality is goyim-on-goyim slaughter and the WW3 is actually
necessary for their messianic ambitions. Their plan is to watch it from underground bunkers and rule over whatever is left afterwards.
That's why I said "it's only a matter of time". They will never stop on their own.
"... Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin). ..."
"... Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon. ..."
Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams.
Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right
political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]
Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more
aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and
related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They
further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for
'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action.
[3]
The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The
9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy
choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims
and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in
the basement.'[4]
The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the
rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong
as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they
have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's
remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in
the documentary series, A Very Heavy
Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.
In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor
Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere
in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality
which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .
This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State
researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and
aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome
of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State,
including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly
maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.
Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with
his sister Abby Martin of Media
Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from
Fluorescent Grey (Robbie
Martin).
Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture
practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us
as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in
Eugene, Oregon.
Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018
Global Research: Through the late 20th and early 21st century, the neoconservatives loomed
large in American foreign policy the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the Bush administration.
In 2018, it may seem that their power and influence has waned, but in fact, many of these
neoconservatives still hold influence, and their legacy has had a much larger impact on
politics and society.
In this Global Research News Hour special, we talk with journalist, filmmaker, and musician
Robbie Martin on his 3-part documentary, A Very heavy Agenda. This film series covers the rise
and continued influence of the neoconservatives. In Part 1, Robbie talks about the artistic and
political influence for A Very Heavy Agenda and some of the early history of the war on
terror.
Talking more broadly about the documentary, what was.. sort of the genesis of the idea for A
Very Heavy Agenda? The documentary has a very distinct style and you don't do a lot of
editorializing. So what was the inspiration for all that? And why did you choose the kind of
this topic and the kind of technique that you were using for this documentary film?
Robbie Martin: I think I probably should give a shout out to filmmaker Adam Curtis right off
the top, because I don't give him enough credit when I talk about the inspiration for this
film. As you may know, or if you're not familiar with it but he made a film series called The
Power of Nightmares during the Bush administration that was sort of charting the
neoconservative influence in the Bush administration and before, and how they've sort of
mirrored the Wahhabist, Islamic, you know, fundamentalists and Al Qaeda figures by using what
Adam Curtis described as the Power of Nightmares, that by concocting these nightmare fantasy
scenarios, you could gain power, and people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were
able to do that by spinning these hysterical fear-mongering tales about, oh, what would happen
if a bio-terrorist attack happened? You know what would happen if terrorists attacked the World
Trade Centers?
That was a big inspiration for me during the Bush administration. It sort of helped me
become more politically aware. It made me question a lot of things after 9/11 and having to do
with the Iraq war. But over time, i just became sort of just, oh the neocons, they're the
people who were mainly behind the Iraq war. They're sort of an evil class of foreign policy
makers in DC who really want war at every opportunity. And that's just how I thought of them
throughout the years.
It wasn't until my sister, Abby Martin, and for those listening who aren't aware of this, my
sister actually had a show on the Russian-owned television channel, Russia Today America out of
DC from the years around 2012 to, I think, early 2015.
So she had a show on RT for about three years, and while she was there, I remember having a
conversation with her very early on saying, you know, we have to be ready for when the U . S .
g overnment decides that they're going to get mad at what this channel's doing. because when
she started working there in 2012, it didn't seem like there was any attention whatsoever to
RT, this idea of Russian meddling, this idea of Russian propaganda, no one cared about it.
In fact, U.S. officials at the time marginalized it and even one of my characters in my
film, Victoria Nuland, says it has a very tiny audience. She actually marginalized it during a
Brookings panel in DC. Now, that was the attitude back when my sister first started working
there, but over time, we started seeing early signs of what appeared to be an information war
being waged against the Russian government by shady actors inside the United States.
And that may sound a little bit ironic, considering the way that we see everything through
this lens now of Russian meddling, that everyone in the U.S. would describe RT as a form of
information war now. You know , that's how everybody would describe it now, but back then it
was such a small channel it barely anybody watched it, I mean that was kind of more true what
they were saying back then, U.S. officials marginalizing it that was more of the true
narrative. It was a small channel and had very little influence.
But yet maybe just a year or two into her working there, maybe a year and a half, we really
started to notice something strange happening in the United States where there was all this
focus starting to accumulate towards Putin and Russia and why Russia was so bad. And it started
more subtly, kind of in the background. The Sochi Olympics , however, was sort of when we
noticed -- it was almost like all these coordinated narratives started to really flood out of
U.S. media channels, and all this awareness all of a sudden about the Russian gay law, which as
someone who's very adamantly pro gay rights, I was bothered by it as well, but I mean even at
the time I remember thinking, now this is an odd amount of focus towards the Russian gay law
when yet Saudi Arabia actually executes gays still, and there's hardly any talk about that in
the U.S. media. W hat's actually happening here?
So there was some early signs and sort of like what me just sort of my gut reaction and my
sister's gut reaction to that climate at the time wondering what was going on. And of course,
right after the Sochi O lympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine, it kind of boiled
over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over Euromaidan
– basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a coup which
many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. S tate D
epartment.
And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of control , and from the
period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against
Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before
the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and
frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.
i know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a
long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon
influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that
constructed the blueprints to the I raq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing
this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.
And how it only took . you know . certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we
are. T hey essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall
of communism and the Berlin wa ll and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too
long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made
it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried
to smear her while she was working for RT.
GR: Right yeah
RM: And that's maybe a more literal answer to your question is – that was the key
inspiration for me like, oh, wait these n eocons are still around, they're waging some kind of
cutting edge information war against Russia at the Obama a dministration doesn't seem to care
about, and they're out there trying to ruin my sister. So all those factors combined, sort of
coalesced at once, and I'm like , I have to do something about this because no one else is
talking about this push, what I saw as a propaganda push to try to push us into kind of a
war-footing with Russia. Whether you want to call it World War III or an ideological
confrontation.
GR: Right, yeah, and I mean , some of the more, the details of some of these things we'll
get into. I mean, I don't want to get too far into it, because I want people to to to watch
your.. the documentary, because I think it's so great. And especially I'm 31 so I kind of, the
9/11 thing really shaped myself and my generation in so many ways. But even in watching this,
there's so many things that I forgot about or didn't even know about? You know like we kind of
form these narratives and we don't really think about it or you know who's controlling this
stuff and for what purposes. But I think you give a good summation of that.
But one of the things too about the film itself is you use a lot of footage of these people
if it's one of the K agans or Bill Kristol or whomever I mean, obviously this was a conscious
decision to use their own words, so could you talk a little bit about why you decided to do it
that way? Because I think in watching the how many hours it is over the three parts, you get,
you kind of see the same themes coming up again, but it's from these people themselves that are
saying this stuff. Could you talk about the power of that and why you decided to do that?
RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the
psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was
going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put
through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the
span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure
she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and
this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon
think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.
So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the Foreign Policy
Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the Foreign Policy Initiative
is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think
tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I
realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably
every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring,
very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me
into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank
videos for weeks on end.
Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from
the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more
candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more
clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the
Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of
fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when
I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found
him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war
hawks that would go on Fox News.
But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so
fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder
if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.
And then the other reason, if I'm being completely honest, I didn't feel confident at the
time to actually add any of my own editorial narration. I kind of cringe sometimes at movies
that do that too much, especially political documentaries. Without naming names or crapping on
anyone, let's just say I watched a political documentary that had the word wars in the title.
And I felt that the filmmaker himself was made himself the main character, and while the
content of the film was great, he talked about Yemen, Somalia all these how do I say it without
revealing the film maker? All these wars, hidden wars, happening in all these other countries,
the filmmaker made himself the main character, and I cringe so much at that I kind of was in
this position where I was like, I don't even know how to enter my own editorial point of view
into this other than my editing and the way I'm presenting all this footage.
So when I made P art 1, it was out of necessity, mostly because I didn't know how to do that
yet, and I didn't feel confident enough to do it, but then also the footage I was grabbing was
so compelling to me on its own, I felt that maybe this could work just on its own. Like I
wasn't When I was originally making it it didn't even cross my mind to add narration. It was
only until later when I was like, I need to release this and show people that I actually
decided to add narration. But as you're saying Part 1, I think you're mostly talking about Part
1, has no narration whatsoever. And it's just It's mostly just a collage of footage of these
neoconservatives talking, and conversing and revealing sort of how they truly think.
GR: Yeah, so in talking about it like how they, the neocons , think and what their worldview
really is I think a lot of listeners of CKUW and the Global Research News Hour would be
familiar when you say neocons and Project for a New American Century, but I think the
overriding perception is that they're a thing of the past. They were kind of, they had their
time with the Bush and through the 2000 s and then they're gone. So why should people still be
paying attention to the neocons in 2018?
RM: Great question . I mean a nd you're right to say that. The general perception is that
they kind of got shamed out of existence based on the failure "the failure" of the Iraq War and
the amount of public pressure against that, and how most people have come to the belief that it
was a disaster. And the neocons are largely associated with that military invasion and frankly,
that massacre that was done completely for no logical reason whatsoever unless we're talking
about imperialistic games. The WMDs argument is complete BS and everyone knows that now.
So their names were largely associated with the worst lies of the Bush a dministration , and
that was my perception of it too until I started working on this documentary film, is that they
had gone away and they weren't really a problem anymore. And even when I started to see some of
the same faces pop up talking about Russia and how evil Putin was back in like 2014, I didn't
personally think it was that big of a deal because I thought, well these people are super
marginalized. Who's really listening to them anymore? Obama is clearly not listening to them.
But that actually turned out not to be true. The Obama part He actually was listening to them
as described in my film.
But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is
because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed
to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy
consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and
make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community
into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with
the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but
see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these
neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact
that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because
that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to
cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say,
hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go
after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially
convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.
So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people
now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see
much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which
is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a
non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election
when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever
they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.
That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's
because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you
don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody
is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.
GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you
personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost
like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're
talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the
neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early
2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people
are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is
something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit
before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my
generation and the world that I'm living in now
But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind
of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk
about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some
odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider
narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.
So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don
and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour
period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright
calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we
should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the
effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you
think the effect of that was?
RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer
that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this
short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping
up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus
was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something
that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important
to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding
America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor,
a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe
that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being
heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are
two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq
surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David
Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are
some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so
relatively obscure They're not household names.
So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force
raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to
hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the
planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the
U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they
don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the
actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what
they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if
they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.
And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now
that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this,
I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run
throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for
the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I
find that very strange.
And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into
that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating
the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were
still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S.
media was doing.
So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we
should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that
badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the
only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing
through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s
saying that before on record.
And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you
were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what
would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would
have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?
GR: Right. Yeah.
RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush
Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax
infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by
that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.
GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his
documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the
neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role
of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at
averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin.
For the Global Research N ews H our, I'm Scott Price.
-end of transcript-
Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5
"... . Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites. ..."
"... Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause. ..."
"... Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell. ..."
"... As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Lenin in Zurich ..."
"... The Terror Enigma ..."
"... 9/11: The Big Lie ..."
"... Popular Mechanics ..."
"... Red Ice Radio ..."
"... Fahrenheit 9/11 ..."
"... Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power ..."
"... This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses . ..."
"... Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
"... The late Alan Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11 attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview . ..."
"... JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State ..."
"... But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel. ..."
"... One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. ..."
Although immigration and Hispanic crime were perennial topics in that HBD group, for a few
years after the 9/11 attacks the latter issue was almost entirely displaced by feverish
exchanges on Muslim terrorism and the accompanying Clash of Civilizations. Once again, I was
invariably on the short end of a 99-to-1 divide, with nearly all the others in the group
claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center conclusively proved that we needed to close
our borders to foreign immigrants. I pointed out that since the Arab hijackers involved hadn't
been immigrants, but had generally entered our country on tourist visas, maybe the "War on
Terrorism" should be renamed the "War on Tourism," and we should protect America by completely
closing our borders to the horrifying risks of the latter. Yet everyone ignored my sage
advice.
The 9/11 attacks themselves had astonished me as much as everyone else on the HBD list, but
aside from carefully reading the developing story in the New York Times and my other
morning newspapers, I was too busy with my work to otherwise follow the topic. At first,
everyone seemed certain that there would soon be a wave of follow-up attacks by the dozens or
perhaps even hundreds of other Islamic terrorists remaining in our country, but nothing like
that ever happened. After a few weeks had gone by without any further explosions, even small
ones, I told the other HBD listmembers that I now strongly suspected every last Al Qaeda
terrorist in America had probably died in the suicide attacks of September 11th, and there
wasn't a single remaining operative left behind to commit further mayhem. Many of the others
disagreed with me, but as the months and eventually the years went by, my surprising hypothesis
turned out to be correct.
There was one important exception to this pattern, but it actually served to confirm the
rule. As I wrote a few years ago in my original "American Pravda" article:
Consider the almost forgotten anthrax mailing attacks in the weeks after 9/11, which
terrified our dominant East Coast elites and spurred passage of the unprecedented Patriot
Act, thereby eliminating many traditional civil-libertarian protections. Every morning during
that period the New York Times and other leading newspapers carried articles
describing the mysterious nature of the deadly attacks and the complete bafflement of the FBI
investigators. But evenings on the Internet I would read stories by perfectly respectable
journalists such as Salon 's LauraRozen or the staff of the Hartford
Courant providing a wealth of additional detail and pointing to a likely suspect and
motive.
Although the letters carrying the anthrax were purportedly written by an Arab terrorist,
the FBI quickly determined that the language and style indicated a non-Arab author, while
tests pointed to the bioweapons research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md., as the probable source
of the material. But just prior to the arrival of those deadly mailings, military police at
Quantico, Va., had also received an anonymous letter warning that a former Ft. Detrick
employee, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, might be planning to launch a national campaign of
bioterrorism. Investigators quickly cleared Dr. Assaad, but the very detailed nature of the
accusations revealed inside knowledge of his employment history and the Ft. Detrick
facilities. Given the near-simultaneous posting of anthrax envelopes and false bioterrorism
accusations, the mailings almost certainly came from the same source, and solving the latter
case would be the easiest means of catching the anthrax killer.
Who would have attempted to frame Dr. Assaad for bioterrorism? A few years earlier he had
been involved in a bitter personal feud with a couple of his Ft. Detrick coworkers, including
charges of racism, official reprimands, and angry recriminations all around. When an FBI
official shared a copy of the accusatory letter with a noted language-forensics expert and
allowed him to compare the text with the writings of 40 biowarfare lab employees, he found a
perfect match with one of those individuals. For years I told my friends that anyone who
spent 30 minutes with Google could probably determine the name and motive of the likely
anthrax killer, and most of them successfully met my challenge.
This powerful evidence received almost no attention in the major national media, nor is
there any indication that the FBI ever followed up on any of these clues or interrogated the
named suspects. Instead, investigators attempted to pin the attacks on a Dr. Steven Hatfill
based on negligible evidence, after which he was completely exonerated and won a $5.6 million
settlement from the government for its years of severe harassment. Later, similar hounding of
researcher Bruce Ivins and his family led to his suicide, after which the FBI declared the
case closed, even though former colleagues of Dr. Ivins demonstrated that he had had no
motive, means, or opportunity. In 2008, I commissioned a major 3,000-word
cover story in my magazine summarizing all of this crucial evidence, and once again
almost no one in the mainstream media paid the slightest attention.
Unlike the 9/11 attacks themselves, I had closely followed the Anthrax terrorism, and was
shocked by the strange silence of the government investigators and our leading newspapers. At
the time, I generally assumed that the attacks were totally unconnected with 9/11 and merely
opportunistic, but I simply couldn't understand how a few minutes a day of reading
Salon and the Hartford Courant on the web could seemingly solve the
front-page whodunit that was baffling everyone at the FBI and the New York Times . It
was around that point when I started to wonder whether the elite media publications I had
always relied upon were merely "Our American Pravda" under a different name
. Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has
made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the
9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites.
In theoretical physics, new scientific breakthroughs often occur when known objects are
found to behave in inexplicable ways, thereby suggesting the existence of previously
unsuspected forces or particles. In evolutionary biology, when a biological organism appears to
be acting against its own genetic interests, we may safely assume that it has probably fallen
under the control of a different organism, typically a parasite, which has hijacked the host
and is directing its activities toward different ends. While I couldn't be entirely sure what
was happening to the politics and media of my own country, something very odd and disturbing
was certainly taking place.
Things soon became even much worse. Since the 9/11 attacks had apparently been organized by
Osama bin Laden and he was based in Afghanistan under Taliban protection, our attack on that
country at least seemed rational. But suddenly there also soon appeared talk of attacking
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
At first I couldn't believe what was taking place, simply awed by the breathtaking power and
dishonesty of "our American Pravda," with the establishment media so easily transforming black
into white and night into day. Once again, quoting from my original article of that title:
The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among
the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly
ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had
always been Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime in Iraq. Yet through misleading public
statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the "yellowcake" documents,
the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media
to persuade our citizens that Iraq's nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and
required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed
that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the
mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre
the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl
Harbor.
True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but
most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they
are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly -- almost uniformly -- backed the case for
war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality. Prominent journalists across the
liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions
passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.
The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen.
Bill Odom rightly called the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history."
American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country
took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and
others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may
reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly
still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and
its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010
from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and
liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency,
with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.
But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most
of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain
just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media
organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of
our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show
that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.
Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and
the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might
surprise George Orwell.
As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002,
I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had
somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I
could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare .
Throughout the 1990s and even afterward, I'd been on very friendly terms with the Neocons in
NYC and DC, working closely with them on issues relating to immigration and assimilation.
Indeed, my December 1999 article "California and the End of
White America" had not only appeared as one of the longest cover stories ever published in
Commentary , their intellectual flagship, but had even been cited as the centerpiece
of its annual fund-raising letter.
I and my other DC friends were well aware of the fanatical views most Neocons held on Israel
and Middle Eastern policy. Indeed, their foreign policy obsessions had been a regular staple of
our jokes and ridicule, but since it seemed unimaginable that they would ever be given any
authority in that sphere, their beliefs had seemed a relatively harmless eccentricity. After
all, could anyone possibly imagine fanatical libertarians being placed in total control of the
Pentagon, allowing them to immediately disband the American armed forces as a "statist
institution"?
Moreover, the complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the
more shocking given their recent political missteps. During the 2000 presidential campaign,
nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush
for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they
had been almost totally been frozen out of high-level appointments. Both Vice President Dick
Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans,
lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration
figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O'Neil. Indeed, the only
Neoconservative figure offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor
Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was
ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her "nanny problems." The highest-ranking
Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential
appointment had been almost totally ignored by everyone.
ORDER IT NOW
Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic defeat they
had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill
Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the
spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one
point, he took his head in his hands and wondered whether it was time for him to just abandon
the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank.
Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining
overwhelming influence in our government, an eirie parallel to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's
Lenin in Zurich . The totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had
suddenly allowed a small but committed ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic
country.
A thorough account of the Neocons and their takeover of the Bush Administration in the
aftermath of 9/11 is provided by Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski in his 2008 book The Transparent
Cabal, conveniently available on this website:
Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the
attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system , and with the little
time I could spend on public policy matters, I was totally focused to the ongoing Iraq War
disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the
conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies, shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq
nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually
faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans. Al Qaeda
had largely disappeared, with Bin Laden perhaps hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless
Homeland Security "threat alerts," there had been absolutely no further Islamic terrorism on
American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside the Iraq charnel house. So the
precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.
Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old
friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned
the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward
Bush's perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage.
When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying,
Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden
court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008 , I don't
recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.
During those same years, I'd also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn ,
whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our
disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in
2006 about the "conspiracy nuts" of
the 9/11 Truth movement who were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my
sympathies. Each of us move in different political circles, and that brief reference may have
been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to
regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.
Admittedly, I'd occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks
here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the
Antiwar.com front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught
while filming that plane attacks in NYC, while
a much larger Mossad "art student" spy operation around the country had also been broken up
around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter subject
before that expose was scuttled and "disappeared" under ADL pressure.
ORDER IT NOW
But I wasn't sure about the credibility of those claims, though it did seem plausible that
Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge
benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that
Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror
Enigma , a very short book about some of these strange facts, bearing the provocative
subtitle "9/11 and the Israeli Connection," but I never considered reading it. In 2007,
Counterpunch itself
published a
fascinating follow-up story about that arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in
NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day,
which turned out to be a much broader operation than I had previously realized. But all these
details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq
and Iran.
However
Moreover, around that same time I'd stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11
attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch
article, I'd discovered that immediately following the attacks, their supposed terrorist
mastermind
, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such a deed.
Once I checked around a little and fully confirmed that fact , I was
flabbergasted. 9/11 was not only the most successful terrorist attack in the history of the
world, but may have been greater in its physical magnitude than all such previous terrorist
operations combined. The entire purpose of terrorism is to allow a small organization to show
the world that it can inflict serious losses upon a powerful state, and I had never previously
heard of any terrorist leader denying his role in a successful operation, let alone the
greatest in history. Something seemed extremely wrong in the media-generated narrative that I
had previously accepted. I began to wonder if I had been as deluded as the tens of millions of
Americans in 2003 and 2004 who naively believed that Saddam had been the mastermind behind the
September 11th attacks. We live in a world of illusions generated by our media, and I suddenly
felt that I had noticed a tear in the paper-mache mountains displayed in the background of a
Hollywood sound-stage. If Osama was probably not the author of 9/11, what other huge falsehoods
had I blindly accepted?
A couple of years later, I came across a very interesting column by Eric Margolis, a
prominent Canadian foreign policy journalist purged from the broadcast media for his strong
opposition to the Iraq War. He had long published a weekly column in the Toronto Sun
and when that tenure ended, he used his closing appearance to run a double-length piece
expressing his very strong doubts about
the official 9/11 story .
ORDER IT NOW
In addition, an old friend of mine with strong connections to elite French circles at some
point shared what he regarded as an amusing anecdote. He mentioned that at a private dinner
party in Paris attended by influential political and media figures, France's former Defense
Minister had told the other disbelieving guests that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile
rather than a civilian jetliner. My friend explained that the minister in question was widely
regarded as extremely intelligent and level-headed, thereby proving that even the most highly
reputable individuals may sometimes believe in utterly crazy things.
But I interpreted those same facts very differently. France probably possessed one of the
four or five best intelligence service in the world, and surely a French Defense Minister would
be privy to better information about true events than a typical media pundit. In fact, one of
the earliest books sharply questioning the official 9/11 narrative was 9/11: The Big
Lie by French journalist Thierry Meyssan, which appeared in 2002 and similarly argued that
the Pentagon had been struck by a missile, perhaps suggesting that it may have been partly
influenced by leaks coming from French Intelligence.
I eventually shared that account of the French minister's private opinions with a very
well-connected American individual, someone in our elite Establishment with whom I'd become a
little friendly. His reaction made it clear that he held the same highly unorthodox views about
the 9/11 attacks, although he had never publicly voiced them lest he risk losing his elite
Establishment membership card.
Over the years, all these discordant claims had gradually raised my suspicions about the
official 9/11 story to extremely strong levels, but it was only very recently that I finally
found the time to begin to seriously investigate the subject and read eight or ten of the main
9/11 Truther books, mostly those by Prof. David Ray Griffin, the widely acknowledged leader in
that field. And his books, together with the writings of his numerous colleagues and allies,
revealed all sorts of very telling details, most of which had previously remained unknown to
me. I was also greatly impressed by the sheer number of seemingly reputable individuals of no
apparent ideological bent who had become adherents of the 911 Truth movement over the
years.
ORDER IT NOW
I certainly attempted to locate contrary books supporting the official 9/11 story, but the
only one widely discussed was a rather short volume published by Popular Mechanics
magazine, whose lead researcher turned out to be the cousin of Homeland Security chief Michael
Chertoff. None of the writers appeared to have any serious academic credentials, and they
seemed to generally ignore or deflect some of the strongest pieces of evidence provided by the
numerous scholars and experts involved in the 9/11 Truth movement. Hence, I hardly found their
analysis persuasive, and half-wondered whether Homeland Security had quietly arranged the
publication, which might help explain the extremely odd nepotistic coincidence. Popular
magazines simply do not carry the scientific weight of research professors at major
universities. Perhaps the holes in the official 9/11 narrative were so numerous and large that
no serious scholar could be found to defend it.
ORDER IT NOW
When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period
of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are
entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively refuted, reasonable conclusions seem to
point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number
of separate near-fatal anomalies in the official 9/11 story has now grown enormously long,
probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely
and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the
narrative that so many of us have believed for so long. The numerous Griffin books, beginning
with his important 2004 volume
had spent 29 years at the CIA , rising to become of its senior figures as Director of its
Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In
August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article
explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11
Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different. The following
year, he provided a forceful endorsement to many other highly-regarded
former US intelligence officers .
We might expect that if a former intelligence officer of Christison's rank were to denounce
the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page
news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it
nearly a decade later.
Even nearly all of our supposed "alternative" media outlets were nearly as silent.
Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been
regular contributors to Counterpunch , publishing many dozens of articles there and
certainly were its most highly-credentialed writers on intelligence and national security
matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it
never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison's views to current
Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to
discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a "9/11 Truther."
When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, widespread ignorance becomes
unavoidable.
For those so interested, Christison's 2006 article mentioned the strong evidence he found in
a C-Span broadcast of
a two-hour panel discussion on the September 11th terrorist attacks , and especially cited
the documentary Loose Change as an excellent summary of many of the flaws in the
official 9/11 case. The full "Final Cut" version of that film is conveniently available on
YouTube:
With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events seventeen years ago, each of
us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most extreme and obvious. Danish
Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the
destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade
explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour long interview on Red Ice
Radio . The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found in an NYC street after
the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the highly
incriminating contents of the hijacker luggage recovered in a lost airline bag. And the
testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the
collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official story. The sudden total
collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.
Let us now suppose that the overwhelming weight of evidence is correct, and concur with
high-ranking former CIA intelligence analysts, distinguished academics, and experienced
professionals that the 9/11 attacks were not what they appeared to be. We recognize the extreme
implausibility that three huge skyscrapers in New York City suddenly collapsed at free-fall
velocity into their own footprints after just two of them were hit by airplanes, and also that
a large civilian jetliner probably did not strike the Pentagon leaving absolutely no wreckage
and only a small hole. What actually did happen, and more importantly, who was behind it?
The first question is obviously impossible to answer without an honest and thorough official
investigation of the evidence. In the absence of that, numerous, somewhat conflicting
hypotheses have been advanced and debated within the confines of the 9/11 Truth community. But
the second question is probably the more important and relevant one, and I think it has always
represented a source of extreme vulnerability to 9/11 Truthers.
The most typical approach, as generally followed in the numerous Griffin books, is to avoid
the issue entirely and focus solely on the gaping flaws in the official narrative. This is a
perfectly acceptable position but leaves all sorts of serious doubts. What organized group
would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale
against the central heart of the world's sole superpower? And how were they then able to
orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the
participation of the American government itself?
The much smaller slice of 9/11 Truthers who choose to address this "whodunit" question seem
to be overwhelmingly concentrated among rank-and-file grassroots activists rather than the
prestigious experts, and they usually answer "inside job!" Their widespread belief seems to be
that the top political leadership of the Bush Administration, probably including Vice President
Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had organized the terrorist attacks, either
with or without the knowledge of their nominal but ignorant superior, President George W. Bush.
The suggested motives included justification for military attacks against various countries,
supporting the financial interests of the powerful oil industry and military-industrial
complex, and enabling the destruction of traditional American civil liberties. Since the vast
majority of politically-active Truthers seem to come from the far left of the ideological
spectrum, these sorts of notions seem logical and almost self-evident.
Although not explicitly endorsing those Truther conspiracies, filmmaker Michael Moore's
leftist box office hit Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to raise such similar suspicions. His
small budget documentary earned an astonishing $220 million by suggesting that the very close
business ties between the Bush family, Cheney, the oil companies, and the Saudis were
responsible for the Iraq War aftermath of the terrorist attacks, with the domestic crackdown on
civil liberties being part-and-parcel of the right-wing Republican agenda.
ORDER IT NOW
Unfortunately, this apparently plausible picture seems to have almost no basis in reality.
During the drive to the Iraq War, I read Times articles interviewing numerous top oil
men in Texas who expressed total puzzlement at why America was planning the attack, saying that
they could only assume that President Bush knew something that they themselves did not. Saudi
Arabian leaders were adamantly opposed to an American attack on Iraq, and made every effort to
prevent it. Prior to his joining the Bush Administration, Cheney had served as CEO of
Halliburton, an oil services giant, and his firm had heavily lobbied for the lifting of U.S.
economic sanctions against Iraq. Prof. James Petras, a scholar of strong Marxist leanings,
published an excellent 2008 book entitled Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US
Power in which he conclusively demonstrated that Zionist interests rather than those of
the oil industry had dominated the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
As for Michael Moore's film, I remember at the time sharing a laugh with a (Jewish) friend
of mine, both of us finding it ridiculous that a government so overwhelmingly permeated by
fanatically pro-Israel Neocons was being portrayed as in thrall to the Saudis. Not only did the
plot of Moore's film indicate the fearsome power of Jewish Hollywood, but its huge success
demonstrated that most of the American public had apparently never heard of the Neocons.
Bush critics properly ridiculed the president for his tongue-tied statement that the 9/11
terrorists had attacked America "for its freedoms" and Truthers have reasonably branded as
implausible the claims that the massive attacks were organized by a cave-dwelling Islamic
preacher. But the suggestion that that they were led and organized by the top figures of the
Bush Administration seems even more preposterous.
Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of
the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also CEOs of major
corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican
administration in early 2001 and immediately began organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist
attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military
headquarters, hoping to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to
even be part of a leftist political satire.
Let's step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case
in which the top political leadership of a country launched a major false-flag attack upon its
own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people. The America
of 2001 was a peaceful and prosperous country run by relatively bland political leaders focused
upon the traditional Republican goals of enacting tax-cuts for the rich and reducing
environmental regulations. Too many Truther activists have apparently drawn their understanding
of the world from the caricatures of leftist comic-books in which corporate Republicans are all
diabolical Dr. Evils, seeking to kill Americans out of sheer malevolence, and Cockburn was
absolutely correct to ridicule them at
least on that particular score.
Consider also the simple practicalities of the situation. The gigantic nature of the 9/11
attacks as postulated by the Truth movement would have clearly required enormous planning and
probably involved the work of many dozens or even hundreds of skilled agents. Directing CIA
operatives or special military units to organize secret attacks against civilian targets in
Venezuela or Yemen is one thing, but ordering them to mount attacks against the Pentagon and
the heart of New York City would be fraught with stupendous risk.
Bush had lost the popular vote in November 2000 and had only reached the White House because
of a few dangling chads in Florida and the controversial decision of a deeply divided Supreme
Court, so most of the American media regarded his new administration with considerable
hostility for those reasons. If the first act of such a newly-sworn presidential team had been
directing the CIA or the military to prepare attacks against New York City and the Pentagon,
surely those orders would have been regarded as issued by a group of lunatics, and immediately
leaked to the hostile national press.
The whole scenario of top American leaders being the masterminds behind 9/11 is beyond
ridiculous, and those 9/11 Truthers who make or imply such claims -- doing so without a single
shred of solid evidence -- have unfortunately played a major role in discrediting their entire
movement. In fact, the common meaning of the "inside job" scenario is so patently absurd and
self-defeating that one might even suspect that the claim was encouraged by those seeking to
discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement as a consequence.
On the other hand, it does seem entirely plausible that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush
leaders may have been manipulated into taking certain actions that inadvertently furthered the
9/11 plot, while a few lower-level Bush appointees might have been more directly involved,
perhaps even as outright conspirators. But that is not the normal meaning of the "inside job"
accusation.
So where do we now stand? It seems very likely that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an
organization far more powerful and professionally-skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen
random Arabs armed with box-cutters, but also the attacks were clearly not the work of the
American government itself. So who actually attacked our country on that fateful day seventeen
years ago, killing thousands of our fellow citizens?
Effective intelligence operations are concealed in a hall of mirrors, often extremely
difficult for outsiders to discern, and false-flag terrorist attacks certainly fall into this
category. But applying a different metaphor, the complexities of such events may be seen as a
Gordian Knot, almost impossible to disentangle, but which may sometimes easily be cut by asking
the simple question "Who benefited?"
America and most of the world certainly did not, and the disastrous legacy of that fateful
day have transformed our own society and much of the entire world. The endless American wars
soon unleashed have already cost us many trillions of dollars and set our nation on the road to
bankruptcy, while killing or displacing many millions of innocent Middle Easterners. Most
recently, that flood of desperate refugees has begun engulfing Europe, and the peace and
prosperity of that ancient continent is now under severe threat.
Our traditional civil liberties and constitutional protections have been drastically eroded,
and our society placed on the road to becoming an outright police state, with American citizens
now passively accepting unimaginable infringements on their personal freedoms, all originally
begun under the guise of preventing terrorism.
I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of
the 9/11 attacks and America's military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.
During 2000 and most of 2001, America was a peaceful prosperous country, but a certain small
Middle Eastern nation had found itself in an increasingly desperate situation. Israel then
seemed to be fighting for its life against the massive waves of domestic terrorism that
constituted much of the Second Intifada.
According to many analysts, Ariel Sharon had deliberately provoked that Palestinian uprising
in September 2000 by marching to the Temple Mount backed by a thousand armed police, and the
resulting violence and polarization of Israeli society had successfully installed him as Prime
Minister in early 2001. But once in office, his notoriously harsh measures failed to prevent a
wave of continuing attacks, increasingly made by from suicide-bombers, and there was a
widespread opinion that the violence would soon trigger a huge outflow of Israeli citizens,
perhaps producing a death-spiral for the Jewish state. Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other major
Muslim powers were supporting the Palestinians with money, rhetoric, and sometimes even
weapons, and it appeared that Israeli society was beginning to crumble. I remember hearing from
some of my DC friends that numerous Israeli policy experts were suddenly seeking berths at
Neocon thinktanks so that they could relocate to America.
Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of being willing to
undertake strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single
roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, and having finally
obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.
The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world's sole superpower was fully
mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the
Middle East. Sharon's close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an
opportunity to seize control of America's foreign policy and national security apparatus, with
an NSA staffer later reporting that Israeli generals freely roamed the halls of the Pentagon
without any security controls. Meanwhile, the excuse of preventing domestic terrorism was used
to implement newly centralized American police controls that were employed to harass or even
shut down various anti-Zionist political organizations. One of the Israeli Mossad agents
arrested by the police in New York City as he and his fellows were celebrating the 9/11 attacks
and producing a souvenir film of the burning World Trade Center towers told the officers that
"Terrorism is now America's problem." And so it immediately became.
General Wesley Clark reported that soon after the 9/11 attacks he was informed that a secret
military plan had somehow come into being under which America would attack and destroy seven
major Muslim countries over the next few years, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, which
coincidentally were all of Israel's strongest regional adversaries and the leading supporters
of the Palestinians. As America began to expend enormous oceans of blood and treasure attacking
all of Israel's enemies after 9/11, Israel itself no longer had as much need to do so, and
partly as a consequence, almost no other nation in the world has so enormously improved its
strategic and economic situation during the last seventeen years, even while a large fraction
of the American population has become completely impoverished during that same period and our
country burdened with an insurmountable national debt. A parasite can often grow fat even as
its host suffers and declines.
As I have emphasized, for many years after the 9/11 attacks I paid little attention to its
details and had only the vaguest notion that there existed an organized 9/11 Truth movement.
But if someone had ever told me that the terrorist attacks had been false-flag events and
someone other than Osama had been responsible, my immediate guess would have been Israel and
its Mossad.
Certainly no other nation in the world can remotely match Israel's track-record of
remarkably bold high-level assassinations and false-flag attacks, terrorist and otherwise,
against other countries, certainly including America and its military. Furthermore, the
enormous dominance of Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the American establishment media and
increasingly that of many other major countries in the West has long ensured that even when the
solid evidence of such attacks were discovered, very few ordinary Americans would ever hear of
them.
The pattern of behavior is really quite remarkable. During the 1940s, even prior to the
establishment of the State of Israel, the various Zionist factions assassinated Lord Moyne, the
British Minister for the Middle East and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, and
made unsuccessful attempts to kill
President Harry S. Truman and British
Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin , while even discussing the possible assassination of
Prime
Minister Winston Churchill . There seems considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad
subsequently played a central
role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of the enormous pressure he
was applying to persuade Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons plans. Mossad defector Victor
Ostrovsky warned the American government that Israel was planning to assassinate President
George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s due to the bitter conflict over financial aid, and
apparently those warnings were taken seriously . As recently as 2012, the editor of the
main Jewish newspaper in Atlanta publicly called for the assassination of President Barack Obam a over his
policy differences with Israel.
The history of military and terrorist attacks is even more striking. One of history's
largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and
largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954 ,
Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending
to have them blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. In 1950, there are strong claims that Israeli
Mossad agents launched a wave of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in
Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq's large thousand-year
Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea
attack against the U.S.S. Liberty , intending to leave no survivors, and
ultimately killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack got out
and it was called off.
The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that
none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were
quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred
Americans is aware of them. Most of these secret attacks against American and other Western
targets came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other
attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.
Once we accept that the 9/11 attacks were probably a false-flag operation, an absolutely
central clue to the likely perpetrators has been their extraordinary success in ensuring that
such a gigantic wealth of enormously suspicious evidence has been totally ignored by virtually
the entire American media, whether liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.
The only other such extreme cases that come to my mind almost invariably involve either
Jewish issues or Israel. For example, virtually no Americans are today aware of the close Nazi-Zionist
economic partnership of the 1930s that was a crucial factor in the creation of the State of
Israel. Similarly, although our Western media has enshrined it as one of the central events of
the twentieth century, there seems a good likelihood that the Jewish Holocaust of the Second
World War is either substantially or almost entirely fraudulent . Even highly successful
false-flag terrorist operations will tend to leave behind many individual clues, and possessing
the media power to cause this evidence to vanish from perceived reality is an extraordinarily
useful tool for such situations.
Meanwhile, in the particular case at hand, the considerable number of zealously pro-Israel
Neocons situated just beneath the public surface of the Bush Administration in 2001 would have
greatly facilitated both the successful organization of the attacks and their effective
cover-up and concealment, with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle
merely among the most obvious names. Whether such individuals were knowing conspirators or
merely had personal ties allowing them to be persuaded to take steps furthering the plot is
entirely unclear.
Most of this information must surely be obvious within knowledgeable circles, and I strongly
suspect that many individuals who had paid much greater attention than myself to the details of
the 9/11 attacks may have quickly formed a tentative conclusion along these same times. But for
obvious social and political reasons, there is an enormous reluctance to publicly point the
finger of blame towards Israel on a matter of such enormous magnitude, so except for a few
fringe activists here and there, they kept their suspicions to themselves and simply remained
silent.
Meanwhile, the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement probably feared they would be destroyed by
media accusations of deranged anti-Semitism if they did expressed a whisper of such suspicions.
This political strategy may have been necessary, but by failing to name any plausible culprit,
they created a vacuum that was soon filled by "useful idiots" of the "inside job" persuasion,
who pointed an accusing finger at Cheney and Rumfeld, and thereby did so much to discredit the
entire 9/11 Truth movement.
This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky,
former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the
Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of
columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews,
along with additional
analyses .
Obviously, such explosive charges never reached the pages of my morning Times , but
they did receive considerable transitory coverage in elements of the alternative media, and I
remember seeing the links very prominently featured at Antiwar.com and widely
discussed elsewhere. I had never previously heard of Sabrosky, so I consulted my archiving
system and immediately discovered that he had a perfectly respectable record of
publication on military affairs in mainstream foreign policy periodicals and had also held a
series of academic appointments at prestigious institutions. Reading one or two of his articles
on 9/11, I felt he made a rather persuasive case for Mossad involvement, with some of his
information already known to me but much of it not.
Since I was very busy with my software work and had never spent any time investigating 9/11
or reading any of the books on the topic, my belief in his claims back then was obviously quite
tentative. But now that I have finally looked into the topic in much greater detail and done a
great deal of reading, I think it seems quite likely that his 2009 analysis was entirely
correct.
I would particularly recommend his long 2011 interview on Iranian Press TV, which I first
watched just a couple of days ago. He came across as highly credible and forthright in his
claims: Here's a highly controversial clip from a much
longer radio interview he did in 2010:
Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on
the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional
demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately
identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable
clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV and widely discussed on the
Internet.
And by a very strange coincidence, just three days after Jowenko's broadcast video interview
had received such heavy attention,
he had the misfortune to die in a frontal collision with a tree in Holland . I'd suspect
that the community of professional demolition experts is a small one, and Jowenko's surviving
industry colleagues may have quickly concluded that bad luck might come to those who rendered
controversial future opinions on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.
Meanwhile, the ADL soon mounted a huge and largely
successful effort to have Press TV banned in the West for promoting "anti-Semitic
conspiracy theories," even persuading YouTube to entirely eliminate its huge video archive of
its past shows.
Most recently, Dr. Sabrosky provided an hour-long presentation at this June's Deep Truth video panel conference , during
which he expressed considerable pessimism about America's political predicament, and suggested
that the Zionist control over our politics and media had grown even stronger over the last
decade.
The late Alan
Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also
broke his
silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11
attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview .
One of the first writers to explore this topic was journalist Christopher Bollyn, and the
details contained in his long series of newspaper articles are often quoted by other
researchers. In 2012, he gathered together this material and published it in the form of a book
entitled Solving 9-11 , thereby making his information on the possible role of the
Israeli Mossad in the attacks available to a wider audience. However, his volume severely
suffers from the typical lack of resources available to the writers on the political fringe,
with very poor organization and frequent repetition of the same points due to its origins in a
set of individual articles. So those who purchase it should be forewarned about these severe
stylistic weaknesses.
Probably a much better compendium of the very extensive evidence pointing to the probable
Israeli hand behind the 9/11 attacks has been more recently provided by French journalist
Laurent Guyénot, both in his 2017 book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State and
also his 8,500 word article "9/11 was an Israeli Job" that is
being published as a companion piece to this one. His background in 9/11 Truth issues vastly
exceeds my own very limited investigation of the subject and he provides a far greater wealth
of detail than I could possibly include in this simple summary. While I wouldn't necessarily
agree with all his claims and analysis, the overall account is certainly consistent with my
own.
I think I might as well add a couple of nuggets of my own in support of the Israeli Mossad
Hypothesis.
We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of
three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be
an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational
infrastructure and manpower. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook
great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to
find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply
vanished into thin air.
But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly
round up and arrest
some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same
geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of
these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans
in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad
agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but
under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel.
There is also another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. One
month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were
caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story
that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but
which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure,
all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. I remember first
encountering this extremely suspicious incident in the early 2000s on an
fringe Hispanic-activist website , and the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers
reporting the dramatic events were once available elsewhere on the Internet, but after all
these years I can no longer easily locate them. The details of this incident are obviously
rather fragmentary and perhaps garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.
One might speculate that if Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by also
destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America's
military invasions in the Middle East would have been enormously greater. Furthermore, any
scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have
been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America's dominant Spanish-language network, fully
solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush's military endeavors.
I doubt that I've spent more than just a few weeks of my total time reading and researching
that complex topic, most of that only very recently. I am sure that numerous readers far more
knowledgeable than myself will notice various serious errors in my discussion and generously
assist in correcting those. Furthermore, my preparation of this analysis was unfortunately cut
short by the approach of an particular anniversary date, so that under different circumstances
my presentation would have been far more complete and more polished. But I felt there would be
some benefits in making this material immediately available to others, even though many might
already be familiar with most or all of this information.
Readers should therefore regard this as a preliminary version of my article, which I may
render into a more polished form within the next couple of days, a practice that I have never
previously followed.
"... We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as a loan shark's leg-breaker. ..."
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK and France bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true political dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are
training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has
approved two important arms sales to Kiev's ground forces in just the past nine months. The
first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed
as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems,
ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger
($47 million) , it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210
Javelin anti-tank missiles -- the kind of weapons that Barack Obama's administration had
declined to give Kiev.
Needless to say, the Kremlin
was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that
authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019.
Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of
Obama's administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration
cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the
initial small-weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now
open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev.
On September 1, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker disclosed during an interview
with TheGuardian that Washington's future military aid to Kiev would
likely involve weapons sales to Ukraine's air force and navy as well as the army. "The Javelins
are mainly symbolic and it's not clear if they would ever be used," Aric Toler, a research
scholar at the Atlantic Council, asserted
. One could well dispute his sanguine conclusion, but even Toler conceded: "Support for the
Ukrainian navy and air defence would be a big deal. That would be far more significant."
Volker's cavalier attitude about U.S. arms sales to a government locked in a crisis with
Russia epitomizes the arrogance and tone-deaf nature of the views that too many U.S. foreign
policy officials exhibit regarding the sensitive Ukraine issue. "We can have a conversation
with Ukraine like we would with any other country about what do they need. I think that there's
going to be some discussion about naval capability because as you know their navy was basically
taken by Russia [when the Soviet Union dissolved]. And so they need to rebuild a navy and they
have very limited air capability as well. I think we'll have to look at air defence."
One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the
geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had
emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened
United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to
America's borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in
Canada's internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government,
and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that
would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S.
relations with Ukraine.
Moreover, although Kiev's cheerleaders in the Western (especially U.S.) media like to
portray Ukraine as a beleaguered democracy that plays the role of David to Russia's evil
Goliath, the reality is far murkier. Putin's government overstates matters when it alleges that
Ukraine's 2014 Maidan revolution was a U.S.-orchestrated coup that brought outright fascists to
power in Kiev. Nevertheless, that version contains more than a little truth. Prominent,
powerful U.S. figures, most notably the late Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, openly sided with
demonstrators seeking to unseat Ukraine's elected government. Indeed, Nuland was caught on tape with U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt scheming about the desired composition of a new government
in Kiev.
It is unfair to portray Ukraine's current administration led by President Petro Poroshenko
as a neo-fascist regime. Post-revolution elections appear to have been reasonably free and
fair, and there are major factions that are committed to genuine democratic values. But Ukraine
also is hardly a model of Western-style democracy. Not only is it afflicted with extensive
graft and corruption, but some extreme nationalist and even
neo-Nazi groups play a significant role in the "new" Ukraine. The notoriously fascist Azov
Battalion, for example, continues to occupy a prominent position in Kiev's efforts to defeat
separatists in Ukraine's eastern Donbass region. Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the
self-declared Donetsk People's Republic in the pro-Russia rebel-occupied city of Donetsk,
was assassinated on September 1 and officials there and in Russia are blaming Kiev. The
Ukrainian government has denied involvement.
Other ultranationalist factions act as domestic militias that attempt to intimidate more
moderate Ukrainians. Even the Poroshenko government itself has adopted troubling censorship
measures and other autocratic policies. Officials in both the Obama and Trump administration
have taken a much too casual attitude toward U.S. cooperation
with extremist elements and a deeply flawed Ukrainian government.
Both the danger of stoking tensions with Moscow and becoming too close to a regime in Kiev
that exhibits disturbing features should caution the Trump administration against boosting
military aid to Ukraine. It is an unwise policy on strategic as well as moral grounds. Trump
administration officials should refuse to be intimidated or stampeded into forging a risky and
unsavory alliance with Kiev out of fear of being portrayed as excessively "soft" toward Russia.
Instead, the president and his advisers need to spurn efforts to increase U.S. support for
Ukraine. A good place to start would be to restore the Obama administration's refusal to
approve arms sales to Kiev. Washington must not pour gasoline on a geo-strategic fire that
could lead to a full-blown crisis between the United States and Russia.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute and a contributing editor at TAC , is the author of 10 books, the contributing
editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs .
"... General Eisenhower told us to our faces all about the fiction, and yet we as a culture/civilization pretend the president is solely in charge. ..."
What's truly remarkable is Gen. Eisenhower told us upon leaving presidency all about who
competes with our elected president on what happens.
Those presidents that toe the "military industrial complex" line most closely are seen as
the most in charge.
President Kennedy did not, was murdered. President Johnson did, it
eventually sickened him, he did not seek reelection. President Nixon was removed from office.
President Carter was humiliated. President Reagan's dream of a nuclear free world was vetoed
by guess who. President Bush was defeated by the mother of all sycophants to that force.
President Clinton was their man. Vice President Cheney was even more so. President Obama
tried to hide the fact he was not. President Trump has not tried to hide that fact.
Reporting on the Trump phenomena would benefit by more imagination.
Is it not a public service, irrespective of one's opinions on him, that it should now be
clear to all, now via the Trump Phenomena, that what was plainly told us all in the 1950s
from a General, is the way it is?
Yet a "criticism" of Trump is his "sin" of taking off the mask.
General Eisenhower told us to our faces all about the fiction, and yet we as a
culture/civilization pretend the president is solely in charge.
What is remarkable is the amount of reporting on the current president that lacks
imagination, insight, logic, rationality, reason, common sense, and insight.
However, that is not remarkable given that most of the reporters lived all their lives in
a culture/civilization that fails to educate us in a meaningful way. Their and our
professors, mentors, supervisors, and family, and friends and significant others, also so
socialized; however, the road to progress is in front of us if we are curious enough.
Were the goal of contemporary American Politics first and foremost a search for the truth,
that would be one thing.
The Shining Star of American Politics, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren perfectly
epitomizes that it is not, as she knows better, was seduced by power, and all that that
implies. The ends justify the means for the entire lot of them.
Whatever that evil perspective engender, progress is and never shall be one of them.
A never-shown Al Jazeera documentary on the pro-Israel lobby in the US reveals possibly
illegal Israeli spying on US citizens, and the lobby's fear of a changing political mood.
(This article has been published in French in Le Monde diplomatique, and translated by Le
Monde diplomatique, English edition.)
@Moi Problem,
Akbar, is that most Americans are ignorant and greedy--and the Jews fully understand that.
Salaam Alaikum "(FDD) Senior Advisor Richard Goldberg and FDD Visiting Fellow Jacob Nagel.
Goldberg and Nagel argue that the Trump administration should use its sanctions authorities
to target foreign governments, as well as their agencies and officials, engaged in activities
authorized under the JCPOA." "Moreover, Goldberg and Nagel argue that those parties
establishing research or business ties with U.S.-designated entities -- which, come November,
will include the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran -- should be subject to U.S. secondary
sanctions " not allow – "international collaboration, including in the form of
scientific joint partnerships, [would] be established in agreed areas of research," "Goldberg
and Nagel further argue that the Trump administration should threaten to cut funding to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the agency continues to provide technical
assistance to Iran and to host seminars and conferences in Iran. " "Iran would have little
choice but to kick the IAEA out of the country and withdraw entirely from the agency's
oversight. The world would thus lose the unprecedented oversight of Iran's nuclear program
that the JCPOA had provided.
That may be a feature, rather than a bug, of Goldberg and Nagel's proposal"
Yes the number 5 is the replay of the neocons success in getting UN out of Iraq which was
then used by the stupid Bush to justify the attack on Iraq.
FDD has in 2004 printed article documenting the high pitched neocons fevers and the lies
they engaged in to get US attack Iraq.
That might or might not have them made look like pragmatic nationalist patriotic pro-American
. But these bastards are nothing but pro-Israel They just change the spot and denounce the
previous spot.
Looks like my comment made on the previous Syria thread was a waste of my time. Oh Well!
The Iraqi situation has clearly turned in the favor of the Outlaw US Empire as it craves
chaos. It seems more likely than ever that Sadr's been turned given his behavior. The
situation will give comfort to Neocons who want to "consolidate gains" within Syraq and
continue building their military presence.
I very much welcomed the Russian statement on the al-Tanf terrorist base; its liquidation
will hopefully come swiftly. It's instructive to compare the political stability of Syria
with Iraq's political chaos. I think it very likely we'll see Daesh's resurrection within
Iraq as that's the Outlaw US Empire's main tool to keep the chaos ongoing--the empire doesn't
fight against Daesh; rather, it uses Daesh to fight against its stated enemies
everywhere.
The Iraqi situation has clearly turned in the favor of the Outlaw US Empire as it craves
chaos.
I don't agree with that, for the obvious reason that it will be impossible to
support the US position in al-Tanf. And indeed in Syrian Kurdistan. What the US wants is a
US-agreed PM in Iraq, and moderate stability.
@Iris"Marshall
Sam Shama, boasted here at U.R. about his being a Nazi Hunter and having collared a few."
Well, that's extraordinary, because in his comment 201 above, Sam Shama said:
"How do the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds, whoever they are, depend on everyday
Jews?"
As you know, French-Israeli Serge Klarsfeld and his German wife Beate are the most famous
"Nazi hunters" in Europe. They formed an association which located and brought to "justice"
some of the most famous names involved in Nazi occupation (Bousquet, Barbie, Papon,
Touvier,...).
How come Sam Shama doesn't know these most famous comrades? Split personality?
Schizophrenia? Pseudonym swapping? :-) :-)
https://images.sudouest.fr/2014/12/03/57ebc98866a4bd6726a8263e/widescreen/1000x500/serge-et-beate-klarsfeld-au-memorial-de-la-shoah.jpg
The famous comrades, and specifically the Simon Weisenthal Center of Nazi-hunters, suddenly
gone AWOL as soon as the US zionists began their mutually beneficial cooperation with
neo-Nazi in Ukraine.
Moreover, it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and
evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi
in Ukraine.
The miserable Anti-Defamation League (of the anti-democratic methods) is now on a spot for
doing nothing with regard to the murderous activities (including the openly
anti-Jewish activities) of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine (the Kaganat of Nuland is a de facto
protectorate of the US). It seems that for the ADL, there are certain precious neo-Nazi (the
Israel-supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine) and the "bad" Nazis whose image has been helping the
ADL and the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds to demonstrate their allegiance to Jewish
"principles," while making good gesheft (reparation-extortion) on the tragedy of the WWII for
holo-biz.
There is more for the oh-so-sensitive crowd of holocaustians: The prime minister of
Ukraine (where the Nazism has been enjoying its very visible renaissance since 2014) is a
Jewish man Volodymyr Groysman who was miraculously "elected" by Ukrainians in 2016. It is
well known that Ukrainians en masse are not terribly predisposed towards the Jews: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
To recap: The Jewish State and the US/EU zionists have been cultivating the close
relationships and collaboration with neo-Nazi leaders in Ukraine. Take note that none of the
Jewish Nazi collaborators has been punished for the material and political support of the
neo-Nazi movement in Eastern Europe. Why the EU puts people in jail for making an honest
research in the WWII but allows the zionists to support the neo-Nazi is not easy to
understand, considering the influence of the thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled Jewish
Lobby.
@Sam Shama On the
contrary. You haven't responded to the substantial issues from my first post, where I showed
that the CDN list did contain many Jewish names; your mealy-mouthed, code-worded, phrasing
notwithstanding.
Speaking of giving it a rest, I would think it is you who should consider it. Antisemitism
is a serious matter, Phillip. "Antisemitism is a serious matter, Phillip."
– Tell it to Bibi and the Kagans clan: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
"FEARS OF ANTI-SEMITISM SPREAD IN UKRAINE"
@Sam Shama I don't
usually like taking retirees to task, but you are a special case. You actually threaten Jews
with harm every so often in idiotic, thinly veiled language. You should contemplate that.
"You actually threaten Jews with harm "
– Don't project. Your Jewish State and your zionist stink-tanks in the US/UK are the
greatest danger to the decent Jews.
"Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine:" https://countercurrents.org/2018/07/05/israel-is-arming-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/
One of the main financiers of the neo-Nazi formation "Azov" an Israeli citizen Kolomojsky:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-47564dbc32c28a68f9407fd689f6b3c8-c
I keep telling you Sam that you aren't too smart everything you say just reinforces
everything that is criticized about your tribe ..and you just keep right on giving us more
proof.
First, I have no tribe. Merely logging and attempting to introduce a modicum of
balance in these flagrant displays of hatred.
Second, I don't claim any particular advantage in the department of smarts; only doing my
bit for the advancement of the various causes of humanity. In that, I am sure you claim
primacy, but do you know who said the following: "It is a profitable thing, if one is wise,
to seem foolish." Google's your friend. " flagrant displays of hatred "
– Listen to your Moldovan thug Avi Lieberman and your no less thuggish justice minister
Ayelet Shaked to get the real "flagrant displays of hatred:"
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/new-israeli-justice-minister-called-for-genocide-of-palestinians/article/432659
"Shaked made international headlines when she posted a highly controversial unpublished
article by the late Uri Elitzur, a close Netanyahu ally and an early leader of the movement
by Jewish settlers to colonize occupied Palestinian territories The post asserted that "the
entire Palestinian people is the enemy" and advocated genocide against the entire nation,
"including its elderly women, its cities and its villages, its property and its
infrastructure." Some excerpts: " They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on
all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers they should follow their sons [to
hell], nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they
raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."
– Don't you like the facts of the Jewish State's financial, logistical, and military
support for ISIS / Al Qaeda ?
https://www.sott.net/article/386618-US-and-Israel-will-not-allow-the-elimination-of-Al-Qaeda-and-ISIS-in-southern-Syria-The-solution-is-Syrian-resistance
@annamaria The
famous comrades, and specifically the Simon Weisenthal Center of Nazi-hunters, suddenly gone
AWOL as soon as the US zionists began their mutually beneficial cooperation with neo-Nazi in
Ukraine.
Moreover, it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and evaporated
as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi in
Ukraine.
The miserable Anti-Defamation League (of the anti-democratic methods) is now on a spot for
doing nothing with regard to the murderous activities (including the openly
anti-Jewish activities) of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine (the Kaganat of Nuland is a de facto
protectorate of the US). It seems that for the ADL, there are certain precious neo-Nazi (the
Israel-supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine) and the "bad" Nazis whose image has been helping the
ADL and the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds to demonstrate their allegiance to Jewish
"principles," while making good gesheft (reparation-extortion) on the tragedy of the WWII for
holo-biz.
There is more for the oh-so-sensitive crowd of holocaustians: The prime minister of Ukraine
(where the Nazism has been enjoying its very visible renaissance since 2014) is a Jewish man
Volodymyr Groysman who was miraculously "elected" by Ukrainians in 2016. It is well known
that Ukrainians en masse are not terribly predisposed towards the Jews:
https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
To recap: The Jewish State and the US/EU zionists have been cultivating the close
relationships and collaboration with neo-Nazi leaders in Ukraine. Take note that none of the
Jewish Nazi collaborators has been punished for the material and political support of the
neo-Nazi movement in Eastern Europe. Why the EU puts people in jail for making an honest
research in the WWII but allows the zionists to support the neo-Nazi is not easy to
understand, considering the influence of the thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled Jewish
Lobby. " it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and
evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi
in Ukraine."
- 1- Indeed. The Klarsfelds don't open their big lecturing gob neither when Jewish French
citizens, born and brought up in France, with no links to Palestine, volunteer and join the
IDF to murder Palestinians. They are the higher share of IDF volunteers, ahead of Jewish US
citizens.
A war crime in broad daylight: French-Israeli IDF soldier coldly shooting in the head
wounded 21-year old Palestinian Abd Al Fatah Al Sharif.
- 2- Simon Wiesenthal, as you know, was an utter fraud and one of the biggest conmen of
the century. Among his many lies is his so-called incarceration at Auschwitz. Former members
of the German Army even stated that he was a collaborator.
- 3- I'll finish on a cheerful note , and a very good illustration of MSM's double
standards. Unreported by the press, unlike Corbyn's elusive anti-semitism, Ukraine's
Parliament Speaker has just declared that "Hitler was the biggest democrat". One can't make
this up.
In the post-Soviet period, in addition to the color revolutions supported by the West
outside Russia, the West has been involved inside Russia as well. Washington was also involved
in helping Boris Yeltsin resist the August 1991 and October 1993 coups. Washington was
indirectly involved in Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election campaign. As I have mentioned several
times, a VERY reliable source confided to me that the xerox copying paper box filled with half
a million dollars being transported for later use by Yeltsin's pro-democracy camp but
intercepted by Yeltsin's hardline operatives consisted of U.S. funds. For a less revealng
inkling of the kind of involvement see Time magazine's July 1996 article "Saving
Boris"( http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
or https://offgraun.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/201612201405.pdf
). McFaul noted that the three American consultants to Russian President Boris Yeltsin's 1996
re-election campaign -- George Gorton, Joe Shumate, and Richard Dresner -- contracted by Oleg
Soskovets, a former first deputy prime minister whom Yeltsin named head of his campaign, were
"breaking Russia's law against foreigners' working directly in campaigns" ( www.weeklystandard.com/yanks-brag-press-bites/article/8538
). In addition, the IMF released a several billion dollar tranche of economic assistance on the
election's eve to buttress Yeltsin further. Yeltsin's government was infested with US advisors,
some of whom engaged in corrupt practices of insider trading on the Russian stock market as
part of their 'democracy-promotion' efforts.
The U.S. government's Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , among other government
organs, carried out propaganda defending post-Soviet Russia's jihadi separatists for years (see
https://gordonhahn.com/2015/02/18/caucasus-jihadism-through-western-eyes-the-failure-of-american-rusology-to-understand-the-north-caucasus-mujahedin/
and https://gordonhahn.com/2017/11/04/whos-been-interfering-in-whose-politics/
). One 'small' example among very many was noted in a paper I published seven years ago: "Less
than three weeks after CE (Caucasus Emirate or 'Imarat Kavkaz') amir Umarov sent a suicide
bomber to attack Moscow's Domodedovo Airport killing 37 and wounding more than 200,
RFERL 's 'chief Caucasus correspondent' Liz Fuller praised him as a 'father' who
restrains the mujahideen: "If these young men [the CE's younger mujahideen] have not become the
callous brutes Khasbulatov anticipated, much of the credit must surely lie with the older
commanders who were fathers before they became ghters, and have since assumed the role of
father gures to the younger generation of insurgents: the natural-born pedagogue Abdullayev;
Tarhan; Mansur; and even Umarov, seen receiving a lial embrace from Hadji-Murat at the very end
of this clip" [Liz Fuller, "Chechnya's Youngest Insurgents," RFERL , February 14,
2011, www.rferl.org/content/blog/2308952.html ,
last accessed on 28 February 2018 and cited in Gordon M. Hahn, Getting the Caucasus Emirate
Right (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2011), p. 14, fn
14]. Again, the 'Umarov' RFERL 's Liz Fuller, whose salary was paid from your taxes,
was the amir of the Caucasus Emirate while it carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings and
several thousand other terrorist attacks in Russia from 2007-2013, after which the bulk of its
'Chechen national resistance' fighters (most not frm Chechnya but from Dagestan,
Kabardino-Balkaria and elsewehere in Russia as well as from abroad) ensconced to Syria and Iraq
to 'fight for Chechen independence' while those back home officially joined the Islamic State
(ISIS). For a similar Fuller article hailing the 'work' of the small Islamo-ultranationalist
Chechen, non-CE terrorist cell, see "Remembering Mansur," RFERL , March 17, 2011,
http://www.rferl.org/content/caucasus_re-
port_remembering_mansur/2341725.html.
The main reason for Russia's restrictions on NGO activity inside the country is that the
very same Western government-tied organizations that funded color revolutionary activity in
Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere -- USAID, NED, DNI, RNI, and so on -- were funding
indirectly Russian political opposition-oriented organizations. The reason media are now
included under these restrictive regime lies in the West's massive propaganda, disinformation,
and strategic communications infrastructure – typified in its output by articles such as
the one supporting jihadi and Islamo-nationalist terrorists in Russia – in comparison
with which Russia's is a weak imitation (
https://gordonhahn.com/2018/01/22/russian-propaganda-machine-much-ado-about-little-as-compared-with-western-stratcomm-update/
).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
"... The crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of the two policies of NATO expansion and EU enlargement, which led NATO to declare Ukraine (and Georgia) will be NATO members at numerous NATO summits and in other fora, led the EU to push too hard and too early for an association agreement with the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych government, and led the West, especially Washington, to lend opposition-promotion assistance to revolutionaries and endorse a clearly illegal oligarch-ultranationalist revolt in February 2014 despite an agreement that essentially ensured Yanukovych's departure from the presidency in ten months. In Syria, Putin's Russia has won. Regime change is over. ..."
Rather than dealing with secondary issues, those which are easiest to resolve, or those in
which we have common interests, contacts must address the core problems in the inter-state
US-Russian or larger Western-Russian relationship. Those issues are NATO expansion, EU
expansion, U.S. missile defense, Ukraine, Syria, and interference in each other's domestic
politics.
Rather, than expanding Western institutions in complete disregard of Russian
interests, the West must work closely with Moscow. The West must acknowledge its responsibility
in the making of the original crisis in Kiev, which equals if not exceeds that of Moscow's in
deepening the crisis in Crimea and Donbass.
The crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of the two
policies of NATO expansion and EU enlargement, which led NATO to declare Ukraine (and Georgia)
will be NATO members at numerous NATO summits and in other fora, led the EU to push too hard
and too early for an association agreement with the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych government, and
led the West, especially Washington, to lend opposition-promotion assistance to revolutionaries
and endorse a clearly illegal oligarch-ultranationalist revolt in February 2014 despite an
agreement that essentially ensured Yanukovych's departure from the presidency in ten months. In
Syria, Putin's Russia has won. Regime change is over.
The U.S. in its hubris miscalculated in
going a bridge too far. Ambition led to supply weapons either intentionally or accidentally --
and in denial of the obvious -- to Islamists and jihadists. This was a direct consequence of US
President Barak Obama's haste to carry forth his gravely misguided Muslim Brotherhood-based
regime change strategy in the Islamic world. Syria's longstanding ties to Moscow and the
presence of North Caucasus-based mujahedin within the ranks first of the Al Qa`ida-affiliated
'Jabhat al-Nusra' jihadi group and then of the Islamic State or ISIS prompted Putin's limited
and strategically successful intervention.
More globally, the West has been and remains the
'champion' when it comes to interference in the politics of other states. For financial reasons
alone, Russia cannot hold a candle to US efforts in this regard, no less those of the entire
West. Rather than seeking to dominate or willfully 'transforming' Eurasia in the Western image,
the West should more gently propose democratization and work on strengthening its own
democratic order to serve as a model for non- and less democratic states to emulate.
Those
living in non- or less democratic states who want change have access to all the information
they need on the Internet, except in the most authoritarian countries. Even in the latter,
access is possible if more difficult. The native population and opposition leaders understand
the intricacies of their nation's culture far better than outsiders do and can therefore better
fashion a peaceful, stable regime transformation. If this is not what they want, then they are
unlikely to establish a democratic order when they seize power.
Change the Goal and Strategy
The core problem in Western-Russian relations has been Western, especially, NATO expansion.
NATO expansion, carried forth on the back of EU expansion, effectively 'militarized' Western
democracy-promotion and EU expansion, insulting Russian 'honor' and trust in the West in the
wake of Cold War-ending Western promises that NATO would not expand beyond reunified Germany
and turning Russia away from democracy. Washington and Brussels must discard, therefore, its
basic goal of expanding the community of democracies in brinksmanship-like
fashion–everywhere and immediately, regardless of those expansions' effects on the
Russian and Chinese geostrategic calculation. This means abandoning the strategy of achieving
that goal: NATO and EU expansion. These two prongs of the main strategy, especially NATO
expansion, have added greater cost of driving Russia into China's increasingly powerful arms,
as I predicted a quarter of a century ago.
New Goal and Strategy
Regarding security, the West
should seek to integrate Europe and Eurasia first in the area of negotiating ongoing conflicts
and preventing new conflicts by reinvigorating the Organization of Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) as the main multilateral forum for Western-Eurasian relations. It should also
become the locus of negotiations between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO) on building a new European security architecture (NESA). During the life of the NESA
negotiations, the West should institute an openly declared moratorium on NATO expansion. After
such the NESA is in place negotiations might begin with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) on a Eurasia-wide security architecture. Similarly, the European Union should learn from
its misbegotten unilateral expansionism and 'Eastern Partnership' and seek to negotiate a
gradual integration of the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
... ... ...
There is very likely to be some
agreement towards extending the START nuclear arms treaty by executive order as well as
negotiating a replacement treaty to be signed at the end of the first or beginning of a second
Trump term.
For the Ukrainian crisis, Trump might propose the creation of a US-Russian working
group to assist the Minsk process. Should Trump be convinced that only US involvement can
resolve the issue, perhaps the group could be incorporated into the Minsk process. He might
also hint that in return for some Moscow concessions on Ukraine, such as backing a more
expanded version of the proposed peacekeeping mission beyond the line of contact, he might be
willing to put pressure on Kiev to finally fulfill its Minsk agreement obligation to engage a
dialogue with the Donbass rebel regions' representatives:
(1) on the modalities related to
conducting elections in the Donbass,
(2) on a Ukrainian law to be adopted according to Minsk-2
'On the temporary order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk
regions,' or
(3) 'with respect to the future operation of these areas on the basis of the Law,'
or, for that matter,
(4) on any other subject related to the crisis. Washington pressure on
Kiev to talk directly with the rebels may be possible now that four years too late some of the
Washington institutions that supported the Maidan revolt and illegal overthrow of Yanukovych
such as the Atlantic Council and Freedom House, are waking up to the neofascist threat on the
edges of the Maidan regime and in society.
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
Lyttenburgh, July 7, 2018 at 6:25 am
"and agreed to meet in neighboring Sweden"
Finland.
"This suggests the level of distrust Putin has towards Washington, his low expectations for a successful summit, and the high
price he is likely to demand for concessions on his part."
It suggests nothing of the sort. You are too dramatic.
"[T]he approach of dealing with issues that are easiest to resolve or where we have common interests alone is insufficient
and a non-starter as far as putting the relationship where it should be. By definition, an approach that seeks to avoid areas
where there are disagreements will not resolve a deeply troubled relationship that is putting international security and
peace at risk. Only addressing the core differences complicating relations can a qualitatively new relationship be forged."
Finally someone is willing to admit that! You can't willy-nilly go and ask your neighbor to borrow some sugar after you
wrecked his fence and expect him to "cooperate" on such small issue out of sheer goodness.
"It also means abandoning the approach of designing policies from hubris rooted in the sense that Western democracy is
morally superior to authoritarianism. Although the latter is true"
In what way? I (and quite a lot of people) see particular Western "democracy" as morally bankrupt compared to what it
seemingly randomly calls "authoritarianism"
"In Syria, Putin's Russia has won."
And that writes a man who detest the term, devoting so much ink and time to show to the ignorant that, no – it's Russia's
Putin. Why not say Russia, or Moscow, or even "Pro-Assad coalition"?
"Rather than seeking to dominate or willfully 'transforming' Eurasia in the Western image, the West should more gently
propose democratization and work on strengthening its own democratic order to serve as a model for non- and less democratic
states to emulate."
What, you forgot the immortal words of Paul Wolfowitz so soon? For, you see, "We Are An Empire Now". Crawling back in the
shell won't help to solve the domestic very partisan issues – finding a common enemy does that. Your tactics are good for a
neutered housecat of a nation – not for the mighty Great Again (And Forever) lion which both the elite and the commoners of
the West consider their Republic.
" and turning Russia away from democracy."
Wrong. It turned Russia away from liberalism – not democracy. You know the difference, right? Because your following analysis
suggests otherwise:
"Washington and Brussels must discard, therefore, its basic goal of expanding the community of democracies"
"Putin's Russia" is democracy. As well as Poland under PiS, Hungary under Orban and Turkey under Erdogan. Hell, even Ukraine
is democracy! Democracy is just a mode of rule.
"driving Russia into China's increasingly powerful arms"
Yeah, that's bad for the US. For the rest – not so.
"During the life of the NESA negotiations, the West should institute an openly declared moratorium on NATO expansion."
Absolutely meaningless and easily revertible promise that runs directly against the West self-identification as the only
Empire on the planet.
The list of topics of your Grand Design that follows is too far fetch, unrealistic and abstract that they are basically the
equivalent of "charming" Russian naïve natives with the glass beads. As for your fanatical support of the free trade – it's
era has gone. Again. If you fail to grasp that it was precisely Russian objections of EU version of free trade coming to the
Ukraine which lead to 2013-14 conflict on Maidan – well, nothing can help you.
"Non-Western partners must also be willing to sacrifice some of their present interests for the sake of the benefits of
stability and cooperation that will accrue in future. "
Like I said – land for the glass beads.
"In Ukraine, the U.S. must get more involved in the Minsk 2 negotiating process."
No, they shouldn't.
"Without a clear signal from Trump that Washington is not interested in expanding NATO to Ukraine or using the crisis to
isolate Moscow through sanctions and the like and intends to lead the search for a solution, Moscow is unlikely to make any
meaningful concessions."
You don't see it, do you? It's Kiev for whom the conflict is more beneficial. It allows all sort of, yes, authoritarian
things and policies without fear of the "real war". You can silence all your critics with – "but Putin might attack us!" or
"are you a secret separ?!". Kiev has no other viable strategy but to commit an ethnic cleansing of DNR or LNR should they be
returned to it. Simple as that.
BTW – have you read Minsk II accords? How about Kiev fulfils its part first?
"Washington could be able to convince Moscow to abandon its support for the elements of the Iran presence in Syria and
Lebanon that arrived in the context of the Syrian civil war."
Nothing of the sort will happen. Sowing division among potential USA rivals is a viable tactic – but don't take everyone for
an idiot.
"There is very likely to be some agreement towards extending the START nuclear arms treaty"
Wanna bet, that there won't be? Also – nothing of the Ukraine, nothing on NATO. A little something on Syria (officially)
with, maybe, an unofficial concession of the defeat of the West-backed "unicorns".
Tl;dr. This is not about coming Trump-Putin summit. You are just venting off your fantasy about Bright Future. You present
solely pro-US perspective of the summit, enumerating things that Trump must "ask", nay, "demand" either for free or some
minor concessions on his part. Have you ever tried to think what Russia might want of the summit instead?
Salsibury Watchdog, July 11, 2018 at 2:19 am
"It also means abandoning the approach of designing policies from hubris rooted in the sense that Western democracy is
morally superior to authoritarianism. Although the latter is true"
Mr. Khan, if what Western elites are doing to other sovereign nations is 'a democracy' why is it done so covertly: through
murky slash funds, secrets coups and illegal bombings?
I've never seen a referendum asking people in the US whether they wanted to fund another war. Had they been asked, people
would've chosen affordable healthcare, housing and access to education instead, and you know it as well I do.
Yet you're still talking about 'Western democracy'?
"... "What is quietly happening across parts of Iraq is less of a resurgence, and more a resurfacing, of the Islamic State. Many of these fighters never actually left, but merely scattered temporarily, having melted away into the population only to return. " ..."
How is ISIS resurfacing in Iraq? The short answer is that it never really left. Despite US
President Donald Trump's orders to "
annihilate ISIS ," members of the organization have continued to exist in Iraq and Syria
and carry out attacks. The caliphate has fallen and the group no longer holds the vast
territory and population it once controlled. However, supporters, organizers and fighters have
not simply disappeared. Instead, the aspiring proto-state has reverted back to its roots as a
terrorist insurgency. The US-based Soufan
Center assessed the environment as such:
"What is quietly happening across parts of Iraq is less of a resurgence, and more a
resurfacing, of the Islamic State. Many of these fighters never actually left, but merely
scattered temporarily, having melted away into the population only to return. "
The US and the UN agree that there may be as many as 30,000 ISIS
members still present in Iraq and Syria. Jason Warner and Charlotte Hulme writing for the
Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (CTC) also recently estimated that an additional
6,000
fighters are spread across Africa , with the Islamic State West-Africa Province (Boko
Haram) contributing more than half of the total. ISIS continues to wield influence further
abroad with IS-Khorasan in
Afghanistan as well as supporters in the Philippines
, Indonesia
, and throughout the Indo-Pacific.
These members and supporters received encouragement and direction from their highest leader,
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in an
audio message released last month. The message promoted patience and perseverance, claiming
that the time will come again for a resurgence. In Iraq, this may be a functional
strategy.
Little change
ISIS's Iraqi presence began as al-Qaeda in Iraq, an al-Qaeda affiliate led by
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi . The group found footholds in Iraq in the chaos caused by the US
invasion in 2003, and then re-branded itself as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) following its
founder's death in 2006. While pressured by the Anbar
Awakening and the US troop surge in 2007,
ISI managed to survive and wait for conditions to become more favorable.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki , a Shia
politician, would contribute to these conditions by giving preferential treatment and status to
Shiite Iraqis. As a result, many of Iraq's Sunnis were disillusioned and alienated from the
Iraqi state and were at least indifferent to ISIS, if not supportive. Renad Mansour of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in 2016 that a lack of options for Sunni
political engagement combined with "intra-Sunni conflict" drove the power development of ISI.
Following the withdrawal of US troops in 2011, the Iraqi security forces were left mostly alone
to fight the extremist group, and quickly buckled under the task.
Research published by the CTC earlier this year sought to analyze the
opinions of young men in Mosul , ISIS"s Iraqi capital. While largely characterized as
"corrupt, brutal, and hypocritical," 93% reported that ISIS had positive effects during the
beginning of their authority. Even now that they have lost that authority, most respondents
were confident that ISIS will not disappear anytime soon. The Sunni community in general was
characterized by the men as divided and both spiritually and physically weak.
Following the collapse of the caliphate, Iraq began judicial proceedings for thousands of
accused ISIS members. While trials are a necessary and positive element in resolving the
conflict, Iraq's courts have been quickly overwhelmed, resulting in trials lasting for as
little as
10 minutes . Innocent Sunnis are at risk of being swept
up in these trials, and joining the many who have already been sentenced to
death as a result of these proceedings.
Shia militias also continue to act with impunity as an element of Iraq's security
forces , reinforcing the power disparity between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. With Sunni
estrangement, internal conflict and disunity, and a perception of weakness continuing, it falls
on the government to enforce security and suppress violence.
Political inclusion
Perhaps the largest result of the Iraqi election this year was the ascension of
Muqtada al-Sadr , a Shia cleric, as the leader of the winning parliamentary block. Al-Sadr
promoted Iraqi unity and the abandonment of political divisiveness in his campaign; however,
his group has also been accused of
past aggression against Sunnis . How al-Sadr and the new Parliament will lead Iraq, enforce
security, and form relationships with Sunni communities remains to be seen.
The Sunni community apparently remains internally conflicted and continues to face
challenges at the hands of the Iraqi state. Renad Mansour believes that greater power-sharing
at high levels and greater autonomy at low levels is key to relieving the pressure on Sunni
communities and reengaging them with the state while also accounting for the lack of unity
within the Sunni community. Without political engagement, and facing institutionalized
challenges, many Sunnis may continue to support or be indifferent to extremist groups like
ISIS. Although the group itself has lost its attractiveness among most of Iraq's Sunnis, the
conditions which fueled its earlier growth are still present.
Doubtless, members of the group have gone into hiding and will continue to launch attacks
for the foreseeable future. ISIS will likely never return to the high point it experienced
several years ago, but it has defied expectations before. With smart re-branding and a strategy
made to appeal more to the local population, combined with a messy government unable to provide
security, ISIS may manage regain some of the power it has lost.
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no
more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their
pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources
are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't
know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close
to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for
which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in
it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front
pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage.
The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on
September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad
– bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas
Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite
obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's
"amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the
trust of one's superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing
measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust
military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which
could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model
of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.
The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which
White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with
Russian and North Korea.
Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and
dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations
with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman
service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch
mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing
the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence.
Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are
visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat
Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize
the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The
dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to
distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington,
Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and
betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded
by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people
systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick
might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is
much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly
matters since they are so closely entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power
territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other
media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among
others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the
text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look
at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write
the letter."
Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't
that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback
grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more
serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and
"instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative
pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If
Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his
mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he
says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy
from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to
breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on
teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to
blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten
the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States
pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former
Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural
resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States
has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO
countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their
own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United
States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form
of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is
what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
An 'Immortal Regiment' march celebrating Victory Day in Riga, Latvia.
It has been nearly three decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Despite Russia's
reemergence on the world stage as a respected power after market-oriented 'reforms' destroyed
its economy for the duration of the nineties, the breakup of the USSR is an event regarded by
an increasing amount of Russians as a catastrophic tragedy rather than a triumph of 'freedom
and democracy.'
In recent years, there have been numerous polls showing that more than half of Russians not
only regret
the collapse of the Soviet Union but would even
prefer for its return . However, the nostalgia only comes as a surprise to those who have
forgotten that not long before the failed August Coup that led to its demise, the first and
only referendum in its history was held in March of 1991 which polled citizens if they wished
to preserve the Soviet system.
The results were more than three quarters of the population in the entire socialist
federation (including Russia) voting a resounding yes with a turnout of 80% in the
participating republics. In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the outcome
was more than 90% voting for renewal. Even the country with the lowest amount of support, the
Ukraine, was still 70% in favor. While the measure was officially banned in six republics --
Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and the three Baltic states -- despite being unrecognized by their
local governments the vote was still organized and the outcomes were all over 90%.
Ironically, the union dissolved five months later under the pretext of establishing
'democracy' in Eastern Europe just as it ignored the very wishes of Soviet citizens. After more
than 25 years of suffering at the hands of economic and trade liberalization, gutting of state
subsidies and mass privatization of the former state-run industry, is it any wonder that
Russians are yearning for a return to socialism?
The consequences of the disintegration are still felt in the relations with the United
States today. It planted the seeds for the carefully arranged revival of the Cold War that was
hiding in plain sight until it surfaced with 'color revolutions', proxy wars and dubious spy
poisonings. One source of the strained relations between the West and Russia has been the
Baltic states, which burgeoned following their integration into the European Union and
enrollment in NATO membership in 2004 during its enlargement. NATO
continues its provocations with massive war games bordering Kaliningrad, while Moscow is
painted as the aggressor even though the U.S. defense spending increase this year alone
surpasses Russia's entire military budget.
The antagonism between Latvia, Estonia and(to a lesser degree) Lithuania with Moscow stems
partly from from the cessation of the USSR itself. The conclusion of the Cold War resulted in
more than 25 million Russians instantly discovering themselves living abroad in foreign
countries. For seventy years, fifteen nations had been fully integrated while Russians migrated
and lived within the other republics. The Soviet collapse immediately reignited national
conflicts, from the Caucasus to the Baltics. While the majority of the ethnic Russian diaspora
live in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, nearly 1 million reside in the post-Soviet Baltics and since
1991 they have been subjected to a campaign of forced assimilation, discrimination and
exclusion.
The Baltic republics made nationalism their official state policy while moving away from
Russia's sphere of influence into a closer relationship with the West. Boris Yeltsin's
subservience to Washington eclipsed any concern for the fate of captive Russians as the Soviet
Bloc was herded into the EU, but his administration did quarrel with the new Baltic authorities
and
accused them of creating an anti-Russian 'apartheid.'
As geopolitical tensions have increased under his successor, Vladimir V. Putin, who has
embarrassed Western imperialism in the international arena, so has Moscow's disapproval of the
treatment of its minority held hostage in the Baltic Rim. Is a comparison to South Africa
warranted? Even if the similarities are only partial, the three states show evidence of deep
ethnocracy.
While less than 10% of Lithuania is ethnically Russian, in Latvia and Estonia the number is
much higher at a quarter of their entire populations. The three governments have passed laws
promoting their official languages and restored citizenship requirements that existed up until
1940, demanding that their Russian minorities apply or risk losing basic rights and guarantees.
Russia has interpreted these measures as a form of slow-motion ethnic cleansing intended to
coerce Russians to immigrate elsewhere.
When the three states first became independent, in an act of systematic discrimination they
distributed non-citizen 'alien' passports to ethnic Russians and excluded them from obtaining
citizenship automatically, even if they had lived and worked in a Baltic state for their entire
life. In fact, citizenship was not immediately granted to anyone whose ancestry arrived after
1940, a policy that specifically targeted ethnic Russians who without naturalization are left
stateless.
For example, when Estonia first declared its independence more than 30% of its population
(or every third person) did not have citizenship of the country of residence. This inscribed
ethnic division into their society and although many Russians have become naturalized over the
last two decades, there are still more than 80,000 in Estonia without determined status who are
mostly former Soviet citizens and their descendants. In Latvia, segregation runs even deeper
where more than 250,000 Russians (15% of the population) remain stateless. Even when they do
become citizens, the parliaments have attempted to pass laws banning non-EU immigrants
(predominantly Russians) from possessing voting rights on several occasions. Polls also show
the prejudice within their societies, with many Balts indicating they would prefer their
Russian-speaking neighbors to repatriate.
Meanwhile, the Russian population has expressed concern about the reemergence of neo-Nazism.
The authorities have nurtured holocaust denial, such as the Latvian government objecting
to an UNESCO Holocaust exhibition of the Salaspils concentration camp on the basis it would
'tarnish the country's image.' No kidding.
Children held in Salaspils concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Latvia during WWII.
One criteria for the naturalization exams is based on language where in order to become
citizens Russians must become fluent in Latvian and Estonian, even though they are such a large
minority that in larger cities they often constitute 50% of the population and Russian may be
the most spoken language. Simultaneously, any attempt to make Russian a second official
language have been struck down. It is a deliberate effort to assimilate the Russian-speaking
minority and erase remnants of Soviet culture.
In order to obtain basic entitlements, Russians have to pass the tough naturalization tests
which many fail several times (especially the elderly), facing fines and risking losing their
employment in the process. The tests are notoriously difficult as Latvian and Estonian
languages bear little resemblance to Slavic Russian and are much closer to Finnish.
Apart from ethnicity, 40% of Latvia as a whole identifies as Russian-speaking and have been
accustomed to schooling in their native tongue where they already have low career prospects and
income rates. Rather than inclusion, they have been mandated to adopt the Baltic languages.
Beginning in 2019, the Russian language education options in Latvia will be discontinued
altogether in higher education at colleges and universities as well as many secondary schools,
which has sparked
demonstrations in protest .
Russian-speakers protesting Latvia's language reform laws
It should be made clear that what ethnic Russians experience in the Baltics has its own
particularities that make it significantly different from the institutionalized racism and
violently enforced segregation that existed in South Africa (or what many believe is applicable
to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation). The word apartheid itself originates from the
Afrikaans word for 'separateness' (or apart-hood), but an exact comparison is not the real
issue. There are many overlapping characteristics that make an analogy arguable.
For instance, the use of an ID system denoting ethnicity and alien status with the inability
of Russians to participate in the democratic process or politics. Their reduced standing
contributes to a society where ethnic groups often do not intermingle and are concentrated in
particular areas with Russians mostly residing in urban cities. Yet even Israel recognized
Arabic as a second official language (until 2018), while none of three Baltic states do so for
Russian. When referendums have been held on whether to adopt Russian as a second language, the
non-citizen communities are excluded from voting, ensuring its inability to pass.
The exams also coerce Russians to accept a nationalist and historically revisionist account
of the last century where the Soviet Union is said to have "occupied" the Baltics. A history
lesson is needed to understand how this is untrue and based on pure Nazi mythology. During the
Romanov dynasty, the Baltic states had been part of the Russian Empire but became independent
for the first time in centuries following the February Revolution in 1917.
Along with Belarus and Finland, the Bolsheviks were unable to regain the three republics
during the Russian Civil War. During the 1930s, the three nations were officially sovereign
states but under their own brutal nationalist regimes. The Soviet liberation of the Baltics can
hardly be seen as a 'forceful incorporation' considering what they replaced were not
democracies themselves and they were absorbed in order to block Hitlerite expansionism.
Since the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe, the Baltic states have waged a
campaign of diminishing and obscuring the Holocaust into a 'double genocide' of equal
proportions , conflating the Nazis and the Soviets as twin evils. Western 'democracies' have
helped obfuscate the truth about the widely misunderstood Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the treaty
of non-belligerence between Germany and the USSR. The 1939 non-aggression pact has been painted
as a 'secret alliance' between the Nazis and the Soviets, disregarding that France and Great
Britain had done the same with the Germans the previous year with the Munich Agreement.
Only the Soviets are said to have 'conspired' with Hitler, just as when the West fought the
Germans it was for 'liberal values' but when the USSR did so it was for competing 'dominion'
over Europe. In order to mask their own fascist sympathies, the West has falsified the
historical reasons for the accord. In reality, there were measures incorporating the Baltic
states into the USSR as part of a mutual defense and assistance against German imperialism and
their 'master plan' for the East.
The truth is that the ruling class in the West feared the spread of communism much more than
fascism, and actually viewed the rise of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe as an opportunity to
crush the Soviet Union. Leading up to WWII, not only was it Western capital investment which
financed the rapid buildup of Germany's armed forces, but the U.S., Britain and France did
everything within their power to encourage Hitler's aggression toward the USSR. More than once
they
collectively refused to sign any mutual security alliance with Moscow while appeasing
Hitler's expansionism in Czechoslovakia, with the British in particular guilty of sabotaging
negotiations to isolate the Soviets and pit them into a war against Germany.
Stalin was well aware the Nazis planned to expand the Lebensraum further East, but
the Soviets were in the midst of a rapid industrialization process that accomplished in a
single decade what took the British more than a century. They needed time to guarantee they
could defeat an offensive by the Wehrmacht, the most powerful and developed military force in
the world at the time. It provided an additional year and ten months of further buildup of
Soviet armaments -- if not for this move, it is possible the Germans would never
have been stopped twenty kilometers short of Moscow and turned the outcome of the war in their
favor. The real reason the pact infuriated the West was because it obligated them into having
to fight the Germans, something the imperial powers had hoped to avoid altogether.
More disturbingly, the Baltic governments have drawn from the traditions of the far right by
whitewashing the local nationalists that sided with Germany during their invasion of the Soviet
Union in 1941 which broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Nazi collaborators have been
restored and normalized as 'freedom fighters' who fought solely for Baltic independence.
The Estonian parliament has even adopted resolutions
honoring the Estonian Legion and 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian)
without any such equivalent measure for the more than 30,000 Estonians who courageously fought
in the Red Army.
To most Russians, it is an absolute insult to the 27 million Soviets who died defeating the
Nazis, including the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians who did so as well. Today, if they
wish to become citizens they must swear an oath of allegiance to this rewriting of history
which has been made a precondition for obtaining citizenship. The three states also do not
recognize the May 9th Victory Day as a holiday, forcing the Russian minority to celebrate it
informally.
20th Estonian SS Division
The rehabilitation of the local nationalists who fought alongside the Germans has been done
under the false premise that the collaboration was a purely strategic alliance. The Soviets are
portrayed as equal to or worse than Nazi Germany, a false equivalency between fascism and
communism that is a ubiquitous trait among ultra-rightists today. Tens of thousands of Latvians
and Estonians volunteered and were conscripted into legions of the SS which participated in the
Holocaust, as did Lithuanians in the Nazi-created Territorial Defense Force and their Security
Police.
They did not simply coordinate on the battlefield with the Germans, but directly
participated in the methodical slaughter of Jews, Roma and others because they shared their
racism. In Lithuania, for example, quislings welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators and for the
next three years under Nazi occupation helped murder 200,000 Jews, nearly 95% of the country's
Jewish population, a total which exceeded every other European country in terms of percentage
of extermination. It is certain that the only thing that prevented Lithuania's Jews from
extinction was the heroism and sacrifice of the Red Army.
Latvians greeting the Red Army after the liberation of Riga
During the Cold War, the US and NATO sought to whitewash certain Nazi war criminals when it
suited its strategic interests against the Soviets. This went beyond the Germans themselves,
whether it was recruiting
their spies for espionage, atomic scientists in Operation Paperclip , or making Hans
Speidel the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Central Europe.
The Baltic Waffen SS Units are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose,
ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the
Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States
under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, as amended."
While the displaced persons laws let Jewish refugees into the United States, it also
provided cover for the reserved spaces for thousands of Nazi collaborators in an open-door
policy providing them safe harbor. Following the end of WWII, many of the former members of the
Baltic SS units became anti-Soviet partisans known as the Forest Brothers who carried on a
guerilla campaign against the Soviets with the assistance of the CIA and MI6 until it was
defeated in mid-50s. Unfortunately, Nikita Khruschev then made one of a series of colossal
mistakes by permitting the exiled Baltic nationals to return as part of the de-Stalinisation
thaw.
Latvian Legion
The idea that regiments of the Schutzstaffel were fighting purely for Estonian and Latvian
independence is a horrifying fabrication in defiance of the overwhelming evidence documented by
holocaust historians. The West has exploited this sanitizing of history that reappeared
following the reinstatement of free enterprise in eastern Europe which has proliferated the far
right in the EU as a whole. Why? It serves their cynical immediate interests in undermining
Moscow. The same manipulations are occurring in the Cold War's sequel. Last year, NATO even
produced a short film and a-historical reenactment entitled
Forest Brothers: Fight for the Baltics , glorifying the anti-Soviet partisans as part of
its propaganda effort against Russia.
Any crimes that were committed by the Soviet NKVD during the war are dwarfed by the tens of
thousands of Jews and Roma which were exterminated on an industrial level by the Nazis and
their co-conspirators using the race theory -- there is no comparison. Not to
mention that the reintroduction of the free market to Eastern Europe killed more people than
any period in Soviet history, reducing life expectancy by a decade and undoing seventy years
worth of progress. We only ever hear of the faults of socialism and the inflated numbers of
losses of life attributed to its failure, never the daily crimes of capitalism or the tens of
millions lost in the wars it produces.
he Soviet brand of socialism was far from perfect, but nevertheless a model for what
humanity can achieve in the face of tremendous adversity without being shackled by the
contradictions of capitalism -- an industrial society with relative equality in
education, wealth, employment and basic necessities. Now that Western capitalism is once again
collapsing, it is making friends with nationalists to revise its ugly history and the Russian
minority in the Baltics are suffering the consequence. It will continue to apportion blame on
the up-and-coming power in Moscow, no longer the quasi-colony of the Yeltsin era, for its
soon-to-be expiration. Let us hope it does not start another World War in the midst of
it -- for all our sake.
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in
publications such as The Greanville Post, Global Research, CounterPunch and more. Read him on
Medium . Max may be reached at
[email protected]
I did not know about the vote in 1991. Thank you for exposing yet another example of US
meddling in elections, i.e. not recognizing the results and essentially forcing a coup via
Yeltsin. The war crimes of the US and Israel are beyond comprehension. Loading...
Yes, the Baltics, like the western Ukraine, rolled out the red carpet to the German invaders
in 1941. The Nazi genocide was outsourced from Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen to Baltic Nazis
since the numbers involved were too big to handle for the Germans alone.
The Arajs Kommando death squad (also: Sonderkommando Arajs), was led by local SS and
collaborators Viktors Arājs, Franz Stahlecker and Robert Stieglitz and a unit of Latvian
Auxiliary Police (Lettische Hilfspolizei) which was subordinated to the German
Sicherheitsdienst (a special security branch of the German SS). It was a notorious killing
unit during the Holocaust. Stahlecker instructed Arajs to set up a commando unit that
obtained an official name Latvian Auxiliary Security Police or Arājs Kommando.
The following day on July 2 1941 Arajs learned from Stahlecker during a conference that
the Arajs commando had to unleash a pogrom that looked spontaneous and these pogrom-like
disorders were to break out before German occupation authorities had been properly
established. The Einsatzkommando a sub-group of the SS death squads, belonging to the larger
Einsatzgruppen) influenced mobs of former members of Pērkonkrusts (Latvian
ultra-nationalists and other extreme right-wing groups) began mass arrests, pillaging and
murders of Jews in Riga, which led to death of between 300 to 400 Jews.
Killings continued under the supervision of SS Brigadeführer Walter Stahlecker and
ended when more 2,700 Jews had been murdered. The activities of the Einsatzkommando were
constrained after the full establishment of the German occupation authority, after which the
SS made use of select units of native recruits. German General Wilhelm Ullersperger and
Voldemar Weiss, a well known, Latvian nationalist, appealed to the population via a radio
address to attack "internal enemies".
During the next few months, activities of the Latvian Auxiliary Security Police was
primarily focused on killing Jews, Communists and Red Army stragglers in Latvia as well as in
neighbouring Belorussia. The group alone murdered almost half of Latvia's Jewish population,
about 26,000 Jews, mainly in November and December 1941. The creation of the Arajs Kommando
was "one of the most significant inventions of the early Holocaust", that marked a transition
from German organised pogroms to systematic killing of Jews by local volunteers (former army
officers, policemen, students, Aizargi).
This helped resolve a chronic problem with German personnel shortages, and provided the
Germans with relief from the psychological stress of routinely murdering civilians. By the
autumn of 1941, the SS deployed Latvian 'Police Battalions' to Leningrad, where they were
consolidated as Latvian Second SS Volunteer Brigade.
In 1943, this brigade, which would later become the Latvian Nineteenth SS Volunteer
Division, was consolidated with the Latvian Fifteen SS Volunteer Division to become the
Latvian Legion. Although formally the Latvian Legion (Schutzmannschaft or Schuma) was a
volunteer Waffen-SS military formation; it was voluntary only by name, because approximately
80-85% of personnel were conscripted into the legion.
Yes lovely people these Batlics. They are now among the poorest countries in Europe and
are suffering massive demographic problems as anyone who can, leaves. As my old mother used
to say. "God pays debts without money..
"
People of Russian heritage are denied passports, the right to vote, and any official
employment, amongst other forms of discrimination and persecution.
These are sh***y little Nazi countries, with their big annual SS parades. They desecrate war
memorials and the graves of Russian soldiers who died liberating the Baltic countries in the
war. Many Baltic politicians are US dual citizens, neocons parachuted in after 1991 by the
State Department. They are ideologically driven and lose no opportunity to vent their spleen
against Russia. They are constantly foolishly provocative towards a neighbour that could be a
valuable economic partner. We see the same pattern in Ukraine. The US pulled off a stunt
where 10,000 US troops in 1,000 tanks and vehicles drove up and down the Latvian border just
a few yards from Russian territory, through communities of predominantly Russian
heritage.
Part of this hostility to Russia is probably contrived by the political class to cover up
their abject failures since independence. Their economies were looted and hollowed out by
western finance capital over the past few decades. They were previously highly developed
parts of the Soviet Union with industries like machinery, vehicles and shipbuilding. That is
now ancient history. The economy has collapsed, and 25% of the population of Latvia has
emigrated, scratching a living doing menial jobs or working as prostitutes in the EU, the
only future those countries have. Riga was a natural transit hub for Russia, but faced with
official visceral hatred from that quarter, the Russians expanded and developed their own
port facilities in the Baltic. Riga has been left as a ghost town. That is why Nordstream has
been developed, to replace unreliable partners in neighbouring countries who are always ready
to cut off their noses to spite their face and please their US neocon masters. Their loss
– they could have made billions from energy transit fees. It's the same story with
sanctions, for which the Baltic states were enthusiastic cheerleaders. Russia's counter
sanctions against agricultural imports have hit them hard. In the course of events, these
countries and Russia would be economic partners for their mutual benefit.
As NATO members, these countries believe they can be as foolishly provocative and offensive
to Russia as they wish, like the obnoxious kid in the school playground who spits in
somebody's face and runs and hides behind his big brother. Small countries like this can
cause a disaster, like Serbia and WW1. They are now failed states, like Ukraine. They are
just pawns in a neocon game against Russia. They have no future. Loading...
'The Baltic republics made nationalism their official state policy while moving away from
Russia's sphere of influence into a closer relationship with the West.'
I strongly supported the Soviet Union and likewise I support the CIS, but this article,
frankly, is so partial that it misrepresents the reasons why the Baltic States behaved as
they did following the Nazi invasion of 1941 and following the collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991.
There is no mention of Staln's takeover of the Baltic States in 1940. It is clear that
Stalin needed those states as a buffer against Germany, but that said, it is fully
understandable that many Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians would see the Nazis as
liberators and would resent their countries' reabsorption into the Soviet Union in 1944,
followed by settlement by Russian nationals including members of the Soviet state apparatus
including the KGB. Of course, we may all deplore collaboration with Nazi race policies,
especially in Lithuania, but to ignore factors such as Russia's takeover of the Baltic states
ignores a major factor at the heart of those countries' treatment of Russians to this
day.
The author explains Stalin's wish to forestall the inevitable war with Nazism because the
Soviet Union was involved in industrialisation. This is true, but the article ignores the
purges that had led to the Red Army being so ineffectual in its war with Finland that Hitler
believed that Barbarossa would be a pushover. When one considers that when the Baltic States
became part of the Soviet Union, this will have included the apparatus of state terror that
Stalin had been visiting upon the rest of the Soviet Union for several years. Contrary to the
above whitewashed view of history, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians had strong grounds for
resenting the presence of Russians in their erstwhile independent nations.
I deplore the Baltic States' treatment of ethnic Russians since they gained their
independence in September 1991, but ignoring the follies of their Soviet past will do nothing
to alleviate their plight.
I appreciate the historical background, but the treatment of Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians
and Lithuanians by Stalin might explain their actions in WWII; doesn't excuse them, sorry.
Loading...
"erstwhile independent nations."
To be clear these former provinces-highly favoured provinces- in the Russian Empire had been
'independent' since 1921.And thanks in part too to the Bolshevik doctrine that the Czarist
Empire was a 'prison house of peoples.'
No doubt many in the Baltic states resented the invasion of the Red Army but it was only a
small minority which celebrated by killing Jews and enrolling in the siege of Leningrad.
In more modern terms there is no reason why these three states, and Ukraine, could not thrive
independently without setting themselves up as bases for provocations against Russia and
convenient locations for US torture chambers.
The people of Ireland suffered far more under the British Empire than the Balts did under St
Petersburg but that did not lead to more than a handful of Irishmen, if that many, in the
Second World War joining the SS. Loading...
This article takes no account of the threat posed to our allies in NATO, Eastern Europe, and
to the security of the world due to the rising tensions of recent years. Now, more than ever,
in the wake of Salisbury attack, we need to stress to our European counterparts in the
governments of the Baltic States, that we wish to work with them to maximise the power of
collective sanctions against violations of international law – whether by Russia or
anyone else. I think we should make clear that our UK commitment to such collective action
will not be diminished by Brexit. Similarly, now more than ever, it is vital that the UK and
all other NATO members make it clear to all our allies in the Baltic States, and elsewhere,
that we want to protect peace and security on the borders, without ramping up tensions
unnecessarily, and that such a commitment is not conditional on their levels of defence
spending.
Tory defence spending cuts have put Britain's security at risk.. I think the next Labour
government should commit to boost our military obligations, above the benchmark of 2% GDP, in
line with the last Labour government's commitment to NATO.
This is the second parody posted by BigB. A parody so skilful, such inane stringing together
of non-sequiturs to an insane c,nclusion, it might have come from the very lips of blessed
Theresa of Westminster. Loading...
Very close, Vex: St Jeremy of Islington North. Most of it is verbatim, with some reworded
conjunctions. The source text is from Hansard 26/03/18. The last para is a reword taken from
quote in John Pilger's excellent article about Labour's non-existent foreign policy which
would likely be imperialistic. Or the vague platitude of a return to 'Robin Cook ethical
diplomacy' of starting three wars in two years and selling Hawk aircraft to Mugabe.
It struck me recently when I point out the actual words that JC says, I take the flak. To
prove a point (if only to myself) I posted his own (disguised) words to see how people would
react. The source text for yesterday was his reply to Treason May, when she announced the two
counterfeit suspects for the fabricated Novijoke crime against the intelligence.
It is my supposition that very few know the full context of what is said, relying on media
soundbites instead. The media pick a single phrase – such as only saying "evidence
points strongly" – and contrast with Bojo's "weaselly words" to construct an entirely
inauthentic narrative. It is a pseudo-oppressor/oppressed narrative that creates a false
sense of pity and invokes an invented victim mentality (we all know how Brit's love an
underdog!).
Anyway, I surmised his words were weaselly, though not in the context of the received
culture machine narrative but in themselves, taken in their given context (in Parliament and
later in Hansard). They amount to a servile connivance with power (a power that provides the
testimony and meaning to the hollow phonemes).
I could have just said that, but I decided to post the slightly disguised text to make a
point. Point made.
Soviet "Communism" was de facto never more than a branch of Anglo-American bourgeois
progressivism. A geopolitical rivalry developed between the two factions after the defeat of
Germany. Note that Western capitalists built the Soviet industrial base in the 1920s and
1930s, so it was obvious they were not seen as a threat then:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm
( )
American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet
Union.
"Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with
United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In
the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to
more than 40." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp.
346-347).
The new program was announced, however, only "after a sequence of construction and
technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez
technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically
and technically the most important." (Ibid., p. 347).
EXTENT OF AID "ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE"
During the early thirties, the amount and type of "aid and comfort" to the Soviet Union was
almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car
industry by constructing a factory "capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year." By the end
of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided
training for the Russians in assembling automobiles "plus patent licenses, technical
assistance, and advice," and "an inventory of spare parts." (Keller, East Minus West Equals
Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and
steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex,
built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).
LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet
technology.
"Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed
and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works
were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American
football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The
tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no
arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and
copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to
the production of another less innocuous commodity – tanks." (Ibid., p. 213).
( )
Russia today is clearly not seen as a partner of Western
neoliberalism/progressivism. Therefore, Putin (along with Trump) has become the new
Hitler.
Curri, thank you for presenting that healthy corrective to my previous one-sided view; up
till now I had read only of US aid to Nazi Germany. Loading...
To put these observations into context it must be understood that the Soviet
government-obsessed with a crude mechanistic theory of economic development and desperately
trying to reproduce all of the 'stages' of economic progress into a succession of Five Year
Plans- bled the peasantry and working class dry in order to pay for what Curri calls a
partnership. The industrialists, largely Anglo Saxon, who jump started Russian industry after
the catastrophes of war and civil war extorted a heavy price, in hard currency, for their
'aid.'
The notion that the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, was accepted as a partner by the west is
historically illiterate. The record is clear. And clarified further by the continuity in
Foreign Policy which was (and is) the Cold War. Loading...
200,000 Jews in Lithuania alone! And they give all this fuss over Corbyns reluctance to
conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
I knew there was prejudice in these northern Baltic states but this piece has shocked me. I
now understand the self deprecating remarks made to me recently by a supermarket cashier over
her being a Russian speaking Lithuanian. Next time I see her I will make a point of offering
her my solidarity.
I meet many of these northerners in my work. Now I have some of this background I can ask
pertinent questions. Loading...
It would be a mistake to discover the cause for this discrimination in popular prejudice. The
actual reason lies in the determination of the ruling class to maintain
fascist-collaborationist successor politicians in power.
These politicians, many of whom had origins in expatriate communities in the west, after
fleeing their homelands in the baggage of the Wehrmacht and SS, have been finding it very
difficult to survive after leading their countries into economic disaster mitigated only by
the welcome boost that NATO bases bring to countries in which unemployment rates are at
levels not seen since the 1930s.
Like their predecessors they have turned to racism and fascism to prop themselves up.
What is true of the Baltic states is even truer of Ukraine, where Russian speakers constitute
a persecuted majority, and where the Speaker of the Rada is on record, this past week, as
being inspired by the Fuhrer who he sees as the greatest democrat of the C20th.
As racism and fascism spread westwards into Austria, Germany and elsewhere the complacence of
western 'liberals' in cosseting and subsidising the sources of infection is largely to blame.
It is of course history repeating itself: the fascism of eastern europe in the 1930s was also
sponsored and armed by the 'democracies' of the west. And for the same reason: to keep Russia
at bay.
Whoever it was, this "gutless" person seems pretty craven, opportunistic neocon of McCain
flavor. Most neocons are chickenhawks. And there are plenty of neocons in Trump
administration.
It might well be that anonymous "resistance" op-ed in NYT is CIA operation to promote Woodward's book ( Woodward is definitely
connected to CIA from the time of Nixon impeachment)
Notable quotes:
"... You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions ..."
During an interview with Fox and Friends, conducted onstage prior to Trump's rally and set
to air on Friday, the president called the paper's decision to publish the column "very
unfair".
"When somebody writes and you can't discredit because you have no idea who they are,"
Trump said. "It may not be a Republican, it may not be a conservative, it may be a deep state
person that's been there a long time.
It's a very unfair thing, but it's very unfair to our country and to the millions of
people that voted really for us."
Since the editorial was published, the highest-ranking officials in Trump's administration
have come forth to
publicly deny any involvement. Those distancing themselves from the column have included
the vice-president, Mike Pence, and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with much of
Trump's cabinet. The first lady, Melania Trump, also condemned the author and called on the
individual to come forward.
"You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions," she
wrote.
The editorial was published as the White House was contending with yet another
firestorm.
A book authored by the famed journalist
Bob Woodward , poised for release next week, chronicles the chaos and dysfunction within
the Trump administration.
Excerpts released on Tuesday provided an unflattering portrait of the
president, who was described by aides in disparaging terms that included being likened to a
schoolchild.
"... According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. ..."
"... We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. ..."
"... What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? ..."
The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was
recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight
Soviet invaders".(Hugh Davies, "`Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert
for suicide bombers." The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998).
In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in
Afghanistan:
"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, who wanted to turn the
Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some
35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and
1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than
100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad." (Ahmed Rashid,
"The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).
This project of the US intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support of
Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in channelling covert
military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing, in liason with the CIA, the madrassahs and
Mujahideen training camps.
U.S. government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a
"necessary response" to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist
government of Babrak Kamal.
The CIA's military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in creating the
"Islamic brigades", was launched prior rather than in response to the entry of Soviet troops
into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington's intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which
has lasted for more than 25 years. (photo: CIA and ISI agents)
The CIA's role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy
Carter:
Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen
began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24
December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed,
it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a
Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you
yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Question:When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to
fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe
them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the
Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the
opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to
carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having
given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe
and the end of the Cold War? ( "The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser", Le Nouvel
Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for Research on
Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
, 5 October 2001, italics added.)
Consistent with Brzezinski's account, a "Militant Islamic Network" was created by the
CIA.
The "Islamic Jihad" (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA's
intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant
part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:
"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 [which]
authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the
secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert
action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a
dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 as well
as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret
headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA
specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan
rebels."(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)
uke Harding likes writing books
about things that he wasn't really involved in and doesn't really understand. Unfortunately for
the rest of the world, that covers pretty much everything. His book about Snowden, for example,
was beautifully
taken down by Julian Assange – a person who was actually there.
He's priming the traumatised public for another of his works, this time about Sergei
Skripal. This one will probably be out by Christmas, unless he can find someone else's work to plagiarise , in which case he might
get it done sooner.
It will have a snide and not especially clever title, perhaps a sort of pun –
something like "A Poison by Any Other Name: How Russian assassins contaminated the heart of
rural England" . It will relate, in jarring sub-sub-le Carre prose, a story of Russian
malfeasance and evil beyond imagining, whilst depicting the whole cast as bumbling caricatures,
always held up for ridicule by the author and his smug readership.
There's an extract in The Guardian today. It's not listed as one, but trust me, it
will be in the book. It's title, as predicted above, is sort of a pun (and will probably
be a chapter heading):
Planes, trains and fake names: the trail left by Skripal suspects
You see? Like that film? I don't really get it either but until someone else comes up with
something clever he can copy, Luke is left to his own rather meagre devices.
It starts off surprisingly strong, waiting three whole sentences before lurching violently
into totally unsupported conjecture:
The two men were dressed inconspicuously in jeans, fleece jackets and trainers as they
boarded the flight from Moscow to Gatwick. Their names, according to their Russian passports,
were Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Both were around 40 years old. Neither looked
suspicious.
This is, as far as we know so far, true.
The plane trundled down the icy runway. In Moscow the temperatures had fallen below -10C,
not unusual for early March. In Britain it had been snowing.
and so is this. In fact, in googling "Moscow weather March 2018" Harding has displayed an
uncharacteristically thorough approach to research that was rarely (if ever) evidenced in his
previous works.
They had also packed a bottle of what appeared to be the Nina Ricci perfume Premier Jour.
The box it came in was prettily decorated with flowers, it listed ingredients including
alcohol and it bore the words "Made in France".
This is where truth ends and guesses take over: there is no evidence, at all, that these two
men had anything to do with the "perfume bottle" allegedly found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th
and allegedly containing a powerful nerve agent. There is (as far as we know) no fingerprint or
DNA evidence on the bottle, nobody saw them with the bottle, and there's no released CCTV
footage of them holding or carrying the bottle. Saying "it's in their backpack" is meaningless
without any evidence to back it up.
According to the Metropolitan police, the bottle in fact contained novichok, a lethal
nerve agent developed in the late Soviet Union. The bottle had been specially made to be
leakproof and had a customised applicator.
Note he doesn't feel the need to examine, question or even verify the words of the
Metropolitan Police. This is a recurring theme in Harding's works – there are people who
tell the truth (US) and people who lie (RUSSIANS). Evidence is a complication you can live
without.
Moscow's notorious poisons factory run by the KGB made similar devices throughout the cold
war.
Did they? Because he doesn't show any evidence this is true. One thing you can be sure of,
if there had ever been even a whisper about a "modified perfume bottle" in any Soviet archive
or from any "whistleblower currently living in the United States", it would be on the front
page in big black letters.
Petrov and Boshirov were aliases, detectives believe. Both men are suspected to be career
officers with the GRU, Russia's powerful and highly secretive military intelligence
service.
Note use of the word "believe", it makes regular appearances alongside it's buddies:
"suspect" and "probably".
And yes, they "believe" they are aliases because IF they were assassins then obviously they
used aliases. There's no evidence taken from their (currently totally theoretical) visa
applications that point to forgery, nobody at the time questioned their passports. As of today,
we have been given no reason to think they were aliases, except reasoning backwards from
assumed guilt which isn't how deduction works.
In fact, there's more than enough reason to assume they aren't aliases –
Firstly, they passed the visa check, secondly their passports were never questioned, thirdly
they've used them before (see below), and finally just WHY would a Russian spy-come-assassin
use a fake Russian name and a fake Russian passport? That's ridiculous.
The officers' assignment was covert. They were coming to Britain not as tourists but as
assassins.
[citation needed]
Their target was Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer who spied for British intelligence,
got caught and was freed in a spy exchange in 2010. They were heading for his home in
provincial Salisbury.
Luke doesn't feel the need to dig down into the nitty gritty here – motive is a
trifle, to be added in the footnotes or made up on the spur of the moment when asked at a book
signing. I'm a bit more fussy than that – I feel the need to ask "Why did they release
him in 2010 and then try to kill him in 2018?" If they had wanted to kill him, why not just do
it when he was in prison in Russia between 2006 and 2010? If they wanted to kill him why do it
just weeks before the World Cup? What could they possibly have to gain?
Luke doesn't know, and neither do I.
Their Aeroflot flight SU2588 touched down at 3pm on Friday 2 March. They were recorded on
CCTV going through passport control, Boshirov with dark hair and a goatee beard, Petrov
unshaven and wearing a blue gingham shirt. Both were carrying satchels slung casually over
the shoulder.
This is all true, and completely unnecessary. It's what we in the industry call "filler" or
"padding". Totally meaningless and useless words that do nothing but take up space. Without it,
a lot of Luke's books would only be about 700 words long.
According to police, the pair had visited the UK before.
Way to bury the lead there, Luke.
This is actually quite important isn't it? I mean, when did they visit the UK before? Did
they visit Salisbury then too? Did they have any contact with Sergei Skripal? Were they
travelling under the same names? Were these visits linked with other intelligence work? Were
they just holidays? What kind of assassins would use the SAME FAKE IDS ON TWO DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS?
These are all very important questions, but Luke doesn't ask them. Because Luke is a modern
journalist, and they don't interrogate the claims of the state, just report them. To
Guardian reporters a question mark is just that funny squiggle next to the shift
key.
From Gatwick they caught the train to London Victoria station and then the tube to east
London, where they checked in to the City Stay hotel in Bow. It was a low-profile choice of
accommodation. The red-brick Victorian building is next to a branch of Barclays bank, a busy
train line and a wall daubed with graffiti. Across the road is a car pound and a Texaco
garage.
This just more filler. Totally meaningless packaging material. The prose equivalent of
All-Bran.
On hostile territory, Boshirov and Petrov operated in the manner of classic intelligence
operatives.
In this instance "the manner of classic intelligence operatives" means, flying direct to
London from Moscow, using Russian names and Russian passports (which you've used before),
checking into a hotel with a CCTV camera on the front door, going straight to the hometown of
an ex-double agent, leaving a Russian poison his front door even though he's already gone out,
dumping your unused poison in a charity bin on the high street, going back to your hotel,
smearing poison around that too even though you already dumped it, and then flying directly
back to Moscow without even waiting to see if the plan worked and the target is dead.
This, in Luke's head, is ace intelligence work.
On the day of the hit, according to detectives, the pair made a similar journey, taking
the 8.05am train from Waterloo to Salisbury and arriving at 11.48am.
Yes, they arrived at 11.48, making it absolutely pointless to put poison on the Skripal's
door, as they had already gone out.
The perfume bottle was probably concealed in a light grey backpack carried by Petrov.
It was "probably concealed" in that backpack because, as I said above, there's no evidence
either of those men ever knew the perfume bottle existed. You never see it in their
possession.
Oh, and the backpack would have to contain TWO bottles of perfume – because the police
aren't sure the bottle Rowley found 3 months later was the same bottle, and Rowley reported it
was unopened and wrapped in cellophane. Perhaps Luke should have read the details of the case
instead of trolling IMDB looking for movie titles with "plane" in them or googling "insouciant"
to see if he was using it right.
From Salisbury station the two men set off on foot. It was a short walk of about a mile to
Skripal's semi-detached home in Christie Miller Road.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no
evidence they ever returned.
At Skripal's house the Russians smeared or sprayed novichok on to the front door handle,
police say.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no
evidence they ever returned.
It doesn't matter if Borishov and Petrov re-tiled the bathroom with novichok grouting or hid
novichok in the battery compartment of Sergei's TV remote or replaced all his lightbulbs with
novichok bombs that explode when you use the clapper .according to everything we've been told
so far Sergei and Julia were literally never in that house again.
Luke seems to write a lot about this case, considering he is barely acquainted with the most
basic facts of it.
The moment went unobserved
True. There is not a single piece of footage, photograph or eyewitness placing these men
within a hundred feet of the Skripals, or their house. The "moment went unobserved" is an
incredibly dishonest way of phrasing this, "the moment is entirely theoretical" is rather
fairer. Or, if you want to be honest "it's possible none of this happened".
At some point on their walk back they must have tossed away the bottle, which at this
point was too dangerous to try to smuggle back through customs.
It's all falling into place perfectly isn't it?
At some point the two men, who we never see holding or carrying the bottle, must have
thrown it away because three months later someone else found it.
They took it through customs once but couldn't a second time, because reasons.
Also one of them was smiling a sort of "I just poisoned somebody" smile:
At 1.05pm the men were recorded in Fisherton Street on their way back to the station. They
appeared more relaxed, Petrov grinning even.
Those evil bastards.
By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench
in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone.
No Luke: By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a
park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the ALLEGED poisoners were
gone.
Alleged is an important word for example, there is a marked difference between being an
ALLEGED plagiarist, and being a
plagiarist .
The visitors were captured on CCTV one more time, at Heathrow airport. It was 7.28pm and
both men were going through security, Petrov first, wheeling a small black case. In his right
hand was a shiny red object, his Russian passport. Police believe the passport was genuine,
his name not. In other words, that it was a sophisticated espionage operation carried out by
a state or state entities.
You see? Nobody thought the passport was fake, which means it was a really good fake
. So the Russian state must have been in on it. This is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
If the passport did look fake, that would be evidence that the men were spies and
therefore the Russian state was in on it.
Harding has created a narrative where there is literally no development that could ever
challenge his conclusions.
Seemingly, the GRU plan – executed two weeks before Russia's presidential election
– had worked perfectly.
This is an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy – two things
happen at the same time, therefore they happen for the same reason. It's a maneuver we at OffG
refer to as "the Harding", where you state two separate assertions or facts one after the other
in such a way as to imply a relationship, without ever making a solid statement. I'll give you
an example:
Luke Harding was born in 1968, mere weeks before the brutal assassination of Robert
Kennedy.
Harding is suggesting some sort of connection between the election and the poisoning. He
can't STATE it, because then he has to explain his reasoning – and there isn't any.
Putin, and Russia as a whole, had nothing to gain from poisoning an ex-spy they had released
nearly a decade earlier, especially on the eve of a Presidential election and mere weeks before
the World Cup. There's no argument to be made, so he doesn't attempt to make one, he just makes
a snide and baseless insinuation.
Vladimir Putin, the man whom a public inquiry found in 2016 had "probably" signed off on
the operation to kill Litvinenko. The UK security services say a "body of evidence" points to
the GRU.
"Probably" is also a big word. For example, there's a marked difference between "probably
being a plagiarist" and "being a
plagiarist" .
It seems clear that Moscow continues to view Britain as a playground for undercover
operations and is relatively insouciant about the consequences, diplomatic and political. The
Skripal attack may have misfired. But the message, mingling contempt and arrogance, is there
for all to see: we can smite our enemies whenever and wherever we want, and there is nothing
you can do about it.
This is the second time Luke has used the word "insouciant" in two days, which means that
word of the day
calendar was a probably sound investment, but he forgot to flip it over this morning.
Other than that, this final paragraph is nothing but paranoia.
The Russians were TRYING to make it obvious, to send a message. But were also lazy and
arrogant. And yet also left no solid evidence because they are experts at espionage. They had
no motive except being mean, and couldn't even be bothered to make sure they did it right. They
want us all to know they did it, but will never admit it.
The actual truth of the situation can be summed up in a few bullet points.
Currently:
There is no evidence these men were using forged documents. There is no evidence
these men were travelling under aliases or assumed names. There is no evidence these men ever
had any contact with Sergei Skripal's house. There is no evidence these men ever had any
contact with Sergei Skripal or his daughter. There is no evidence these men were Russian
intelligence assets or had any military training. There is no evidence these men ever possessed
or had any contact with the perfume bottle found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th. They have
visited the UK before, not on intelligence business (as far as we know). Their movements don't
align with the timeline of Skripal's illness.
The entire narrative is created around half a dozen screen caps of two (allegedly) Russian
men, not behaving in any way illegally or even suspiciously. All the rest is fiction, created
by a hack to service an agenda. This isn't one of those "You couldn't make it up" stories, it's
not that incredible. It's just insulting and stupid.
This professor looks like a typical neoliberal professor of economics, as usually such people are in the US Universities. His level
of understanding the history of Russia and Baltic countries suggests that he is a mixture of n ignorant jerk with a propagandist. Russia
was royally raped by the West in 1991-2000. The damage was probably comparable with the damage from communism. Trillions were looted.
"Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless
armies fight each other over their territories" how about Dresden, Nagasaki, North Korea, Fallujah, Aleppo to name a few. Noam Chomsky
has observed: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
Notable quotes:
"... Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only "crime" was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths. ..."
"... Bill Anderson travels, but sometimes he sees what he wants to see. ..."
"... Seeing the splinter in other men eyes. Not the tree in own. After the USSR birth, a U.S, with friends, invaded Russia. From that moment to now history is full of conflicted horrors. Standing out WW 2, and many more like Korea and Vietnam. Scars can be seeing all over the planet except the U.S. The writer of article must be a exceptional person. ..."
"... Their best weapon is "weaponized credit" which sheep see but don't understand ..."
"... The [neoliberal] deep state is about impoverishing the masses so that they keep their mouths shut, they don't give a rats ass if your liberal or conservative, black or white, yellow or orange, just keep your mouth shut about them. ..."
So, we drove onto St. Petersburg mostly on a two-lane road cut through the boreal forest of the northern latitudes. It was here
that I witnessed something that amazed all of us – how vehicle drivers cooperated to turn two lanes into de facto four lanes of traffic.
As faster drivers moved to pass slower vehicles, the slower vehicles would move onto the asphalt shoulder and even as our bus
moved over the center line, the oncoming traffic would shift to the right, too. It all was spontaneously coordinated and everyone
on the road was in on the scheme.
Entering St. Petersburg was an experience in itself. With five million people spread over a number of islands, we saw new high-rises
standing alongside the old Soviet-era apartment buildings. No one, however, comes to St. Petersburg to see the relics of the U.S.S.R.
Instead, they come to see the czarist palaces and the stunning 18thand 19th century architecture that dominates the city. It may
be the birthplace of the Bolshevik Revolution, but people come to pay homage to the way of life the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy
and to Czar Nicholas II and his family,
infamously and brutally murdered on Lenin's
orders in 1918.
A century later, the bones of the last royal family of Russia lie safely in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral. Despite more than 70
years of communist rule, and despite all of the blood spilled to keep the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and the others in power, and despite
the massive propaganda that ordinary people in the U.S.S.R. had to endure, St. Petersburg is the city of the czars, not the Bolsheviks.
Parts of St. Petersburg are run down – as nearly the entire city was during the days of communism – but other parts of it absolutely
are amazing to see. Likewise, I enjoyed interacting with the locals and especially the young people that made up most of the workforce
of our hotel, from running the desks to cleaning our rooms. The legendary dour Soviet worker was replaced by a competent employee
who patiently answered our questions and took care of whatever we needed. For all of the talk in the USA that Russia is a dictatorship
under the iron thumb of Vladimir Putin, Russia did not seem like a dictatorship. Our Russian tour guide often would take a swipe
at Putin (including likening his face to a painting of dogs at the Hermitage) and life itself there seemed to have the kind of normalcy
that could not have been possible when people were compelled to inform on one another.
The St. Petersburg we visited was not the Leningrad that Logan Robinson described in his humorous 1982 book
An American in Leningrad , which
described life as a post-graduate student living among Russian students and developing friendships with local writers, artists, and
musicians, people who often harassed, persecuted, and arrested by local authorities. That city was an armed camp full of soldiers
and had been relegated to being a backwater by Joseph Stalin and his successors who made Moscow the Soviet "showplace," leaving the
city founded by Peter the Great to succumb to the northerly elements.
... ... ...
Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless
armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose
only "crime" was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching
family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths.
spooz ,
This article is red-baiting propaganda, aren't we getting enough of that from the Democratic party Everybody with a brain realizes
that there are differences between communism and the democratic socialism that is becoming popular in the US, but some the Mises
misers like to dupe the ignorant into conflating the two.
Democratic Socialism:
In very simplistic terms, paraphrasing from A. J. Elwood, Democratic Socialism:
Work together to ensure social equality and to improve one another's lives.
Reject the exploitation of all peoples and uphold the principles of equality.
Value the environment and use our natural resources in a sustainable manner.
Ensure free and open elections, where each citizen has a voice and a vested interest in his or her government.
Provide free education to all to ensure equal opportunity and the free flow of ideas, opinions, and information.
Protect and assist the disadvantaged using surplus from both public and privately owned enterprise.
Deliver quality health care to all citizens, regardless of their needs or socio-economic status
The US has let the excesses of Capitalism control our country, with wealthy owning our legislature and receiving bail outs
and tax cuts to preserve their wealth, while a growing percentage of the formerly middle class is thrown under the bus, with no
savings and no way to make a living wage. Those millennials don't see any way of achieving what used to be the American Dream
and are looking for some help with their struggle.
Most modern countries have a mix of socialism and capitalism.
"The United Nations World Happiness Report
2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, where the
Nordic model of social democracy is employed, with Denmark
topping the list." (wikipedia)
moon_unit ,
Bill Anderson travels, but sometimes he sees what he wants to see.
Let's take some points:
-He saw a "*small* railroad boxcar". Very romantic but - Soviet boxcars were fricken' huge, the rail gauge is massive. Pics
with a person next to it, or it didn't happen. IF it was very small, it was more likely a technical wagon for railway engineers,
not for "cargo" of any kind. Plus, anyone alive bitching about it clearly had parents , most likely that never left
to go anywhere , you know what I'm saying here?
-He went to Jurmala sea resort and misunderstood it, thought it was "all Soviet", all built for "nomenklatura". This is not
unusual to think so, but he was wrong - it was largely built as a Spa town in the 1850s during the Russian Empire times by the
majority wealthy *German* ethnic group in Riga. In fact German was the main language in the city up to 1891. Most of those large
spa town wooden houses were built for German traders - who traded with the locals outside Riga, Brits and Russians. The city had
a British Mayor George Armitstead from 1901 - 1912 during the Russian Empire - a civil engineer and the city's most popular mayor
ever, who built the first tram lines, hospitals, covered markets and so on.
The Balts kicked those German traders out starting from around 1880 or so. If you check out cemeteries you will see a sudden
transition from elegant old German noble script to badly-spelled early variant local language with German styles and lettering.
Of course that improved as they created formalised spellings for words in the local languages.
The author fails to mention all the other occupants that he doesn't want you to know about - briefly-
-German Crusaders (Knights of the Livonian Order / Teutonic Knights)- Holy Roman Empire - 12thC
-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 16thC
-Swedes 1621-1710
-Russian Tsarist Empire 1710 - 1918 -trading with German Riga / Brits and Russian language only imposed officially in 1891
-Local people perpetrators - no kidding, Herberts Cukurs, Viktors Arajs?
Photos of people in mass graves - sure you didn't "make a mistake"? - if you mean at Skede beach, Rumbuli and Bikernieki forests,
and Salapspils, those were killed by everyones "special Germans* (and of course the local militia commanders Cukurs and Arajs)
in everyone's "special German 3-year era" from 1942-44. Oddly, no-one seems interested in the hundreds of years of genuine
Geman noble culture and trading in what was essentially a German Empire freeport ...
Certainly there was a book about some Soviet killing mass graves elsewhere but it turns out the book about that was funded
and printed by a certain Josef Goebbels? No doubt it was true, but aren't people a little embarrassed at carrying that book, perhaps
a different author at least, maybe a historian would be less shameful to carry around?
-Freer wealthier - oh sure, if you put aside mass emigration, houses without heat or water or sewerage, destitute pensioners
walking in the streets in winter with supermarket bags on their legs to try to avoid frostbite - not always successfully
, by the way.
-"The citizens of the Baltic countries were not the only ones suffering under communism. No other city in the U.S.S.R. underwent
the horror of a 900-day siege by German armies during World War II" - that's hardly their fault, now is it?
-"as I sat in the Old Town section of Riga eating and drinking and listening to live music, I strained to imagine the place
as a battle zone with death and destruction all around where now I sat" - yeah, like when the Russians and Brits were trying
to keep out Napoleon's armies? Hmmm?
-"I imagined the stores that now are full of goods and restaurants with food and drink being empty or stocked with subpar merchandise
in the aftermath of the war as the Soviets imposed their primitive communist system and oppressed the people in the name
of "liberating" them for many decades until they finally left in the early 1990s"- you have a great imagination. You should write
film scripts for Hollywood. Some of those people are still walking around, try telling them they are primitives.
-"No, I cannot see people in our cities having experienced anything like what the people of the Baltics and St. Petersburg had
to tolerate for decades." - tolerate things like electronics factories, car and van production, science institutes, shipbuilding
and repair, ladies who aren't afraid of math or computers, that kind of thing? But sure, they couldn't get debt, mass prostitution,
Hasselhoff and blue jeans, consumer junk or type II diabetes, that is a total provocation, right you are .
LA_Goldbug ,
I also smell a lot of BS in this article. I visited Eastern Europe before and know exactly what is being mentioned. Elites
IN ALL COUNTRIES have their favorite hideaways. That is a norm in the West, East and anywhere else.
Boxcars at train stations are nothing new. Latvia is poor and probably has lots of them from way way back because THAT WAS
THE STANDARD design for a multi-purpose wagon in Eastern Europe. Why throw away something that does the job ?? But to say it was
"the one" used to transport people to camps is a huge stretch. Hell I could point to Boeings and say "That is the one sending
people to Guantanamo".
demoses ,
As an eastern European I can tell you that I do not get triggered by old monuments / words / city names. I guess that is a
"no real problems" American problem... where you lack other problems and have a hard time looking around what could trigger you...
"oh no! A company called MANpower!!! MAN???" and maybe "country called MonteNEGRO? How dare they?" ;)
Nexus789 ,
These Mises wankers write as if they have found utopia and the US is some kind of 'market' paradise They are foot soldiers
for the one percent.
LA_Goldbug ,
Here is how Utopia looks lest the Eu readers think otherwise.
Seeing the splinter in other men eyes. Not the tree in own. After the USSR birth, a U.S, with friends, invaded Russia.
From that moment to now history is full of conflicted horrors. Standing out WW 2, and many more like Korea and Vietnam. Scars
can be seeing all over the planet except the U.S. The writer of article must be a exceptional person.
LA_Goldbug ,
Their best weapon is "weaponized credit" which sheep see but don't understand.
CaptainObvious ,
"Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and
have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories."
Sure we can. Look at Detroit. Look at Baltimore. Look at Chicago. Those look pretty warn-torn to me. But I guess the "War on
Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" don't count, eh? And I guess drive-by shootings and purposefully-fomented riots and civil asset
forfeiture and excessive taxation aren't weapons of mass destruction either.
"Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only "crime" was not being what the government
leadership wanted them to be."
Yeah, we tax mules are pretty familiar with the bowel-crippling fear that any envelope marked "IRS" causes. Men have certainly
been introduced to the economic execution of being stripped of all their assets because they knocked some slut up. People of all
ages and colors have been locked away in jail for 50 years for having a baggy of green stuff in their pocket. And, the horror!,
it's now a crime punishable by jail time to call someone by the wrong gender pronouns in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.
But yeah, economic execution and unjustified imprisonment don't happen here in the Land of the Free ™ , so it's all good.
"We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where
they surely would die terrible deaths."
Oh, sure we can. We see starving people every day on the streets, made homeless by a drug addiction that was introduced to
them by a licensed physician. We watch family and friends shipped off to Bankruptcy court because some fucktarded jury awarded
a scam artist seven figures for manufacturing a slip-and-fall in the Mom & Pop Pizza Palace. We watch our loved ones die every
day from medical malpractice and toxic prescriptions.
No equivalency, you say? Well, to that I say balls. Russia was never free. After they abolished serfdom in the nineteenth century,
the system was still in place that the aristocracy held most of the land and the peasants farmed that land for a pittance. In
America, the laws abolished slavery and sweatshops, but the system is still in place that the tycoons own most of the assets and
the peasants sweat their best years away in a cubicle, or behind a cash register, or under someone else's machinery, for a pittance.
Am I advocating for communism? Hell, no! I'm advocating for an end to the corporatocracy and small-business-killing legislation.
Most ordinary Americans who become wealthy do so because they had the gumption to start their own business. But they can't do
that if all laws favor the already-established, and they can't do that if they're required to burn half a lifetime's worth of
cash for an official piece of paper from a gubmint-subsidized center of indoctrination, and they can't do that if they're supposed
to be licensed and bonded to do something simple like trim the hair of another human.
OverTheHedge ,
Hyperbole to make your point is fine, but the reality is that fat, soft seppos have absolutely no idea.
Actually, that last one proves me wrong - there are SOME Americans who know precisely what a destroyed city looks like - they
have been doing the destroying for the last 20 years, and at fully up to speed with what it entails. The question will be: who
will they be destroying for, should it ever come home to roost?
ddiduck ,
The [neoliberal] deep state is about impoverishing the masses so that they keep their mouths shut, they don't give a rats
ass if your liberal or conservative, black or white, yellow or orange, just keep your mouth shut about them.
Best is if you fight amongst yourselves and play make believe. Do you feel prosperous now? They like it when you you really
get violent toward each other, great scam huhhh? It is called misdirection, want to toast some asses start with Soros, Rothschilds
nad Rockefeller, greatest criminals against humanity! By the way, these mother fk'rs are satanic and bleed children out regularly!
Now take pause and consider this when deciding who the real villain in your unfair world is!
louie1,
Like all Zionist globalist neocon revolutions they are bloody, indiscriminate and sociopathic. The same gang are running the
USA now. And the world central banking system.
I followed that assault on Fallujah very closely at the time. Remember that the US Marines
had tried to take over the town some months before but met with very fierce resistance and
were chased out of town. Therefore there was an element of revenge and also punishment about
this second assault. First they occupied the civilian hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah
(a war crime). They then systemically bombed and destroyed the power station, the water
pumping station and the sewage works (all war crimes).
Then as you point out they used white phosphorous munitions (a war crime), but there was
something peculiar in the immediate aftermath. Having eventually successfully subdued the
town, US troops went around the central area and systematically shot out, and thus drained,
all the water towers (these were numerous as many houses had them). Then military bulldozers
moved in and removed all the topsoil from a couple of square kilometres. This led to
speculation that some form of illegal chemical weapons had been deployed.
Mad Dog indeed.
"... 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court ..."
"... The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The Toilet"). ..."
"... So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class. ..."
Libyan War The Truth
The Great Tribes of Libya have begun their cleansing of the terrorists brought into their country illegally by NATO in their 2011
invasion of Libya.
These terrorists include groups such as Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Ansar Al Sharia, ISIS,
Salafists, Wahabists and other assorted small criminal mercenary militia gangs. All of these militia gangs have been controlling
Tripoli since 2011, ILLEGALLY. These terrorists are working with the UN puppet government, appointed by the UN (headed by the criminal
Serraj) without any authority or vote of the Libyan people. These terrorist gangs answer to no laws or rules. They roam the streets
armed and attack or steal at will. The Libyan people have suffered under these gangs ever since NATO, Obama, Clinton, McCain and
others invaded their country with NATO using a false flag lie of a revolution to justify their war crimes.
Today, many of the largest tribes in Libya joined the Tarhouna tribe near Tripoli to support them in the cleansing of the rubbish
controlling the city of Tripoli. The people of Libya who are all members of tribes and represented by the tribes, have had enough.
Recently, as I reported earlier, 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court made up of criminal militias.
These young men had broken no laws, their only crime was being members of the Libyan army fighting against NATO invaders in 2011.
This was just one more criminal act that pushed the Libyan people (tribes) over the edge. Even though the tribes have no support
from outside like the militias who receive weapons and money from the US (via Turkey), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Sudan; the Great
Tribes of Libya have joined together to take back their sovereignty no matter what.
The terrorist gangs (militias) fearing the loss of their "golden goose" have called their brother terrorists from all over Libya
to support them in their battle. These terrorists (Salafists and Wahabists, et. al) are being flown into the Mitiga Airport in Tripoli.
The Mitiga airport, the old Wheelus Air Base , is being
controlled by the terrorists.
So, as the world watches, the Great Tribes of Libya, standing alone with all their Libyan brothers and sisters, take on the New
World order and their proxy army of terrorists.
We ask the people of the world to stand with their Libyan brothers and sisters as they fight the Zionist New World Order, Khazarian
mafia cabal. The Cabal has taken their country by illegal means and placed their criminals on the ground to keep the Libyan people
from their security and sovereignty.
The Great tribes of Libya are showing the world how to fight, they deserve your support and your respect. God bless them all as
they fight against the evil that is permeating the entire world today.
Comment: More from
Sputnik:
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on the conflicting parties in Libya to immediately cease fire and sit down at the
negotiating table, his spokesman said in a statement on Saturday.
"The Secretary-General calls on all parties to immediately cease hostilities and abide by the ceasefire agreement brokered
by the United Nations and the Reconciliation Committees," the secretary-general's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.
Guterres condemned the continued hostilities in and near Tripoli, in particular, the indiscriminate shelling, which killed
and injured civilians, including children. He offered his deepest condolences to the victims' relatives.
"He urges all parties to grant humanitarian relief for those in need, particularly those who are trapped by the fighting,"
the spokesman added.
Ghassan Salame, a special representative of the UN secretary-general and the head of the United Nations Support Mission in
Libya (UNSMIL), will continue to work and cooperate with all parties to achieve a long-term political agreement acceptable to
all, he concluded.
[F]ighting erupted on August 26 reportedly between local militias and Kani tribal fighters from Tarhouna, southeast of Tripoli.
According to the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) NGO, heavy shelling in residential areas resulted in an unspecified number of
casualties and approximately 8,000 refugees and asylum seekers remaining trapped in closed detention centers in dire humanitarian
conditions.
The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The
Toilet").
So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed
the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class.
But that's their plan - as enacted further daily - here in the West, too.
What is interesting is that Wolffe links the op-ed and publishing Bob Woodward's latest
book: "Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk."
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort. ..."
"... Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly. ..."
If you really believe your boss is a threat to the constitution which you've
taken an oath to protect, perhaps you should consider quitting or going public. As in: going on
Capitol Hill to hold a press conference to urge impeachment.
In this regard, and only in this regard, our anonymous whistleblower has handed the crazy
boss a degree of righteous indignation.
"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist," tweeted the madman in the
attic, "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at
once!"
Donald, we feel your pain, albeit briefly. Your internal enemies are indeed gutless, and if
you feel better putting that in ALL CAPS, that's fine. Let it out.
But that bit about turning people over to you for national security reasons is kind of the
point here. If you'll allow us to summarize the GUTLESS person's arguments: you are
fundamentally a threat to democracy and national security yourself. You are indeed, as your
lawyers have pointed out repeatedly, your own worst witness.
This much we know from this week's other bombshell in the shape of Bob Woodward's latest
book. Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk.
... ... ...
Mr or Ms GUTLESS describes Trump's decisions as "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally
reckless", while chief of staff John Kelly says Trump is "an idiot" living in a place called
"Crazytown". This revelation led to the priceless statement from Kelly where he had to deny
calling the president an idiot.
Somewhere in Texas, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson is swirling a glass of bourbon
muttering that he lost his job for calling Trump a moron.
Second, Trump's staffers are enabling the very horrors they claim to hate, while grandiosely
pretending to be doing the opposite.
Mr or Ms GUTLESS says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th
amendment" in what he imagines is a clear sign they can distinguish reality from reality
TV.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Trump cabinet: please know that you will not be accepted into
the next edition of Profiles in Courage for your early whispers. If you truly believe the
president is incapacitated, you should perhaps consider raising your voice to at least
conversational level, if you're not inclined to bellow from the mountaintops. Library rules are
inoperative at this point.
Given the weight of evidence, even the most diehard Trump defenders are now conceding the
obvious, by signing up to the GUTLESS gang's self-promotion. Brit Hume, a Fox News veteran, let
the cat out of the bag when he tweeted that it was a "good
thing" they were restraining Trump "from his most reckless impulses".
This is how the pirate ship Trump eventually sinks to the ocean's floor. You can fool some
of Fox News's viewers all of the time, and you can fool all of them some of the time.
But no fool wants to drown with the captain we all know is plain crazy.
It's someone high up that makes policy decisions, brags about everything they have done to
help America despite Cheetos interfering. Why now? Pence wants it known that he is running
the government not useless trump whom has passed nothing. Pence will come out as the author
when Don is removed from office. Which could be nearing since this OPED is likely to expose
him. Maybe he planned it that way.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's
White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each
other.
Clearly a massive conspiracy. And one which Trump is helpfully participating in by
constantly saying and doing stuff which accords with the pictures they're all painting.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White
House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other. All
these sources come together to display a rather coherent image of a chaotic White House led
by a man who's not bright enough to realize he's in over his head.
The New York Times attack piece was anonymous. It is therefore completely unverifiable and
could have been written by anyone, including any of the politically biased NYT editorial
team, or by Bob Woodward to publicize his new book. It's junk news.
I'm firmly convinced that when it's all said and done we'll be able to represent his
presidency as an MMO boss fight. This is the bit where everyone concentrates fire on the
glowy spot until the enrage mechanic kicks in. In fact it looks like the mad flailing has
started and now everyone will try not to stand in the AoE as they DPS him down.
Mussolini was in power for twenty years before his functionaries deposed him to keep the
regime intact while removing its newly-a-liability head. Mussolini was the legal (if
abhorrent) premier of a coalition government in a liberal-democratic (both words with a pinch
of salt) regime for his first two years, until winning a parliamentary majority of his own;
indeed, after the leader of the Socialist Party was killed by his supporters, his coalition
partners almost pulled out of government: that's not a totalitarian dictatorship, but what
was then called "pre-fascism", and today we'd call it an 'illiberal democracy'. The
dictatorship was informal (result of a supportive majority) until the constitional reform of
1928 - five years into his government.
Thinking that all will turn out fine because American democracy is under strain but
generally intact, is a dangerous complacency. All interwar autocrats went through a
transition of first governing under the old constitution, slowly undermining opposition, then
installing a new organic law. Perhaps all will turn out well in the US, and Trump will leave
office with the old 'rules of the game' untouched - but that can't be assumed, and we won't
know until after he is gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back
- we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
Truckloads of "anonymous bollocks" reported by credible, highly respected journalists with
excellent reasons to protect their sources.
"Anonymous" bollocks" which syncs perfectly with events and pronouncements by the
president himself - including numerous firings of so many of the "best people" he hired.
"Anonymous bollocks" confirmed in evidence/testimony presented publicly and under oath in
court.
Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is
prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story.
Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort.
There is a segment of this country that is willfully ignorant because a con man told them
to be. We really need to ignore this shrinking number of fuck-nuts and just out vote
them.
We live in a democracy. If you choose to use facebook as your only source of news about the
world, it is not because a con man told you to, it is because you are just too plain stupid
to go looking elsewhere.
I'm surprised that no one has compared the author of the anonymous article in the New York
Times with "Deep Throat", who anonymously met Bernstein and Woodward in an underground
parking garage in Washington to spill the beans about Watergate. Deep Throat turned out to be
Mark Felt, a high-ranking official in the FBI who kept working against Nixon under cover and
whose name was revealed only a few years ago.
Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he
or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the
Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation,
ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem
prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and
resigning publicly.
Screw whoever it is, they are obviously no hero to the American people.
Nice post and well put.
I am currently sitting in an office where 30% are blaggers of the highest order. They talk
and kiss ass - but ultimately - deep down - know they cannot do they do not know the job. The
responsibiltiy they have will make you shudder. I have told friends and they are visibly
shaken that this can happen. But I think it is the way of the world at the moment. They dare
not argue with me for full knowledge they will be sent packing, they already have been but on
"minor" non work related items.
"Fake it til you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences
however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will
get found out in a week.
Yes the likes of Trump are a reflection of just that.
The mad thing is - I now am of the belief that I could do that job ie President of the US.
That is madness.
to foil the wishes of the elected members of government.
No. Just one member. And that one member isn't a supreme leader. You need to look
elsewhere for those types of leaders - they're usually standing next to Trump while he fawns
over them.
Personally I'm grateful for a bureaucracy that frustrates bad ideas - wherever they
come
from. That's part of their role.
Everything, with the exception of Steve Bannon in Michael Wolf's book, has been anonymous.
These people write things, attribute them to, say, John Kelly, then Kelly says I NEVER SAID
THAT and we're left to believe whom?
If there is genuine resistance inside the White House to Trump- If it is at all like
anybody says- then I would imagine that a genuine top level appointee would go on camera,
throw themselves on their sword, and speak to the American people. Until such a time I
question what is Woodward's agenda? Do I trust Omarosa? Is Michael Wolf credible? What are
their goals? I'm not blind but I want to see more than anonymous. And until then... I don't
believe it.
I agree, I'd hate to defend him either, but you can't help thinking he has a point by
calling this person gutless. Either stand up in public and say it or, if s/he really is
working in the background to save us from Trump's excesses, then surely you're better off
(and the country as a whole) staying there and not alerting him?
It's the New York Times, and no, they certainly haven't been against Trump since his
election.
Their lead White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, still writes extremely
understanding pieces of Trump. And she's been covering the man for almost 15 years, so one
would think she had the measure of the man long ago.
More importantly, the NYT threw the election for Trump by first exonerating Trump of any
Russian collusion - which was false - and by covering the last-minute Comey statements on the
Clinton emails in the worst negative light possible for the Democratic candidate. The NYT
turned out to be wrong, but the damage was done.
The NYT even tried to put new faces on their opinion staff with close connections to
actual American neo-Nazis (!) and only failed when old tweets came to light.
I'm not quite sure what the NYT is playing at - I guess it's easy to play the devil's
advocate in artsy-fartsy, liberal New York - but they most certainly have not been
against Trump from January 2017 at all.
Trump is not a freedom fighter, he is not your Great White Messiah, he's not an advocate
for blue collar American citizens. Trump is a stupid, vulgar, greedy old fat racist who
conned his way into the White House. There has been a lot of talk in all mediums about his
unsuitability for the office, and his obvious ties to the Kremlin, but there has been no
organized effort to remove him from office, no matter what you might have read on Qanon.
You think the entire population is incapable of thinking about serious issues because there's
some tittle-tattle on twitter? When did that happen? No-one would work because there's always
fluffy kittens on YouTube.
Fascinating to see the tinfoil hat brigade turn out in such numbers to rant and rave about the
"Deep State!" and poor, honest Donald Trump as a freedom fighter who is daily sacrificing
himself for the good people of America.
Why do bullies always pretend to be victims?
As with science, human nature can usually boiled down to the most likely answer, the simple
observable truth. Such as; Donald Trump's entire life is a story of greed, vulgarity and self
promotion to the exclusion of all else. He did not, in his 8th decade, suddenly develop a
desire to serve the American people at his own expense. He is in the White House doing exactly
what he has always done, he is pursuing whatever makes him happiest in the moment with no
regard to consequences, morality or even common sense.
DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT IS BEING PUT OUT IN THE WESTERN MEDIA. THE MEDIA AND ZIONIST NEW WORLD
ORDER CABAL IS ATTEMPTING TO FABRICATE THE SAME PROBLEM AS IN 2011 BY PRINTING LIES.
THERE IS NO CEASEFIRE, THERE IS NO TRUCE.
THE FIGHT IN TRIPOLI IS BETWEEN THE LIBYAN PEOPLE (TRIBAL ARMY) AND THE TERRORIST GANGS
CALLED MILITIAS.
These are the facts on the ground today in Tripoli:
1. The combined army of the Great Tribes of Libya is fighting against the terrorists and
mercenaries in Tripoli. These terrorists call themselves militias, but they are nothing more
than hired thugs, thieves, murderers and criminals made up of Muslim Brotherhood, LIFG, Ansar
Al Sharia, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. These terrorists were brought into Libya by the illegal NATO
war against the sovereign country of Libya. They are supported by the US (via Turkey), Qatar,
Sudan and Saudi Arabia, they work with the UN puppet government in Tripoli. As long as they
roam the streets of Tripoli with their weapons there is no security, no peace and no life for
the innocent Libyans.
2. All Tribes of Libya support this army.
3. All legitimate Libyan people in Tripoli and throughout Libya support the tribes and are
against these terrorist militias
4. The Great Tribes of Libya will not stop until all terrorists are dead or gone outside of
Libya. The terms of any truce with the tribal army would mean the end of the criminal puppet UN
government and the end of the terrorist militias, so there will not be a truce.
On September 2, 2018 Reuters reported that 400 prisoners escaped from the Ain Zara prison in
Tripoli. The truth is that the army of the Libyan tribes attacked the prison and effected the
freedom of 400 Libyan soldiers about 5pm on September 2. Amongst those 400 were the 45 young
men to be assassinated as condemned last week by the kangaroo militia court in Tripoli. In
2011, when NATO invaded they opened all the prisons in Libya and let out all the criminals to
help attack the Libyan people. Most if not all of the people imprisoned in Libya now were
people who were fighting against NATO or were against the NATO take over (working in the
government).
I am fully aware as are the honorable leaders of the tribes in Libya that all of our
conversations are monitored as we are the only true source of information of the activities of
the Libyan tribes and their struggle to regain their sovereignty. Having stated that, I want to
editorialize by saying that the illegal activities of the US mercenaries in Libya concerning
their Kangaroo court and their decision to assassinate 45 mostly dark skinned Libyan soldiers,
was the straw that broke the camels back. This left the legitimate Libyan people with no option
except to go into the streets and wrest control of their country from these paid
mercenaries.
One of the tribal spies inside these criminal militias told us 2 weeks ago that all the
criminal militias have been frightened by the impending death of John McCain, they consider him
their brother, founder, funder and protector. McCain had protected them from all scrutiny and
allowed their barbarianism. The death of McCain would mean all their sins would be exposed.
They wanted to kill all the prisoners, but their UN handlers said the militias must have the
appearance of legitimacy. Consequently, the kangaroo court was set in motion.
The great tribes of Libya have taken on the battle to free their country of the terrorists
and puppets placed there by the New World Order Zionists who in effect own NATO. This is a
serious battle for their sovereignty. They take this on with no outside help, unlike Syria who
has had the aid of Russia, Iran and China, the Libyan people are alone in this battle. They are
battling the same criminals as are the Syrian army. They know this is a battle of life or death
for them, they are not a large population, they have already lost over one million people, they
are now only 5.5 million. As the world watches Syria, please let it not forget the fight for
freedom happening now in Libya.
About the Author:
James and Joanne Moriarty were appointed official spokespersons of the Tribes of Libya by
their Supreme Leader in 2012. For their story and mission to get the message out and help the
Libyan people, go here.
The Taliban says that in order to end "this long war" the "lone option is to end the
occupation of Afghanistan and nothing more."
In June, the
17th American nominated to take command of the war, Lieutenant General Scott Miller,
appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee where Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled him
on what he would do differently in order to bring the conflict to a conclusion. "I cannot
guarantee you a timeline or an end date," was Miller's confident reply .
Did the senators then send him packing? Hardly. He was, in fact, easily confirmed and starts
work this month. Nor is there any chance Congress will use its power of the purse to end the
war. The 2019 budget request for U.S. operations in Afghanistan -- topping out at
$46.3 billion -- will certainly be approved.
#Winning
All of this seeming futility brings us back to the Vietnam War, Kissinger, and that magic
number, 4,000,000,029,057 -- as well as the question of what an American military victory would
look like today. It might surprise you, but it turns out that winning wars is still
possible and, perhaps even more surprising, the U.S. military seems to be doing just that.
Let me explain.
In Vietnam, that military aimed to "
out-guerrilla the guerrilla ." It never did and the United States suffered a crushing
defeat. Henry Kissinger -- who presided over the last years of that conflict as national
security advisor and then secretary of state -- provided his own
concise take on one of the core tenets of asymmetric warfare: "The conventional army loses
if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose." Perhaps because that eternally
well-regarded but hapless statesman articulated it, that formula was bound -- like so
much else he
touched -- to crash
and burn .
In this century, the United States has found a way to turn Kissinger's martial maxim on its
head and so rewrite the axioms of armed conflict. This redefinition can be proved by a simple
equation:
Expressed differently, the United States has not won a major conflict since 1945; has a
trillion-dollar national security budget; has had 17 military commanders in the last 17
years in Afghanistan, a country plagued by 23,744 "
security incidents " (the most ever recorded) in 2017 alone; has spent around
$3 trillion , primarily on that war and the rest of the war on terror, including the
ongoing conflict in Iraq, which then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld swore , in 2002, would be
over in only "five days or five weeks or five months," but where approximately
5,000 U.S. troops remain today; and yet 74% of the American people still express high
confidence in the U.S. military.
Let the math and the implications wash over you for a moment. Such a calculus definitively
disproves the notion that "the conventional army loses if it does not win." It also helps
answer the question of victory in the war on terror. It turns out that the U.S. military, whose
budget and influence in Washington have only grown in these years, now wins simply by not
losing -- a multi-trillion-dollar conventional army held to the standards of success once
applied only to under-armed, under-funded guerilla groups.
Unlike in the Vietnam War years, three presidents and the Pentagon, unbothered by fiscal
constraints, substantive congressional opposition, or a significant antiwar movement, have been
effectively pursuing this strategy, which requires nothing more than a steady supply of troops,
contractors, and other assorted camp followers; an endless parade of Senate-sanctioned
commanders; and an annual outlay of hundreds of billions of dollars. By these standards, Donald
Trump's open-ended, timetable-free "Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia" may prove to be the
winningest war plan ever. As he described it:
"From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating
ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass
terror attacks against America before they emerge."
Think about that for a moment. Victory's definition begins with "attacking our enemies" and
ends with the prevention of possible terror attacks. Let me reiterate: "victory" is defined as
"attacking our enemies." Under President Trump's strategy, it seems, every time the U.S. bombs
or shells or shoots at a member of one of those 20-plus terror groups in Afghanistan, the U.S.
is winning or, perhaps, has won. And this strategy is not specifically Afghan-centric. It can
easily be applied to American warzones in the Middle East and Africa -- anywhere, really.
Decades after the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military has finally solved the conundrum
of how to "out-guerrilla the guerrilla." And it couldn't have been simpler. You just adopt the
same definition of victory. As a result, a conventional army -- at least the U.S. military --
now loses only if it stops fighting. So long as unaccountable commanders wage benchmark-free
wars without congressional constraint, the United States simply cannot lose. You can't argue
with the math. Call it the rule of 4,000,000,029,057.
That calculus and that sum also prove, quite clearly, that America's beleaguered
commander-in-chief has gotten a raw deal on his victory parade. With apologies to the American
Legion, the U.S. military is now -- under the new rules of warfare -- triumphant and deserves
the type of celebration proposed by President Trump. After almost two decades of warfare, the
armed forces have lowered the bar for victory to the level of their enemy, the Taliban. What
was once the mark of failure for a conventional army is now the benchmark for success. It's a
remarkable feat and deserving, at the very least, of furious flag-waving, ticker
tape , and all the age-old trappings of victory.
Military conquests are the most ephemeral. Colonisation lasts longer. A mere century or two
in the case of Europeans. But even 900 years was not sufficient for Greeks to remove the
military n cultural threat posed by the Semites n Iranians of Southwest Asia, from
Alexander's conquest in 323 BC till the Muslim "reconquista" of 632 AD. Only demographic
"conquest" works in the end. If your women are not out-reproducing their women, then your
military will fail spectacularly n quickly, as what had once been your population transforms
into theirs. At that point, far from victory parades, you get to see statues to your former
heros torn down, n the highest "patriotism" becomes enthusiastically opening the gates to
what had once been your people's deadliest enemies.
1. keep Israhell on the map.
2. keep oil-producers taking dollars and only dollars for their oil
3. keep the CIA's poppy fields in Afghanistan in full production
on 1: ongoing victory, Israhell is still there
on2: Iraq and Libya back on the petrodollar, Iran pending
on3: ongoing victory, CIA drug ops proceeding normally
in ZOG-ruled 'Murka, every day is a day of new victories.
Mr. Turse is a comic. What a beautiful summary of the situation.
See a group, Imagine a possible threat, if both occur, bingo group =converts to
=>terrorist
and each member converts to a subliminal threat. Imagine the psychology that can be applied
to that bit of information to produce next day propaganda. Let us not forget the real media
that displays the propaganda is owned by just 6 entities; global access to knowledge and real
truth is gated and directed by search engine magic these two facts are IMO a real global
threat to humanity.
Win by not losing/ In such a scenario increasing numbers in a terror group or increasing
numbers of, or broadening the global distribution of terror groups produces more terror
fodder. The competent imagination derives its threats from terror fodder ( fodder fits any
size imagination).
When ever it is needed, proof of any non self-inflicted terrorism can be conjured from the
imagination. As Mr Turse says proof of terrorism can be found in the definition, proof of
victory can be found in the attack (as Mr. Turse so adequately expressed), and both are
recorded in the history of terrorism, which can be found in the daily media presentations and
the MSM annual report "Dollars Spent Chasing Terrorist from the Imagination". a joint
publication of the Internationally linked intelligence services and the global college of
paranoia producing propaganda.
victory is found in the attack because dollars start to flow; the more dollars the greater
the victory.
But how much of this would be possible if the reserve currency were no longer the dollar?
What will happen when Russia, China, Iran and others produce a new reserve currency or
displace existing reserve currencies by assigning exchange value to the currency of each
nation? The issuer of reserve currency measures its money supply by the checks he writes
[their checks never bounce], everyone else measures their currency by the amount of the
reserve currency they are able to keep in the bank ( to prevent their checks from
bouncing].
@Sean
Because although Health and Education Keynesianisn would work as well as the Military
variant, it also leads to an organised population mobilising for social change. And while
wars do end eventually, social spending seems to increase over time without limit. I was
almost sold on that explanation to my honest question, until the phrase
wars do end eventually
Would wars "ending eventually", not render the MIC obsolete? Is it not the MIC that
thrives on perpetual wars with seemingly endless supplies of cash to fund their wars? Even in
periods of relative calm (if ever, since WWII that is), is it not the constant threat of war
that keeps the military monstrosity grinding away?
74% of Americans express high confidence in their military? I wonder if 74% of Americans are
even aware that we're at war. I read somewhere that U.S. generals now define victory as
getting the Taliban to the bargaining table.
"out-guerrilla the guerrilla." was coined by Col. David Hackworth as out "G" ing the G and
was shown to work in the Delta. Read his book "About Face" or "Steel my soldiers hearts"
Elites, read Bolsheviks or Freemasons win no war, they do not win over diseases, crime, idiot
bla, bla. They are making money on them and they always turn to both sides. To the criminal
gangsters, to the associations of the sick, to the losers in war, they can win in 20 years,
etc. etc. This article is foam, foam. The Elites are trying to do everything and nobody
understands anything, so the elite wins – the banker always has his blood money.
the United States has not won a major conflict since 1945; has a trillion-dollar
national security budget; has had 17 military commanders in the last 17 years in
Afghanistan, a country plagued by 23,744 "security incidents" (the most ever recorded) in
2017 alone; has spent around $3 trillion, primarily on that war and the rest of the war on
terror, including the ongoing conflict in Iraq, which then-defense secretary Donald
Rumsfeld swore, in 2002, would be over in only "five days or five weeks or five months,"
but where approximately 5,000 U.S. troops remain today; and yet 74% of the American people
still express high confidence in the U.S. military.
Let me correct that 1st sentence for you: the United States has not REPEATED THE MISTAKE
OF WINNING a major conflict since 1945.
Why? Because as they quickly discovered, WW2 was the best thing that ever happened to the
US economy, and that lots more money is made fighting wars than winning one, as proven by the
above quoted figures.
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. According to Gelman, who examined 2005
official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands.
Hi Nick Turse,
Given OBL and Afghanistan Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 terror attacks, it appears
likely that the W. Bush regime launched war upon the Taliban exclusively for geopolitical
interests, minerals, i.e., lithium, and construction of natural gas pipelines directed
southeast to the subcontinent, India.
Fyi, approximately seven years ago, I saw a U.S. Veterans informational map which identified
the Neo-"Grunts" military bases as within close proximity to pipeline construction.
Consequently, for me, I see US military's incessant stay in "the graveyard of Empires" as a
stilted profit & loss (P&L) "'victory," but of course there's no (!) dividend for
dumb goyim American citizens, but voila, oodles for global energy companies, untouchable
Military-Industrial-$ecurity Complex, & killing "Poppy Fields," including Moneychanger
pharmaceutical-opioid trade!
In short, the incredible cost for U.S. military's GWOT & advanced targeting of Russia is
diabolically placed upon future generations of American taxpayers who, at the moment-of-their
birth, are in debt, & the Mom and Pop' "victory" is incarnate in a 'guvmint CHIP
card.
ZUSA wars "victory" is in the pockets of P&L-benefactors, and on Sunday afternoons, one
can feel the "bern" when fighter jets flyover NFL stadiums!
Thanks for the education, Mr. Turse!
@jilles
dykstra It did not in the civilised societies of north and western Europe. The nordic "
model " is dead , and it has been a bad example to the world . Sweden has 10 million people ,
Norway 4 , Danmark 6 . These little countries can not be a valid model for anyone .
Like Toynbee said nordics are kind of a failed egoistic subcivilization of the germans ,
english of russians , with which they never had the courage to integrate . They seem to be
happy in their autistic cold world , pretending to be a showroom for the UN perverts .
As to Vietnam the author is just clueless. Where was the so called crushing defeat? When we
Americans pulled out in 1971 to 1972 the NVA was still stymied and impotent. Our so called
allies hated us totally and the feeling was mutual. We actually had no allies in Vietnam
except the savage yard tribes. But yes after we pulled out the South collapsed fast as we
knew they would. They got exactly what they deserved. But it was a South Vietnamese defeat.
By 1975 our armies were long gone. Repeat, there were no American divisions, battallions or
platoons to lose. We were gone.
We still do not know exactly what Kissinger got from the Chinese at Paris in 1971-2, but
he and Nixon seemed happy enough, and we pulled out and ceded Vietnam. We do know this was
the exact time China began to cooperate with us in the Cold War against the Bolsheviks.
Specifically, we know the Chinese allowed our B-52′s, loaded with nukes, to overfly,
all along the Soviet border, and this continued to 1987, when the game was already up.
A couple of Ukraine-related items caught my attention this week.
The first is a
report by Baylor University professor Serhiy Kudelia which discusses how to bring peace to
Donbass. Kudelia starts by saying that Western states have regarded the resolution of the war
in Donbass as being dependent on changing Russian behaviour. This is insufficient, he says, for
'the successful reintegration of Donbas into Ukraine rests on designing a new institutional
framework that can provide long-term guarantees to civilians and separatist insurgents.'
Kudelia says that academic literature on conflict resolution would suggest four elements to
such a framework:
Autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine. Such autonomy would come with risks, by
entrenching local rulers with patronage networks outside of central control and with the
means to challenge central authority. To reduce these risks, Kudelia suggests giving autonomy
not just to the territories currently controlled by the Donetsk and Lugansk People's
Republics (DPR & LPR), but to the whole of Donbass, thereby bringing within the
autonomous region some more pro-Ukrainian elements of the population as well as groups not
connected to the DPR/LPR power structures. He also suggests devolution of power within the
autonomous region to weaken the potentially disruptive consequences of hostile elements
controlling the region's government.
Transformation of the rebel state and military structures into political
parties. Experience in other countries suggests that when this happens, the prospects of
a successful transition increase substantially.
Comprehensive and unconditional amnesty for everyone involved in the war. For
obvious reasons, rebel leaders won't agree to the first two proposals without an amnesty.
Past experience speaks to the necessity of this measure.
No elections in Donbass for two to three years. Kudelia notes that, 'Holding
elections in a volatile post-conflict environment creates ample opportunities for voter
intimidation, electoral fraud, and disinformation campaigns that could build on
conflict-related divisions.' Kudelia doesn't say who would rule Donbass in the meantime. I
would have to assume that it would mean that the existing authorities would remain in place.
That could be problematic.
With the exception of that last point, these are sensible suggestions. But when boiled down
to their essentials, they don't differ significantly from what is demanded in the Minsk
agreements -- i.e. special status for Donbass and an amnesty. As such, while I don't think that
the leadership of the DPR and LPR would like these proposals, my instincts tell me that they
would be quite acceptable to the Russian government, which would probably be able to coax the
DPR and LPR into agreeing to them. If implemented, the results would be something Moscow could
portray as a success of sorts.
And there's the rub. For that very reason, I can't see Kiev agreeing to any of this.
Kudelia's argument is founded on the idea that there's more going on in Donbass than Russian
aggression. Accepting that something has to be done to 'provide long-term guarantees to
civilians and separatist insurgents' means accepting that there are civilians and insurgents
who need reassuring, not just Russian troops and mercenaries. And that means changing the
entire narrative which Kiev has adopted about the war. So while Kudelia's proposals make sense
(after all, what's the alternative? How could Donbass be reintegrated into Ukraine without
autonomy and an amnesty?), what's lacking is any sense of how to get there.
A large part of the problem, it seems, is the attitude in Kiev. This becomes very clear in
the second item which caught my attention -- an article
on the website Coda entitled 'Now Healthcare is a Weapon of War in Ukraine.' The
article describes how the DPR and LPR are encouraging Ukrainians to come to rebel territory to
receive free medical treatment, and then using this as propaganda to win support for their
cause. This is despite the fact, as the article shows, that the medical facilities in the two
rebel republics are in a very poor state. Author Lily Hyde isn't able to confirm how many
Ukrainians have taken up the rebel offer of free medical aid, but does repeat a claim by the
rebel authorities that 1,200 people have done so.
What interests me here is not the sensationalist headlines about healthcare being
weaponized, but the question of why Ukrainians might feel it necessary to go to the effort of
crossing the front lines to get treatment. And the article provides an answer, namely that
parts of Donbass 'are trapped in a precarious limbo, still under Ukrainian government control
but cut off from key services like healthcare.' The war destroyed much of the healthcare system
in Donbass, but 'Ukraine provides no financial or other incentives for medics to work in
frontline areas', and has done little to repair shattered infrastructure. Healthcare seems to
be a lower priority than fighting 'terrorism'.
While the DPR and LPR use healthcare as a 'weapon' by providing it to people, Kiev has
'weaponized' health in another way -- by depriving people of it. As the article reports:
Kiev has not outlawed receiving medical treatment in occupied Donetsk or Luhnaks. But
collaborating with the separatists -- or supporting their propaganda efforts -- is illegal.
How exactly such charges are defined is not clear, but past experience has taught both
individuals and organizations to be wary of such accusations. The Ukrainian authorities have
investigated non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Ukraine who have provided
foreign-funded medicines and other supplies to occupied Donetsk and Luhansk. NGOs working
there have been banned by the de fact authorities [of the DPR and LPR] on similar charges.
Doctors have found themselves placed on blacklists by both Ukrainian officials and the
separatists, accused of being 'terrorist collaborators' by one side, or of being spies by the
other.
Hyde contrasts the Ukrainian government's policies towards the DPR and LPR with that of
Georgia, where:
The government offers free healthcare for people from Abkhazia, a breakaway territory it
still claims which is now under de facto Russian occupation. The government is building a
modern hospital in the nearest town to the boundary line, aimed at people from Abkhazia.
Essentially, says Hyde, it's 'a question of attitude'. She cites Georgy Tuka, Ukraine's
Deputy Minister for Temporarily Occupied Territories -- '"There's a wish to punish people,"
Tuka acknowledged.'
That's quite an admission from a government minister.
Even if the details need fleshing out, the institutional framework required to reintegrate
Donbass into Ukraine has been pretty obvious for a long time now. The problem has been getting
people to accept it. It is indeed, therefore, 'a question of attitude'. Sadly, the prevailing
attitude stands firmly in the way of the institutional changes required for peace. The desire
seems to be to punish people, not to reach agreement with them in order to promote
reintegration and reconciliation. The issue, then, is whether this attitude can be changed (and
if so, how) or whether it is now so firmly entrenched that there is nothing which can be done.
Sadly, I fear that it may be the latter.
It's too late for the reintegration of Donbas into Ukraine, there
will be no implementation of any agreement.
-- Ukraine have gone full neo-Nazi
-- language law is offensive to all minorities not just Russian speakers
-- Russophobia is rampant
-- attacks on the orthodox church
Why would anyone in DPR/LPR want to be part of this.
I agree with the other commentators integration of the
Donbass into an aggressive nationalist Ukraine which is not capable of respecting
minority rights is not possible. A more sensible option would be for Ukraine to divide
into a nationalist part and a rusdophone part, this may be in a confederation like
Belgium. As you say the Kiev government wants complete victory rather than a peace based
on reconciliation the conflict will continue at low level if the Kiev regime believes
that they cannot win but will ignite into another major war if they believe that they
can. What should Russia do ? In my opinion provide suitable aid to the people of the
Donbass to ensure their survival and build institutions, a stable and peaceful
Pridnistrovye type situation is the best that can be achieved in the foreseeable future
Just a direct quote from prof. S Kudelia "Peace plan"
linked above:
" Rebel Disarmament, Demobilization, and Conversion
Reaching an agreement on power-sharing is one precondition for beginning to disarm
and demobilize combatants in civil wars. Another component is the inclusion of former
rebels in the competitive political process through "rebel-to-party transformations
Integration of the party tied to former rebel groups can eliminate potential spoilers,
develop stakeholding in the new system, provide non-violent means of conflict
resolution, make them more accountable to their constituency, and increase legitimacy
of the election process and new authority structures. However, some of the positive
effects from rebel conversion depend on the prior organizational structure of
separatist groups and their political wings. Groups with a highly integrated political
and military structure are the least likely to undergo a successful transformation into
an exclusively political force . This points to major challenges in achieving rebel
conversion in Donbas.
The leaders of the armed groups in Donbas have already established their own
political organizations, which participate in separatist-administered elections,
control local councils throughout the conflict region, and engage with residents. They
have turned into what a security analyst Benedetta Berti calls "hybrid
politico-military organizations" tightly linking political activities and armed
struggle. In both "republics" military and political wings are subordinated to a single
leader
However, an integrated political-military structure also presents three
important challenges for successful transition into the political arena. First, in
contrast to political wings of rebel forces in other countries, these organizations
emerged as key tools for separatist governance in DPR and LPR. Their ideological
program promotes independence for these regions and would be incompatible with
participation in Ukraine's institutional politics. Their reintegration would require a
major revision of their principles and goals with an emphasis on accommodation with the
Ukrainian state and acceptance of its jurisdiction over the entire region . Otherwise,
their inclusion in the political process risks deepening the war-based dividing lines
and hampering reconciliation. Second, the centrality of the leaders of these groups in
organizing an armed struggle against Ukrainian forces and their direct involvement in
the fighting delegitimizes them in Ukrainian public opinion and with the central
government . The recently adopted law on "temporarily occupied areas of Donetsk and
Luhansk oblasts" describes the ruling structure of the "republics" as an "occupational
administration of the Russian Federation." This further complicates their post-conflict
acceptance as legitimate regional representatives. Hence, leadership turnover in
separatist groups is a crucial precondition for the beginning of their direct talks
with the Ukrainian authorities . Finally, the current control that DPR/LPR leaders
exercise over the separatist military apparatus means that even following disarmament
and demobilization they would maintain some influence over local law enforcement. This,
in turn, would allow these leaders to rely on an informal personal militia after
demobilization or revive the military component of their organizations if they sensed a
threat to their power status.
The conversion of rebel groups into recognized political organizations could be
one of the most complex and contested elements of the transition."
Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts);
then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times.
As far as I'm concerned, this entire hellish administration is sheer "madness" and a very
clear indication that this country is in its agonizing twilight.
Each and every senior official in this administration is an enabler of this "shithole"
human being and current president, so there is no such thing as bravery here, just covering
one's tail if a coup were to occur.
Not once, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, has this 'Gutless' wonder decried the
immorality of family separation, employing white racists as policy makers, shredding the
social safety net for millions of this nation's most vulnerable; an outlandish Pentagon
budget and etcetera.
What is solidly on display in this unfolding miasma is a firmly entrenched kleptocracy,
enabled and supported by U.S. corporations and the death of democracy.
The Woodward book seems to me just more kiss and tell stories of the Michael Wolff ilk
(remember him?). The juiciest quotes - Trump being called an idiot by Kelly - is denied by
Kelly himself and most of the others are ex-employees.
A better - more objective - book would
get past the unconventional, apparent chaos of the Whitehouse and perhaps investigate whether
Trumps methods have or will bear fruit.
That perhaps, as David Lynch said, traditional
politicians can't take the country or the world forward - they can't get things done anymore
because they are afraid of political consequences or media backlash. Trump and his ego
doesn't seem to care about that - is that a good thing or a bad thing? Trump has turned
everything on it's head and liberals find themselves allying with establishment politicians
and business groups. It is a fascinating period of political change and time - and better
journalism - will eventually judge Trump more objectively.
'Pence... not a dangerous, mentally ill megalomaniac'
Pence is more dangerous – make that outright terrifying – than Trump. Yes.
Trump is a senile vulgarian oaf – but he doesn't really believe in anything and is
motivated only by his greed and pathological need for self-aggrandizement. He's mentally
incompetent in a very obvious way, which renders him laughably inept at trying to bring his
more odious policy objectives to fruition (in fact, inept at everything, pretty much).
Pence is far more sinister, because he's a dementedly fanatical believer in a
fundamentalist and authoritarian mutation of religion – a crazed zealot. While
sometimes able to imitate the superficial demeanour of a person of sound mind, he is in truth
utterly deranged.
While Trump lies and denies obvious specific facts almost as a reflex, he doesn't really
sustain his warped world view consistently or with conviction that lasts longer than it takes
to play his next round of golf.
Pence vehemently espouses a whole alternative reality based
upon his religious fantasies, and believes he has a mission to impose his delusional ideas in
a punitive and repressive manner on his country's entire population, permanently. He may have
the cunning to be chillingly effective at realising his most ghastly ambitions.
Trump represents a temporary aberration; a collective brain fart. Pence could be the
instigator of a new dark age for the USA
Having seen this type of character assassination visited on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
character assassination before any reported crimes have been proven against them or for that
matter any sexual misdemeanors as president are proven, what exactly is going on here?
I totally disagree with this type of thing even if the person is someone I don't
understand much. The world has come to a dangerous place where digital lynching without
reference to law seems to be the prevailing modus operandi.
A little word of warning. Be careful what you wish for. If Don can be removed prior to the
next election, (and I don't believe that would happen), then Mike Pence takes the reins. He
has just as many crazy notions as his current boss, but is an experienced politician who
knows the ins and outs of Congress. He may get more of the programme through than little Don
can. And that would not be good.
He's done it before. Lots of times.
Example: one of his posts back in April:
"Trump is a genius. Nobody can take him down, the man is a fighter, you punch him and he'll
punch you back 10 times harder. The FBI, Democrats and MSM have tried to take him down since
he decided to run for president, yet he's standing tall and with a 50% approval rating."
There's no point in engaging in discussion with folks like that ...
Welcome to postmodernist politics folks. It will continue to degenerate until, in despair,
people turn toward an orderly system of politics; the Chinese system, the Russian system or
even a coherent religious system. Counsellors will be on hand for those who feel hurt or
upset by the return to authoritarianism -- they will be able to get great treatment in
re-education centres. Just a matter of time before our current system just crumbles from
within.
Yeah they're sucking it direct from Ayn Rand's teat. Bunch of sociopaths. And I think most
political scientists are well aware that citizens united was the death of American democracy
as a representative political system. The illusion of functionality has collapsed under the
weight of corruption. Trump is really just a symptom of that. A giant orange enema of the
state.
LOL. The west is about to collapse. There is no more money to finance the Ponzy Scheme of the
everlasting growth you seem to think is natural. while everyone is distracted in this
dualistic BS, the planet is slowly shutting down her ressources.
The Russia after years of
sanctions have developed an economy that make them less dependant on other countries. So
They will probably less affected by what is coming.
Unless you live in you own bubble, maybe
you noticed that Occidental countries have become empty shells...gutted from their skills at
making stuff. It is all virtual production now...all banking stuff, numbers insurance...most
skilled stuff are either in Germany or in Asia...what is going on?
Trump is a megalomaniac I agree, but he is not dangerous and is not mentally ill.
Mental illness is a real thing and you shouldn't casually trivialize it in this way.
Finally anyone who runs for office as President of the USA is by very definition a pretty
extreme megalomaniac. So you have two points that are not real and/or could be considered erroneous
discrimination and one point that is a prerequisite for any POTUS candidate.
Looking for a reason to impeach him is a ridiculous back to front thing to do and is itself
proof that any impeachment will fail. To impeach someone you must first start with a very
obvious reason.
It's simply not possible to impeach a president because you don't like their politics or
their personality. This whole searching for a reason to impeach is itself evidence that any
impeachment is politically motivated and the very optics of this serve only to strengthen
Trump's own political support in direct opposition.
Trump is President because the DNC was captured by very stupid and deeply corrupt
people.
Many say Mike Pence could have been the one behind the op-ed, because the unidentified author
singled out the late John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our
national dialogue." The word isn't that commonly used. But Pence has used the word with some
regularity. Yet the word could have been a ploy to divert attention from the real author, who
claimed to support many of the GOP policies – "effective deregulation, historic tax
reform, a more robust military and more."
No doubt the current crisis works for Pence: "Given the instability many witnessed, there
were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a
complex process for removing the president." Of course he and the GOP didn't want to
"precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration
in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over." But they don't want Trump
to finish his term and hope that he'll soon be gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we
have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
This op-ed is going to absolutely confirm, in the eyes of Trump supporters, all his whines
about being thwarted by the Deep State. It's going to increase his support among the crazies,
and it's also useful for the Republicans who want to ditch him in favour of Mike Pence.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven and for the Democrats or the 'resistance' to see it
as some kind of bonus is insane. Even if you take it at face value it's a disgusting piece of
authoritarian, we-know-best hypocrisy. If you look at its actual effects, the net result is
not likely to benefit the forces of sanity in any way.
The media's complacency about all of this, and their failure to actually report on the
Republican trajectory and the bigger picture, is criminal. Instead we get YET ANOTHER bit of
'oh look the wheels are just about to come off the bus!', and all the while the Republicans
are gerrymandering and purging voter rolls like crazt before the midterms, and of course
refusing to change their unaccountable electronic voting machines and - did you read THIS one
in the news? - blocking a bill which would have audited the election results.
Tl;dr: The US, and by extension the planet via environmental destruction and possibly war
on top, is utterly fucked.
"... Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?.. ..."
Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a
robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times ..
four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly
to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even
before the US military became .. robust?..
What is wrong with you people .. national security?.. Laughable .. when is your security
ever, ever, ever threatened! And yet people starve, people don't have clean water to drink
..
Perhaps were the US to help lift the basic burdens of millions who have bugger all, then
there wouldn't be so many suposed 'enemies'. I do believe film maker Michael Moore has voiced
this very same thing .. but then, what purpose all those shiny new expensive killing
machines?..
Something is seriously wrong in America .. and it ain't just Trump!
This is a very poor op-ed piece. Simply calling the President "a crazy loon " isn't political
analysis, or at least not the sort of political analysis I would be willing to pay for. Nor
do I think the thesis that certain members of the administration are busy trying to shore up
their reputations in the face of a sinking presidency holds water. Firstly, unless the
current investigations provide incontrovertible evidence that the President was engaged in
criminal activity I don't think there is any change that he will be impeached. Secondly, if
you wanted to protect your reputation surely the thing to do would be to resign and maintain
a dignified silence while you are writing your memoirs. Or if you really were part of a
secret clique protecting the American constitution against a reckless President you would
keep quiet and get on with your important business. It seems to me that this anonymous piece
was either a clumsy attempt to further damage the President or a sophisticated attempt to
galvanise his support base by "proving" that the President is being undermined by unelected
traitors. Or something else completely might be going on. That's why I would like to read a
thoughtful opinion piece by an informed observer.
Sounds like there's a treasonous public servant there, doing their best to subvert the will
of the people. And of course loudly supported by the squealing hard left guardian mob.
Looking at the type of far left fascists crawling out of the woodwork, I would say
Trump is provoking utter derangement in all the right people.
"the corrupt metropolitan elites have swindled them again"
-Who appointed these 'corrupt metropolitan elites' if it was not Trump himself? Who are these
people-Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin- quite apart from Jeff Sessions and the now
disgraced Michael Flynn? Trump appointed them, they weren't forced on him by the "corrupt
metropolitan elites". Is Trump to be given a free pass for his own mistakes?
What many commentators here seem to fail to recognise, because of their political bias I
suppose, is that there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the political consensus that
has seen the working class and lower middle class disenfranchised or at least their perceived
interests ignored. As a result, populist ideologies, as espoused by Steven Bannon, and
others, and exemplified by leaders like Donald Trump have thrown away the rule book with all
its aims to support the extremely wealthy and have reached out to those that want jobs before
green policies, law and order before gender diversity programs and so on.
I doubt that many of the readers here will receive the message but we are witnessing a
revolution that I see as significant as the rise of the sans-culottes in the early part of
the French Revolution. That didn't end well for the sans-culottes or their aims but we can
hardly blame them for trying. Today the retrenched car worker in the US can hardly be blamed
for being unhappy that the CEO of a car company receives a huge pay rise and bail outs from
the government and similar stories in other areas.
Vive la revolution.
Some of this stuff is clearly nonsense. Example: the insider claimed Trump is an admirer of
dictators:
"In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,
such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded
nations."
And yet the forthcoming Bob Woodward book claims Trump told his defence secretary he
wanted to kill Assad:
Donald Trump ordered his defence secretary to assassinate Syria's president Bashar
al-Assad and "kill the f****** lot of them" in the leader's regime, in the wake of a chemical
attack against civilians, according to a new book.
Defence secretary James Mattis is said to have told the president during a phone call he
would "get right on it" before hanging up the phone and instead telling an aide: "We're not
going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." In the wake of the chemical
attack in April 2017, the president's national security team developed options that included
the more conventional airstrike that Mr Trump eventually ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-Trump lot can't have it both ways. He can't be a fan of dictators but also want to
kill them! It's clear there is lying or exaggeration on both sides. The people out to impeach
Trump (or sell books!) will lie too.
he reversed the war in afghanistan? drones? did he prosecute bankers? does he favor
increasing offshore drilling? now it looks like he's renegotiating clinton's nafta and
pushing for some version of obama's trade treaties. trump is the invading python, and the
democrats and establishment republicans are the alligators; whichever wins, the small furry
animals get eaten. i just hope they don't start world war 3 while they're settling
things--trump looks to be doubling down on obama's syria policy too, and support of the
current ukrainian government.
'Fraid so. Every new generation of neocons regurgitates the same discredited lies from the
previous generation, and suckers believe them all over again. Even the title "neocon" or
"neoliberal" is a lie: there's nothing new about them.
Trump was not only openly attacked during the nomination process, the Republican Party
nominee who was selected to fight Obama in 2012 -Mitt Romney- delivered a savage attack in
which he described Trump as a con-man and a chronic liar -yet the same people who could,
there and then have told Trump to get lost backed him. Trump has been attacked from the start
and every time and all of the time said to his attackers: so what? I dare you to remove me
from the nomination, I dare you to remove me from the Office of President. This is a man who
is challenging the governance of the US in a manner no other President has done before, and
so far, he is still winning. That is the scary part.
Trump is threatening Deep State corruption by placing his own family members in positions of
power and profiting from charging the nation for his and his staff's repeated use of Trump
Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That's a bizarre way of draining the swamp.
The US political system has many flaws, not least that the President can be elected on an
apparent electoral college landslide while losing the popular vote. But then again no
country's political system is perfect, human nature being what it is.
However, Trump is clearly not up to the job. Not by intellect, understanding of world
affairs, honesty, temperament, respect for the law, nor constitution. The list goes on
frankly.
The system has gone bad. Trump hasn't "drained the swamp", he's made it far deeper. That
said, "the system" such as it is should work in the hands of honest men and women of
integrity. The trouble is they're few and far between in the GOP as it wilfully ignores
issues in which they would be clamouring for a Democrat president to be impeached.
I sincerely hope the GOP get a thrashing in the mid-terms which may, just may, give them
pause for thought. A Democrat Congress might also actually hold Trump to account. The only
danger there is that he lashes out with even less self control.
Dangerous times.
I assumed it was an effort at creating some sort of record of resistance. Does anybody
really believe Paul Ryan is retiring from the 3rd most powerful position in the US Government
to "spend more time with family"? The rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Even if Trump serves
out a full four years, anybody too closely tied to this stupid shit-storm of an
Administration will be tarred in public eyes. But, American voters are notoriously forgetful,
and getting out before the ship goes down will probably work.
Funny shit. "the mole" wrote an Op/Ed piece, that contains no information of a sensitive
nature. S/he wrote of their own personal observations working in the White House. There is
nothing illegal in that.
I get that you might not have any functional understanding of
US law, but it is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States is calling for
the arrest of a citizen exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The op-ed piece being anonymous makes me wonder if Mr Trump himself put someone up to do it.
What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic
factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause. It
also offers the president another cudgel against the press that will appeal to his core
constituencies.
Even if Mr Trump isn't capable of coming up with such a scheme, there are certainly those
around him who are.
The statements in the opinion piece are horribly anti-pluralist anti-democratic in
themselves. The writer's nationalist appeal to 'American' unity at the end is based on
everyone uniting around US Republican principles of neo-liberalism, inequality and
militarism. S/he would use a false unity against Trump to impose the worst kind of
conservative fundamentalism and eliminate anything more progressive from the political
spectrum.
Maybe this is mainstream neo-liberal thinking but it's the end of a plural, democratic
state. There would be no more room to discuss inequality, climate change, race or gender
discrimination or new welfare provisions. Just an offer of false unity around hard neoliberal
principles. I guess it's a very similar game to Brexit, which is a choice between
life-threatening asset striping of the UK or May's 'hard right soft Brexit' super
Thatcherism.
The op-ed represents a shocking critique of Trump and is without precedent in modern
American history. Former CIA Director
John Brennan , who has sparred fiercely with the president, called the op-ed "active
insubordination born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump".
"This is not sustainable to have an executive branch where individuals are not following the
orders of the chief executive," Brennan told NBC's "Today" show. "I do think things will get
worse before they get better. I don't know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A
wounded lion is a very dangerous animal, and I think Donald Trump is wounded."
In it, the anonymous author describes Trump as amoral, "anti-trade and anti-democratic" and
prone to making "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions".
The writer claims aides had explored the possibility of removing Trump from office via
the 25th amendment , a complex constitutional mechanism to allow for the replacement of a
president who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but had decided
against it.
The op-ed is nauseating because it tells us the truth why they do it: Because conservatives got
their tax cuts, deregulation and all the other conservative politics that gamble with people's
lives. It's disgusting.
Notable quotes:
"... Pirate ships were in reality the most egalitarian institutions that existed in the 17th century. Their articles laid out that both the captain and quartermaster (who divided the spoils) served at the pleasure of their crew, and that the entire crew had rights to a fair portion of the proceeds. ..."
"... On a real pirate ship, Captain Trump would have lost his job long ago and been abandoned on some tiny island with a single shot in his pistol. ..."
I am outraged at describing Trump's administration as a "pirate ship"!
Pirate ships were in
reality the most egalitarian institutions that existed in the 17th century. Their articles
laid out that both the captain and quartermaster (who divided the spoils) served at the
pleasure of their crew, and that the entire crew had rights to a fair portion of the
proceeds.
On a real pirate ship, Captain Trump would have lost his job long ago and been abandoned
on some tiny island with a single shot in his pistol.
"... "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "' ..."
"... Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.' ..."
"... It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically. ..."
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our
hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:
'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected
sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April.
"We killed them out of a certain
naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in
our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'
Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank
discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here.
Charges of anti-Semitism
and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and
his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very
sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
"... The documentary, which was produced by an undercover reporter who infiltrated pro-Israel groups in the U.S. in 2016, has been censored by the Qatari government – the owner of Al Jazeera – as part of an attempt by Qatar to win the support of major Jewish American organizations. ..."
"... New details about the contents of the censored documentary appeared this week in the French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, and video excerpts from it were published by Max Blumenthal and on the website Electronic Intifada. ..."
Parts of Censored Al Jazeera Documentary on D.C. Israel Lobby Leaked 03/09/2018
Leaked clips from film, pulled by Qatar in bid to appease U.S. Jewish community, show
'astroturfing' by college students involved with right-wing think tank, claim to reveal top
U.S. donor of BDS blacklist
By Amir Tibon
August 30, 2018
Video excerpts and new details from the
censored Al Jazeera documentary about the Israeli lobby in the United States have been
leaked to select media outlets in recent days.
The documentary, which was produced by an undercover reporter who infiltrated pro-Israel
groups in the U.S. in 2016,
has been censored by the Qatari government – the owner of Al Jazeera – as part
of an attempt by Qatar to win the support of major Jewish American organizations.
New details about the contents of the censored documentary appeared this week in the French
monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, and video excerpts from it were published by Max
Blumenthal and on the website Electronic Intifada.
Hanne Nabintu Herland, founder of The Scandinavian Herland Report: It is such an
honour to be with you, Sir, Dr Paul Craig Roberts. You are the chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy in the US, a former Wall Street editor and an author of many books. In Europe
we love you, because you have a perspective that many do not have as you speak in broad manners
about the important issues of foreign policy and the state of the American culture today.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: The are several terrible things that have happened to the
United States. The worst thing that have happened in my lifetime was the collapse of the Soviet
Union. This was absolutely the worst thing. Not only for the United States, but for the entire
world, because it removed the only constraint on American unilateralism. As long as the Soviet
Union was there, there was a limit to Washington and its ability to bully and dominate.
It could do it in South America, excluding Cuba, it could do it in Western Europe and of
course it had firm control of Japan. Yet, most of the world was immune to this kind of bullying
because the Soviet Union was there as an alternative. It could check American unilateralism.
Both sides pretty much knew where the line was.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the constraint on American unilateralism disappeared. It
was down to nothing to constrain Washingtons power and its hegemony. This happened right at the
time when a new ideology in the United States was rising up: The ideology of the
neo-conservatives.
Now, the neo-conservatives' ideology is that America is a indispensable country. It is the
exceptional country. Now what does it mean when you say that? If the United States is
indispensable then it means everyone else are dispensable.
If the United States is exceptional, then everyone else are unexceptional. It's a claim to
hegemony over mankind. Its like stating that we, the Americans, are God's chosen people, not
the Jews. This is the neo-conservative ideology and it has dominated American foreign policy
since Bill Clinton's regime.
These people came into the government first during the Reagan years. I know them and they
caused a mess. Reagan fired them and prosecuted them. When George Herbert Walker Bush (the
first Bush) succeeded President Reagan, he pardoned them. They didn't have much influence in
his government, but at the beginning of Bill Clinton's regime their influence increased.
This is where the attacks on Serbia came from, with the sanctions of Iraq that killed 500
000 Iraqi children, that Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, stated that it was
worth it. Can you imagine saying that after killing 500 000 children? It shows how hard the
ideology is. It's a merciless ideology! Nothing counts but Washington's hegemony.
It's really not even American hegemony, it's just Washington's hegemony. Of course with
George W.W Bush, the neo-conservatives completely ran the government. The real president was
Dick Cheney, the vice-president and a hard lined neo-conservative. The Secretary of Defence,
the State Department, the Pentagon was full of them. They completely dominated the National
Security Council. This is where 9/11 came from. This is where the war on Afghanistan and Iraq
came from.
Hanne Nabintu Herland: – And we all remember so
well the American four-star general Wesley Clark, who stated, and wrote a book about it later
as well, and also spoke in a number of TV-interviews on a later note how he was shocked post
9/11 when he found out that there were plans in the Pentagon of destroying nation after
nation.
He speaks about how he felt that there was a neo-conservative foreign policy coup in the
United States at the time. We know, of course, in retrospect that this has brought the West
into such a havoc. Maybe America is one of the most hated nations in the world today because of
this. I live in the Middle-East and I see people just wonder, you know, why hundreds of
thousands must die due to these interests. They ask; is democracy going to be bombed on us?
Paul Craig Roberts: – Yeah, well I think Wesley Clark was shocked but it showed
that he was unaware of the neo-conservative ideology because they had all been in the
government for some time while he was commander of American forces in Europe. He was a
NATO-commander, as I remember. He was unaware of this ideology even though Paul Wolfowitz,
former Pentagon official, said it out.
He stated that the principle goal of American foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any
other power, especially Russia, that could serve as a constraint on American unilateralism. You
can find this online, he actually said this. It's an official Pentagon document that he wrote
stating this.
Now, others in the government thought that this was a bit too obvious so the toned it down a
little bit, but they didn't change the meaning. So this is what I meant when I said that the
worst thing that happened was the collapse of the Soviet Union. It removed the constraint, it
lead the neo-conservatives to make these kind of claims and it has ever since dominated our
foreign policy.
Of course, the neo-conservatives are a very close ally with Israel. In fact, most of them
are Zionists. Some of them are duo-citizens and in my opinion, this is why the American
unilateralism began in the Middle-East. Because its been directed at the countries that supply
Hezbollah, the militia in Lebanon, that twice defeated the Israeli army from occupying southern
Lebanon. Israel wants the water recourses in southern Lebanon and tried to take control over it
twice and was twice fought back. So who supplies Hezbollah? Iraq, Syria and Iran.
This is why we have so much pressure in the United States from Israel to continue the war on
Assad and to start a war with Iran. Because if Iran and Assad are not supplying Hezbollah, then
there is nothing to stop Israel from expanding in southern Lebanon. It is obvious if you just
look at the media. So much of the attack on Iran is Israeli inspired and it's the Israelis that
wants to use the American forces to put Iran in the same chaos that Iraq is in, which they
hoped Syria would be in if it hadn't been for Russia intervening.
So this is another aspect because it shows an alliance between the ruling ideology in the
United States. The neo-conservative ideology and the identity politics-ideology. Both of these
are destructive in their own ways. But when you get a dose with both of them, you're really in
trouble.
So that is a situation that is difficult for the president because the Israeli lobbyist are
very powerful, there has been numerous books written about it, there have been numerous
congressmen and senators who have said "we lost because we opposed something Israel wanted". In
fact, if Israel wants something, it usually gets voted unanimously. It is very rare that even
two members of the entire Congress will oppose something in Israel's favour.
So they are a powerful entity. The Wall Street crowd and the big banks are a powerful
entity. The security complex is probably the most powerful because it has the intelligence
agencies who can control explanations, who can fabricate cases and events, who can claim things
happened that didn't because under the guise of national security, they don't have to tell you
or go in to detail. They just say it. "We can't show you now because it will compromise
national security". They can get away with this.
So, when you have a country like that and it doesn't have an independent media, then the
question is; who is in control? Well, whoever controls the explanations. They are easy to
control due to the reasons I just said. The media is organized in six hands and they are not
run by journalists.
Hanne Nabintu Herland: – Thank you very much.
We are so honoured to have spoken with you.
Paul Craig Roberts: – Well, thank you very much for including me in your
wonderful programmes.
Further to the point I made upthread is an english language article on Le Monde
Diplomatique which considers how and why an Al Jazeera documentary which featured israelis
and their stooges around Capitol Hill openly discussing their campaigns of dirty tricks and
their concern that young amerikans were no longer buying their tosh.
The documentary was an early victim of the Saudi/UAE attack on Qatar (the home of AJ) that
left al Jazeera's staff extremely upset and the leaks have been continuous.
The article goes on to discuss current methods of the israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs,
methods to be used on websites which square with much of the nonsense we have been subjected
to. I'm not going to waste space by pasting any of it here, don't be put off by the intro,
this goes way past rewording Mearsheimer or any of the already familiar stuff about aipac and
the deceivers. I reckon we all need to read it in its entirety before hunting out the four
part doco which will inevitably surface on the web in the not-too distant future, especially
since the cold shouldering of Qatar has re-commenced.
The censored al Jazeera documentary on the USAmerican Israeli lobby may well be Qatari
propaganda. Some may have noticed that I am quite critical of al Jazeera Arabic (which
heavily campaigned for Muslims from around the world to go to Syria and fight holy Jihad
against the hated secular government of the infidels). But propaganda is not necessarily
false. To propagate is to nurture and help to grow.
At any rate, I haven't seen anyone mention that al Jazeera made another documentary on the
Israel Lobby, but in Britain. It was released and may be viewed here:
Would it be prudent to view Israel as yet another US state, albeit
without formal association with the union ?
I doubt that Israeli influence is a one way street. In most areas the
USA neoliberal elite interests and Israeli interests coincide or strongly
corrlate. For example in no way the USA invade Iraq to serve exclusively
Israeli interests. They were interested in control of oil rich state (the
scenario later repeated in Libya) and Israeli interests played important,
but secondary role in the invasion.
Notable quotes:
"... American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel. ..."
"... Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel. ..."
"... How he represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery. ..."
"... Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. ..."
Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer said "I've never seen a
President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I
wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have
got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea
what goes on."
Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8,
1967, Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34
American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was operating in international waters and was
displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had identified the vessel as
American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It was
the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly
received the most medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one
hell of a story of courage under fire, but don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make
a movie out of it.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier
planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom
rather than embarrass his good friend Israel. Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S.
government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry headed by Admiral John
McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before
determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as
crewmen from Navy ships that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado
in Malta before being threatened and sworn to secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to
convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the White House and the
Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures
from the Liberty survivors.
The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act
against its own interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how
Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a
lopsided trade agreement that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year
on the top of direct grants from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable"
donations by American Jews.
If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation
vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very
interested in reading a
remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and
its friends work from inside the system to corrupt our political process and make the American
government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes in some detail how the
Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.
A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George
W. Bush's 2004 signing off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group's website proclaims that
it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating
rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money
launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding
been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how
"the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as
tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and
proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear
weapons complex."
The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated
secretly within the Treasury itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli
government as well as with pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel on the taxpayer's
dime, as did his three successors in office.
Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen. It was reported then and
subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who were
both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency
regarding what the office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he
refused to answer reporter questions "about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and
whether sanctioning Iran, a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian nuclear program was an example of endemic
double standards at OTFI."
Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal
Pearl Mandelker,
a former and possibly current Israeli citizen . All of the heads of OTFI have therefore
been Jewish and Zionist. All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel
frequently on "official business" and they all are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most
often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has been that many of the victims
of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's Jewish
lobbyists. OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle
Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to
Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons
traffickers and money launderers . And once placed on the SDN there is no transparent
way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.
Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut
down and individuals exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish
state have been imprisoned. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through
congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the land when it comes to curtailing
free speech whenever Israel is involved.
The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews
closely attached to Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on
behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are
vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the
Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the
pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan
Administration and they and their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were major players in the catastrophic war with
Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow, described in
2004 as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with
Iran.
American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of
Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman,
is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or
foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements
on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli
government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI
were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the
Palestinians in speeches in Israel.
He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government
talking points and has
tried to change the wording of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word
"occupied" when describing Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend
beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and
the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he represents the United States and
its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.
Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone,
who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy."
Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as
posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused
him of pandering to Jewish audiences.
Apparently when opportunity knocked he changed his mind
about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a Jewish
advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement
and also worked to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He
is reportedly still connected financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a
conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus
free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of living allowance and a 10%
hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.
So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything,
it wants, apparently. Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a
minute and we'll draft some legislation that will give you even more money. Create a treasury
department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to punish critics of the
Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars
for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent
the interests of the foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just
happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
"... From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in most of the developing world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads. ..."
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he has to go
From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a
commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in most of the developing
world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in
money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads.
Such was the case during the Boris Yeltsin's government that presided over the Russian
Federation, a self-contained trading bloc shorn of half of its richest territories. The
result of loss of most military spending and trade resulted in an average 50% loss in real
living standards for the typical Russian in the depths of the Depression during the early
1990s. What grew out of the rubble was the New Russia controlled by the Oligarchs, run by
returning members of Russian ethnic organized crime families once scattered around the world
and remnants of the KGB, party bosses, and former Soviet military who couldn't move enough
their assets out of the country while the door was still open. For Deripaska, that door
closed the other way in 2006, when he lost his US B-1 visa, which meant that he had to make a
deal with the FBI's McCabe and other US intelligence handlers to reenter the U.S. to access
his stash deposited in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Is Oleg really Putin's "closest oligarch", as is again repeated here in the Times?
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos Oil Co., one of the world's major
oil suppliers on October fifth, 2003 was a signal that things would never be the same for the
oligarchs. By the time he took his third term as Russian President in 2012, Putin had put
highly concentrated large industries increasingly under state supervision, curtailing the
effective power and range of operation of many oligarchs, restricting the movement of private
wealth out of the country, including that of Oleg Deripaska, whom he publicly humiliated in
2009, as seen in this video.
Image
copyright
REUTERS
Image
caption
Alexander
Zakharchenko in a 2017 photo
A leader of Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, Alexander
Zakharchenko, has been killed in an explosion at a cafe in Donetsk city.
"The head of the DNR [Donetsk People's Republic]... has died as the
result of a terrorist attack," Zakharchenko's spokeswoman told AFP news
agency.
Russia's foreign ministry said it suspected Ukraine of organising the
latest killing.
The Ukrainian government has denied any involvement.
Some observers have attributed previous deaths of rebel leaders in
Donetsk to infighting among the rebels, or moves by Moscow to eliminate
inconvenient separatist leaders.
What are the two sides saying?
Rebel and Russian news reports say the separatists' "finance minister"
Alexander Timofeyev was wounded in the blast at the Separ cafe that
killed Zakharchenko.
Ukrainians suspected of being behind the blast were arrested nearby, a
security source was quoted as saying.
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said "there is
every reason to believe that the Kiev regime is behind the murder".
She said the Kiev "party of war" was "violating its pledges about peace
and has decided on a bloodbath".
However, recent reports suggested that Zakharchenko had fallen out of
favour with Russia.
A spokeswoman for Ukraine's state security service, Yelena Gitlyanskaya,
rejected Moscow's accusations.
She said the killing was a result of "internal fighting... between the
terrorists and their Russian sponsors".
What is happening in eastern Ukraine?
Heavily armed rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk regions refuse to recognise
the Ukrainian government in Kiev.
The rebels seized large swathes of territory there in an uprising in
April 2014. Since then, thousands of people have died in fighting
between the rebels and Ukrainian government forces.
Moscow denies sending regular troops and heavy weapons to the
separatists, but admits that Russian "volunteers" are helping the
rebels.
There has been shooting on the frontline despite a "back-to-school
truce" that was supposed to take effect on Wednesday. International
monitors reported 70 ceasefire violations on that day alone.
Who was Alexander Zakharchenko?
He played a key role in the Russian-backed separatist military operation
from its very beginning.
In early 2014, soon after Ukraine's pro-Russian government was toppled
by the Maidan revolution, he took part in the seizure of the Donetsk
regional administration building by people saying they were protesting
against the new pro-Western authorities.
Later that year, he was chosen as the prime minister of the
self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic by its parliament, the
"Supreme Council".
He had been in the role ever since, assuming the title of president, and
was among the signatories of the stalled Minsk peace agreement.
He was wounded twice in combat, and survived a car bomb blast in August
2014.
Expensive weapon systems for export is Trump administration official policy, his Military
Keyseanism stance.
Notable quotes:
"... The US is to render substantial military assistance to a country with an economy in the doldrums , reforms that have foundered , a democracy that is in question , and corruption that is widespread . ..."
...
Kurt Volker , US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, said in an interview
with the Guardian published on September 1 that "Washington is ready to expand arms supplies to
Ukraine in order to build up the country's naval and air defense forces in the face of
continuing Russian support for
eastern separatists ." According to him, the Trump administration was "absolutely" prepared
to go further in supplying lethal weaponry to Ukrainian forces than the anti-tank
missiles it delivered in April .
Mr. Volker explained that "[t]hey need to rebuild a navy and they have very limited air
capability as well. I think we'll have to look at air defense."
The diplomat
believes Ukraine needs unmanned aerial vehicles, counter-battery radar systems, and
anti-sniper systems. The issue of lethal arms purchases has been discussed at the highest
level.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 allocated
$250m in military assistance to Ukraine, including lethal arms. The
US has delivered Javelin anti-tank missile systems to Kiev but this time the
ambassador talked about an incomparably larger deal. Former President Barack
Obama had been unconvinced that granting Ukraine lethal defensive weapons
would be the right decision, in view of the widespread corruption there. This
policy has changed under President Trump, who - among other things - approved deliveries
of anti-tank missiles to Kiev last December.
Ukraine has officially requested US air-defense systems. According to
Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, the Ukrainian
military wants to purchase at least three air-defense systems. The cost of
the deal is expected to exceed $2 billion, or about $750 million apiece. The
system in question was not specified, but it's generally believed to be the
Patriot.
Volker's statement was made at a time of rising tensions in the Sea of Azov,
which is legally shared by Ukraine and Russia. It is connected to
the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait. The rhetoric has heated up and ships
have been placed under arrest as this territorial dispute turns the area
into a flashpoint.
Russia has
slammed the US for backing Ukraine's violations of international law in
the area. According to a 2003 treaty, the Sea of Azov is a jointly
controlled territory that both countries are allowed to use freely.
The US military already runs a maritime operations center located within
Ukraine's Ochakov naval base. The facility is an operational-level warfare
command-and-control organization that is designed to deliver flexible
maritime support throughout the full range of military operations. Hundreds
of US and Canadian military instructors are
training Ukrainian personnel at the Yavorov firing range.
NATO has
granted Ukraine the status of an aspirant
country - a step that is openly provocative toward Russia. Macedonia,
Georgia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina are also aspirant nations. Last year,
Ukraine's parliament adopted
a resolution recognizing full membership in NATO as a foreign policy
goal. In 2008, NATO agreed that Ukraine along with Georgia should become a
full-fledged member. In March, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia announced the
formation of an alliance to oppose Russia.
"... Alberto Nisman and Argentina's History of Assassinations and Suspicious Suicides ..."
"... Whether the crusading prosecutor's death is found to be a suicide or homicide, many Argentines probably won't believe it. The past has taught them to always look for the sinister explanation. ..."
"... Decades after the military murdered thousands, Mothers of Plaza de Mayo warn that the current era of alternative facts poses a new threat ..."
"... They'll gain the world but lose their souls They'll gain the world but lose their souls ..."
"... Don't believe politicians and thieves They want our people on their bended knees Pirates and robbers, liars and thieves You come like the wolf but dressed like the sheep ..."
"... If you go to Lagos what you find, vampires If you go to Kinshasa what you find, vampires If you go to Darfur what you find, vampires If you go to Malabo what you find, vampires ..."
"... Lies and theft Guns and debt Life and death IMF ..."
"... When the bank man comes to your door Better know you'll always be poor Bank loans and policies They can't make our people free ..."
"... You live on the blood of my people Everyone knows you've come to steal You come like the thieves in the night The whole world is ready to fight ..."
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from
Baltimore.
For several months now. Argentines have been taking to the streets to protest against
neoliberal austerity measures of President Mauricio Macri. The most recent such protest took
place on July 9 on Argentine's Independence Day. There has also been three general strikes thus
far. In the two years since he took office, President Macri has laid off as many as 76,000
public sector workers, and slashed gas and water and electricity subsidies, leading to a
tenfold increase in prices, in some cases.
Now, the government argues that all of this is necessary in order to stem inflation, and the
decline of the currency's value. Last month, Macri received the backing of the International
Monetary Fund. The IMF agreed to provide Argentina with a $50 billion loan, one of the largest
in IMF history. In exchange, the Macri government will deepen the austerity measures already in
place.
Joining me now to analyze Argentina's economic situation and its new IMF loan is Michael
Hudson. Michael is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of
Missouri Kansas City. Welcome back, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be back, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: Michael, why is it that Argentina needs such a huge credit line from the
IMF?
MICHAEL HUDSON: For precisely the reason that you explained. The neoliberal policy has its
aim rolling back any of the wage increases in employment that Mrs. Kirschner, the former
president, implied, as part of the class war. So in order to shrink the economy, you have to
basically cut back business, cut back employment. And so the purpose of the IMF loan was to
enable the wealthy Argentinians, the oligarchy that's run the country for a century, to get all
its money out and run. So like almost all IMF loans, the purpose is to subsidize capital flight
out of Argentina so that the wealthy Argentinians can take their money and run before the
currency collapses.
The aim of the loan is to indebt Argentina so much that its currency will continue to go
down and down and down, essentially wrecking the economy. That's what the IMF does. That's its
business plan. It makes a loan to subsidize capital flight, emptying out the economy of cash,
leading the currency to collapse, as it is recently collapsed. As soon as the $50 billion was
expended, or wasted, in letting wealthy Argentinians take their pesos, convert them into
dollars, move them offshore to the United States, to England, to the Dutch West Indies, and
offshore banking centers. Then they let the currency collapse so that the IMF model, which it's
announced for the last 50 years, the model is if you can depreciate a currency what you're
really lowering is the price of labor. Because raw materials and capital have an international
price. But when a currency goes down it makes imports much more expensive, and that causes a
price umbrella over the cost of living; that labor has to pay the equivalent international
price for grain, for food, for oil and gas, for everything else.
And so what Macri has done is they agree with the IMF to wage class war with a vengeance,
devaluation, leaving Argentina so hopelessly indebted that it can't possibly repay the IMF
loan. So what we're seeing is a replay of what happened in 2001.
SHARMINI PERIES: Exactly. I was going to ask you, now, that was only 17 years ago, Michael.
Argentinians do have memory here. They know what happened. They experienced it as well. Now,
that was back in 2001 during the economic crisis when unemployment had increased so
dramatically. That country went through a series of presidents and went through a series of
crises. And we saw images of, you know, very similar to what we had seen in, in Greece not too
long ago. Now, tell us more about that history. What exactly happened during that crisis, and
then eventually how did Nestor Kirschner relieve the economy and come out of that crisis?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the IMF staff said, don't make the loan. There's no possible way
Argentina can pay the loan. It's all going to be made to the oligarchy for capital flight.
You're giving the IMF money for crooks, and you're expecting the Argentine people to have to
pay. So Argentina very quickly was left totally broke, as the IMF intended it to be. And so
although it was 17 years ago, for the last 17 years the IMF has had a slogan: No more
Argentinas. In other words, they said, we're never going to make the loan that is only given to
oligarchs for capital flight to steal. It's as if you make a loan to the Ukraine, or to the
Russian kleptocrats, or to the Greek banks to move offshore.
And yet here, here again, we're having a replay of what happened was, after Mrs. Kirschner
came in, it was obvious to the [inaudible] to everybody, as it had been to the IMF staff, many
of whom had resigned, that Argentina couldn't pay. So about 80 percent of Argentines'
bondholders agreed to write down the debt to something that could be paid. They said, OK, you
know, either it's a total default because they can't pay anything, or we'll write it down very
substantially to what could be paid. Because the IMF really made a completely incompetent- not
incompetent, directly corrupt insider deal. Well, unfortunately, the oligarchy had a fatal
clause put in the original bond issue, saying they would agree to U.S. arbitration and to U.S.
law if there was any dispute.
Well, after the old Argentine bonds depreciated in price, the bonds that were not
renegotiated as part of the 80 percent, you had vulture funds buy them out. Especially Paul
Singer, the Republican campaign donor who tends to buy politicians, along with foreign
government bonds. And sued, and said, we want 100 percent on the dollar, not, you know, the 40
cents on the dollar or whatever they'd settled. And the case went to a senile, dying judge,
Griesa in New York City, who said, well, there was something that's about a clause that said
investors have to be treated separately. And Argentina said, well, that's fine, we'll pay the
other 20 percent [inaudible] the 80 percent of all agreed to. The majority rules. And Griesa
said, no, no, you have to pay the 80 percent all the money that the 20 percent demands. That's
symmetry, because only if you let the hedge funds win can you go bankrupt again, wreck the
government, and bring in oligarchy.
And so that ruling caused absolute turmoil. The United States State Department set out to
support the oligarchy by doing everything it could to destabilize Argentina. And the Argentine
people said, well, we'd better vote in a government that's supported by the United States.
Maybe it will be nice to us. I don't know why foreign countries think that way, but they
thought maybe if they voted the neoliberal that the United States would agree to forgive some
of its debt. Well, that's not what neoliberals do. The neoliberal did just what you said at the
beginning of the program; announced that he was going to cut employment, lower, stop inflation
by making the working class bail, bear all of the costs, and would borrow- actually, it was the
largest loan in IMF history, the $50 billion to enable the Argentine wealthy class to move its
money offshore, leaving the economy a bankrupt shell. That's what the IMF does.
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. So let's imagine you are given the opportunity to resolve this
issue. How would you be advising the Argentine government in terms of what can they do to
stabilize the economy, given the circumstances they're facing right now?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Very simple. I'd say this debt is an odious debt. There is no way that
Argentina can pay. The clause that bankrupted us was put in as a result of tens of thousands of
professors, labor leaders, [land] people being assassinated. The United States financed an
assassination team throughout Latin America after Pinochet in Chile to have basically a proxy
government, and the Argentine loan that said we will, we will follow U.S. rules, not Argentine
rules, basically should disqualify that debt from having to be paid. And it should say the IMF
debt is an odious debt. It was given under fraudulent purposes solely for purposes of capital
flight. We will not pay.
SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Michael, just one last question. Did you want to add something to what
you were saying?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, once it doesn't pay the foreign debt, its balance of payments will be,
will be there. The problem is that the creditors have always used violence in order to get
their way. I don't see how the Argentina situation can be solved without violence, because the
creditors are using police force, covert assassination. They're just as bad as the dirty war
that had that mass assassination period in the late, into the early '90s. There's obviously
going to be not only the demonstrations that you showed, but an outright war, because it's
broken out in Argentina more drastically than anywhere else right now in Latin America, except
in Venezuela.
SHARMINI PERIES: Michael, at the moment, the Fed is gradually increasing interest rates and
the dollar is gaining in value. This is sucking the financial capital not only in Argentina but
in many places around the world. Also, you know, they're going to be soon in crisis as well.
What is, what can the developing economies do?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Here's the problem. When the United States raises interest rates, that
causes foreign money to flow, flow into the dollar, because the rest of the world, Europe and
other areas, are keeping low interest rates. So as money goes into the dollar, to take
advantage of the rising interest rates, the dollar rises. Now, that makes it necessary for
Argentina or any other country, third world country, to pay more and more pesos in order to buy
the dollars to pay that foreign debt. Because Argentina and third world countries have violated
the prime rule of credit. And that is never to denominate a debt in another currency that you
can't pay. And all of a sudden, the dollar debts become much more expensive in peso terms, and
as a result, all throughout the world right now you're having a collapse of bond prices of
third world debt. Argentine bonds, Chilean bonds, African bonds, near Eastern bonds. Third
world debt bonds are plunging, because the investors realize that the countries can't pay. The
game looks like it may be over.
The good side of this is that Argentina now can join with other third world countries and
say we are going to redenominate the debts in our own currency, or we just won't pay, or we
will do what the world did in 1931 and announce a moratorium on intergovernmental debts. Now,
that was done on German reparations and the World War I inter-ally debts. Something like that.
Some international conference to declare a moratorium and say, what is the amount that actually
can be paid? And to write down third world debts to the amount that should be paid.
Because the principle that countries have to say is that no country should be obliged to
sacrifice its own economy, its own employment, and its own independence to pay foreign
creditors. Every country has a right to put its own citizens first and its own economy first
before foreign creditors, especially when the loans are made under false pretenses, as the IMF
has made pretending to stabilize the currency instead of subsidizing capital flight to
destabilize the currency.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Michael. I thank you so much. And we'll continue this
conversation. There's so much more to discuss, and so many countries here in this situation for
that discussion as well. I thank you so much for joining us today.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Thanks. I think it's going to get worse, so we'll have a lot to discuss.
SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network.
Why does the IMF have a US dollar credit line at the US FED, and Argentina does not;
countries like Canada do, as do companies like Harley Davidson. Why the discrimination?
"The IMF was originally laid out as a part of the Bretton Woods system exchange agreement
in 1944. During the Great Depression, countries sharply raised barriers to trade in an
attempt to improve their failing economies. This led to the devaluation of national
currencies and a decline in world trade."
IMF is an anachronism, a perpetual organization seeking new reasons for its continued
existence.
And like all Western post WW II institutions, is part of the Cold War. Of course any
actions by US connected entities in Latin America/Caribbean are part of the Monroe Doctrine
;-(
Gas prices in Egypt have just been raised by 75% as part of the austerity measures
attached to the $12bn loan granted by the IMF. Regular folk barely have two pennies to rub
together and have been battered by this and other measures ostensibly designed to "lift the
economy and lure back investors (as per the IMF rationale behind these crushing loan
conditions). I wonder if the same sleight of hand outlined by Prof Hudson applies here (I.e.
whether this is an IMF subsidised capital flight scheme designed to aid the Egyptian
oligarchy in repatriating its loot) and whether we should cast a suspicious eye towards the
oligarchs in any country the IMF extends a loan to.
This puts me in mind of a blog that I came across sometime ago at http://ferfal.blogspot.com/ which has relevance here.
Yeah, he tries to flog a lot of survival gear and the like but this site came out of his
experiences in the first crash in Argentina in 2001. If you are prepared to dig deep into his
files you will find all sorts of stories about what life was like in Argentina and it was
awful and desperate. Probably the best place to start is at http://ferfal.blogspot.com/search/label/Argentine%20Collapse
From your link, this jumped out, as agnotological apologetics:
" Right now with President Mauricio Macri there's hope, but the change the country needs
will take decades "
He didn't make much of an effort to clarify, who holds this "hope" nor what "change the
country needs". OTOH Michael Hudson, in his last two interviews on NC, did. He (Feral) also
seems oblivious to the neoliberal projects role in Latin America, and in Argentina's 2001
crises.
And this:
"Anyway, that's what happened in Argentina and this is why in spite of the good president
we now have we need another 10 or 20 years for an entire generation of people to know
something other than populism and corruption as a way of life."
Again, oblivious to the neoliberal projects role in Latin America, and in Argentina's 2001
crises. Who benefits from austerity, and how?
"As soon as the $50 billion was expended, or wasted, in letting wealthy Argentinians take
their pesos, convert them into dollars, move them offshore to the United States, to England,
to the Dutch West Indies, and offshore banking centers"
Not sure I understand this. Who is converting the Oligarch pesos to dollars? Crooks in the
Argentine government?
As I understand it, it's the Oligarchs' butlers and footmen in the Argentine government
that do it. If the Argentine government has a policy of pegging the peso at some set number
of pesos per dollar, then the government is obliged to hand over this many dollars in
exchange for that many pesos. That's what a peg is. One way to get the dollars would be
through a loan which the IMF would "reluctantly" give them, conditional on a few crushing
social policies.
Like I said before, this so much resembles a leveraged buy-out.
Could someone please explain the mechanisms by which the $50B loan leaves the country.
Exactly how do the elites get their hands on this money and then get it out of the
country?
If you haven't already read it, check
Prof. Hudson's previous article . It describes more about the methods.
Of course, if you have, then I'm not helping.
They convert their liquid cash into Dollars.
Then wire it to Banks outside the Argentine, and invest, (typically buy property). In addition, they take out loans against their Argentinian assets or property,
and convert those pesos into dollars,
and export those dollars as well.
All legal and above board.
When the peso collapses, they repatriate some of their dollars, and pay of the now
deflated loans.
'The Argentine loan that said we will, we will follow U.S. rules, not Argentine rules,
basically should disqualify that debt from having to be paid.'
Most foreign currency bonds floated by developing economies specify New York or London
legal jurisdiction because of (1) well-developed case law; (2) creditors don't trust the
objectivity of courts in borrower countries.
If all developing country debt were considered "odious" merely because of New York or
English legal jurisdiction, lending to developing countries would stop cold.
'I don't see how the Argentina situation can be solved without violence, because the
creditors are using police force, covert assassination.'
Cite one -- just one -- link showing "covert assassination" occurring in Argentina. The
Dirty War of the 1970s and early 1980s doesn't count. You can't keep waving the bloody shirt
of military dictatorship in South America more than thirty years after it ended.
I'm sure there is a nice polite clear unassailable explanation for what happened in this
instance:
" Alberto Nisman and Argentina's History of Assassinations and Suspicious
Suicides
Whether the crusading prosecutor's death is found to be a suicide or homicide, many
Argentines probably won't believe it. The past has taught them to always look for the
sinister explanation. "
And maybe creditors like to have their loan docs choose US/NY courts and law as the basis
for dispute resolution because both are stacked in favor of creditors? Home court "white shoe
lawyer" advantage? No history of support for the great creditor scams of the past? the word
"jackal" has no meaning? There was no reason for that guy to write a sequel to "Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man"?
Really, there's no need for the "bloody shirt," now is there, given current right-wing
dictators supported by "us," what the Empire and Banksters and the rest are doing in and to
central and South America, now is there? But it's a great distraction, I'll grant, and might
even work as impeachment for some folks
"No country should be obliged to pay its bondholders if the price of paying means austerity,
unemployment, shrinking population, emigration, rising suicide rates, abolition of public
health standards, and selloffs of the public domain to monopolists."
These sorts of rules would put a dead stop to foreign loans.
Something always bothers me about the "bondholder" sanctity meme. Bonds are "investments,"
right? And there are RISKS associated with investments, right? And there's supposed to be a
"risk premium" built into the "price" of the bond, right?
At least Investopedia and other sources say so, basically that these are NOT God-sanctioned
absolute-right deals where the bondholder takes priority over everyone else in the world,
right? https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/bondrisks.asp
And bonds are sort of contracts, subject to the rules and defenses that apply in contract
disputes, albeit specialized rules, right? Impossibility and stuff? Fraud?
So why are the rest of us, like where "the government" is dumb or corrupt (CalPERS?)enough
to "obligate" the wealth and future of a country by "selling bonds" to "investors," as
security for "loans" that get siphoned off by corruption and stupidity, dumb enough to
usually just roll over and accept that we have to live like serfs to "pay off the bonds?"
Especially when the same scam has been pulled by the same set of Banksters over and over?
And yes, in the financialized westernized world, we mopes are tied to the "paying for
progress [some definition of same] by borrowing," aren't we?
Interesting that the hated Sharia Law, the banking and investment part of it, kind of
makes those allegedly risk-free kinds of fee- and profit- and reacketeer-generating "deals"
not only unlawful, but against the will of G_D? https://shariabanking.com/
How telling. Was only 7 years ago that the torture-murderer of mothers and nuns, the
Blonde Angel of Death himself, Alfredo Ignacio Astiz, was sentenced to life in prison. Per
Wikipedia:
Astiz, a specialist in the infiltration of human rights organizations, was implicated in
the December 1977 kidnapping of twelve human rights activists, including Azucena Villaflor
and two other founders of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, and two French nationals,
Léonie Duquet and Alice Domon, who were Catholic nuns. None of the twelve was seen
alive again outside detention and all were believed killed, rumored to be among the bodies
washed up on beaches south of Buenos Aires in late 1977.
To this day, torturers and murderers hold public offices. But I'm sure that's all in the
past. Anyone who still talks about the US-sponsored 16 years of Dirty War, from 1967-1983, is
a bloody shirt-waving fool, amirite Jim?
BUENOS
AIRES, Argentina (CNN) [2 March 1998] -- Argentina's "dirty war" ended 15 years ago,
but it is an ugly episode that cannot be buried and refuses to be silenced.
Aging mothers and grandmothers march each week as the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, carrying
banners and chanting, "We will not be stopped. We will not be broken. We have held on for
20 years."
They demand to know the whereabouts of sons and daughters and husbands and wives who
were detained by the ruling military junta between 1976 and 1983, and then disappeared.
The junta seized power in Argentina in March 1976 and began a systematic campaign to
wipe out left-wing terrorism. But the terror it spread exceeded anything the leftists ever
dreamed of, claiming the lives of dissidents as well as innocent civilians.
More than 9,000 people disappeared during the dirty war, and some human rights groups
say as many as 30,000 may have been tortured and killed.
"We only want to know where our sons and daughters are -- alive or dead," says one
woman. "We are anguished because we don't know whether they are sick or hungry or cold. We
don't know anything. We are desperate, desperate because we don't know who to turn to.
"Consulates, embassies, government ministries, churches. Every place is closed to us.
Everywhere they shut us out. We beg you to help us. We beg you."
Decades after the military murdered thousands, Mothers of Plaza de Mayo warn that
the current era of alternative facts poses a new threat
Torturers and murderers hold public office, thanks to an amnesty. But I'm sure no one
today, in the whole of Argentina, would ever consider what well, actually has long been
standard operating procedure in Argentina.
While not precisely on point, reminds me of a monologue to music titled "FMI", the
Portuguese abbreviation for IMF, by Portuguese poet Mario Branco. Salient lyrics (English
translation) of IMF:
"It's 'Monetary Internationalism' The IMF doesn't exist The IMF is a mask."
"There can't exist a reason for so much suffering."
Thievery Corporation were far more brutal in their Fela-Kuti-inspired "Vampires"
Lyrics (abridged):
They'll gain the world but lose their souls
They'll gain the world but lose their souls
Don't believe politicians and thieves
They want our people on their bended knees
Pirates and robbers, liars and thieves
You come like the wolf but dressed like the sheep
If you go to Lagos what you find, vampires
If you go to Kinshasa what you find, vampires
If you go to Darfur what you find, vampires
If you go to Malabo what you find, vampires
Lies and theft
Guns and debt
Life and death
IMF
When the bank man comes to your door
Better know you'll always be poor
Bank loans and policies
They can't make our people free
You live on the blood of my people
Everyone knows you've come to steal
You come like the thieves in the night
The whole world is ready to fight
The clause that bankrupted us was put in as a result of tens of thousands of professors,
labor leaders, [land] people being assassinated. The United States financed an
assassination team throughout Latin America after Pinochet in Chile to have basically a
proxy government, and the Argentine loan that said we will, we will follow U.S. rules, not
Argentine rules, basically should disqualify that debt from having to be paid. And it
should say the IMF debt is an odious debt. It was given under fraudulent purposes solely
for purposes of capital flight. We will not pay.
And this:
The problem is that the creditors have always used violence in order to get their
way.
Are why I so love Michael Hudson. There's the blood so studiously avoided in the
desanguinated language of "economics." Its absence is the tell-tale of the kind of
disembodiment described by Nancy Krieger
(h/t
Lambert ).
Embodiment, in other words, is literal. The
ecosocial premise is that clues to current and
changing population patterns of health, includ-
ing social disparities in health, are to be found
chiefly in the dynamic social, material, and
ecological contexts into which we are born,
develop, interact, and endeavour to live mean-
ingful lives. The contrast is to pervasive aetiolo-
gical hypotheses concerned mainly with
decontextualised and disembodied ''behaviours''
and ''exposures'' interacting with equally decon-
textualised and disembodied ''genes.'' The dis-
tinction is more than simply between
''determinants'' and ''mechanisms.'' Consider,
for example, contending -- and longstanding --
claims about racism compared with ''race'' as
causes of racial/ethnic disparities in health.
An embodied approach promotes testing hypoth-
eses to ascertain if the observed disparities are a
biological expression of racial discrimination,
past and present; by contrast, a disembodied
and decontextualised approach promulgates
research focused on detrimental genes and/or
''lifestyles.'' The vastly different implications
of these approaches for generating epidemiolo-
gical knowledge and informing policy underscore
the utility of clarifying the significance of
''embodiment'' for epidemiological inquiry.
[Footnotes omitted, emphasis added.]
Ah yes, but talking about our ideas about the problem, or talking about the talking about
the problem, is so much better for catapulting the propaganda.
Also, if it looks, walks, and bankrupts Argentina over and over exactly like an Economic
Hit Job aka mass murder and looting under the color of law by the Suits in broad g.d.
daylight, then yes. Yes it is.
In the '70s at the best universities Ecology Classes were instituted and the young well
off students were told first, that the climate was being altered as a result of human
activities.
Nixon was told by the CIA that overpopulation was the main treat to future US Security.
The Vatican quashed that way of looking at it. Gopsay policies are all the same as Vatican
policies.
Loyalty to the nation of their birth for a rich person & their wealthy families was
thrown out the window.
The jetsetter class now buys the best deal far as taxes and protections.
Their goal is to eliminate any harm to them or their families from "Forces beyond their
control." If the leaders of the world are going to co-operate with them, those leaders will
be paid. For the majority who are born to labor and become labor those things done by bankers
and their leaders become for them "Forces beyond their control."
The rich know that overpopulation is already the fact at 7.5 billion. They will bond
together on the tarmacs hanging around their jets for little talks as took place between Bill
Clinton and Lauretta Lynch.
"All those people that don't like how we get rich, who are taking up space we want, well, let
them starve. The science says there are too many of them anyway."
(Wasn't a discussion of how to engineer revolts wonderful to crush, but is used as
illustrative of how jet setters get around to meetings that lead to this or that policy of
the day.)
This is the essence of "Scientific Socialism". Current Trump Administration policies will
cause the withdrawal of US lands devoted to agriculture. What was for Stalin destruction of
the Kulaks and collectivization starvation of Armenians, or Peasants, or the Intellogemtsia,
or all those ambivalent about who is in power and are therefore Counter-Revolutionaries,
starving them all leaves only the ignorant, cowed, or lucky alive.
Creating the conditions for civil wars is a great thing for the banks and their loyal
patrons, the war materiel`s industries. The people rebel and oligarchs at the top have them
killed.
Trotsky made the point that the weapons in the arsenals are the peoples. Somehow soldiers
and police in nation after nation don't see it that way. In the US the police are made
soldiers in the drug war. Keeping the peace is not their primary job. No pot smoking
peaceniks are to be hired so the ranks are securely filled by thugs and incompetents made
special by law. They shoot Black people at the drop of a hat. They shoot the poor driven
crazy pretty often as well.
Somebody wondered why in the US Blues & Reds or Democrats, the Leftists silo and don't
talk civilly to each other. Trump supporters show and shoot guns or as in Charlottesville
Virginia run as many people as possible over and are obviously willing to kill other
Americans. In Weimar Germany the "Scientific Socialists" had their uniformed enforcers.
Dictators have their own organizations exultant at the opportunity to be rewarded for
beating and killing the people who object to the destruction of civilization. Spectaculars in
stadiums, like Trump's to come Military Parade become more common as if such is civilization
when it is more indicative of a break down of civilization itself.
I have no means to remove myself and my wife from the roiling clouds of more murder in the
streets. I'll be "collapsing in place" as described by Lambert Strether. These things and the
ideologies behind them happening are not accidental of "Forces Beyond My Control".
The true purposes of the IMF loan are questionable to me.
1.) Over the past few years, we have seen market rigging by large transnational banks in
both the LIBOR and foreign exchange markets. This raises the question of whether there was
covert market manipulation to rapidly drop the Argentine peso and coerce the Argentine
government to borrow funds from the IMF to defend the peso in order to assure that nation was
able to pay for necessary imports?
2.) Was this debt undertaken to facilitate capital flight for a small, wealthy segment of
the Argentine population without the consent of or benefit to the people of Argentina, or for
some other unstated reason?
If either of these is true, this debt can legitimately be considered as "odious debt" by
the people of Argentina and potentially repudiated.
It also appears to me that there is a high probability that the austerity measures likely
to be imposed under this $50 billion loan to Argentina by the IMF could violate the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Not an attorney, nor knowledgeable about international law. Just my opinion as an ordinary
citizen based on my reading of the post and Wikipedia.
Facebook has deleted all of my posts from July 2017 to last week because I am, apparently, a
Russian Bot. For a while I could not add any new posts either, but we recently found a way
around that, at least for now. To those of you tempted to say "So what?", I would point out
that over two thirds of visitors to my website arrive via my posting of the articles to
Facebook and Twitter. Social media outlets like this blog, which offer an alternative to MSM
propaganda, are hugely at the mercy of these corporate gatekeepers.
Facebook's plunge into censorship is completely open and admitted, as is the fact it
is operated for Facebook by the Atlantic Council - the extreme neo-con group part funded by
NATO and whose board includes serial war criminal Henry Kissinger, Former CIA Heads Michael
Hayden and Michael Morrell, and George Bush's chief of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff ,
among a whole list of horrors .
The staff are worse than the Board. Their lead expert on Russian bot detection is an
obsessed nutter named Ben Nimmo, whose fragile grip on reality has been completely broken by
his elevation to be the internet's Witchfinder-General. Nimmo, grandly titled "Senior Fellow
for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab", is the go-to
man for Establishment rubbishing of citizen journalists, and as with Joseph McCarthy or Matthew
Clarke, one day society will sufficiently recover its balance for it to be generally
acknowledged that this kind of witch-hunt nonsense was not just an aberration, but a
manifestation of the evil it claimed to fight.
There is no Establishment cause Nimmo will not aid by labeling its opponents as Bots.
This from the Herald newspaper two days ago, where Nimmo uncovers the secret web
of Scottish Nationalist bots that dominate the internet, and had the temerity to question the
stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
Nimmo's proof? 2,000 people had used the hashtag #Dissolvetheunion on a total of 10,000
tweets in a week. That's five tweets per person on average. In a week. Obviously a massive
bot-plot, eh?
When Ben's great expose for the Herald was met with widespread ridicule , he doubled
down on it by producing his evidence - a list of the top ten bots he had uncovered in this
research. Except that they are almost all, to my certain knowledge, not bots but people . But
do not decry Ben's fantastic forensic skills, for which NATO and the CIA fund the Atlantic
Council. Ben's number one suspect was definitely a bot. He had got the evil kingpin. He had
seen through its identity despite its cunning disguise. That disguise included its name,
IsthisAB0T, and its profile, where it called itself a bot for retweets on Independence. Thank
goodness for Ben Nimmo, or nobody would ever have seen through that evil, presumably
Kremlin-hatched, plan.
No wonder the Atlantic Council advertise Nimmo and his team as " Digital Sherlocks ".
The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I
am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies
of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for
the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect
presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment
he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration
told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive
was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the
Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility
of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively
that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime.
Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we
would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent
of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find
the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary
of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names
of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists
disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists
on which none of the suspects were mentioned.
From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the
instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should
be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these
attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of
maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.
In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation,
under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme,
conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural
resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction
of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised.
Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix
", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski
intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries
whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would
be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational
financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the
armed wing of these predators.
For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots
by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and
opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men
have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth
and poverty has increased.
We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy –
phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East.
Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.
In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version,
two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile,
and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.
In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced
by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists
in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian
Arab Republic.
So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the
Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of
the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.
So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress,
one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we
see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring
back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we
see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your
homeland by attacking your position.
Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the
diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of
11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.
Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational
interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which
aspires to freedom.
Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real
perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst
alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today
a political refugee in Syria.
See :
Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State
Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred
Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton;
James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks;
T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom;
John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele;
and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From
1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of
dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of
wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the
western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
Bill Clinton and his merry gang (which included Rubin and Summers) was of course a gang of short-sighted amoral bottom feeders in dealing
with Russia, but he was just a puppet of the neoliberal elite, which has a clear strategy -- decimating Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the planet and its people. ..."
"... Some would consider that as Totalitarianism -- the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is featured as one of its alleged values, which is why the many undemocratic aspects of various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for example. ..."
the testimony before
the Outlaw US Empire's Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Wess Mitchell:
"Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest U.S. primacy
and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to
prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments
of American power."
Mitchell mentions a document I wasn't able to locate, the "Russia Integrated Strategy," but I was able to find what appears
to be
its predecessor , "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017."
Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the
planet and its people.
Some would consider that as Totalitarianism -- the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain
aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is featured as one of its alleged values,
which is why the many undemocratic aspects of various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for
example. What do we call a government that directly lies to its populous? What sort of ism is in play?
Hopefully barflies and others will read these documents and shudder, although I'm
sure a few will say "So, what's new?" Well, this goes far beyond the millennia long, ongoing Class War, and confirms what I've
been saying for awhile now -- We're already within a Hybrid Third World War being waged by people who want everything or nothing.
What sort of ism's that? In my book, it's the worst form of Authoritarianism anyone might imagine.
Bombing it induced a humanitarian crisis in the coastal region where Gaddafi's power was
concentrated, contributed to a wave of refugees, and let the cities which supported him know
they were not impregnable, that their weaknesses were being exploited. The stupid cover
story, solemnly intoned by talking heads who believe their listeners are almost too stupid to
breathe without prompting and assistance, was because cutting the civilian population off
from water in order to force capitulation is a war crime.
So, the metamorphosis is done. President Trump has finally, fully, shed his 2016 Campaign
'skin' of loosely imagining a grand foreign policy bargain that could be the foundation for
"WORLD PEACE, nothing less!" as Trump tweeted when imposing sanctions on Iran. We wrote, on 3
August,
quoting Prof Russell-Mead, that Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' (the US exit from JCPOA),
constituted a step-change of direction: one that reflected "[Trump's] instincts, telling him
that most Americans are anything but eager, for a "post-American" world. Trump's supporters
don't want long wars, "but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national
decline".
It all began, very precisely, with Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' - which is to say, to the
moment when the US president definitively took the Israeli 'line': exiting from the Iranian
nuclear accord, deciding to sanction and to lay siege to Iran's economy, and when he endorsed
the (old, never materialized) idea of a Sunni 'Arab NATO', led by Riyadh, that would confront
Shi'a Iran.
In practical terms, Trump's Art of the Deal geo-strategy, as we now see, became thus
transformed into the search for radical US leverage (through weaponising a strong dollar and
tariffs) -- looking always to the means to force the capitulation of the counter-party. This
cannot be rightly termed negotiation: It is rather, more as if the script has been lifted from
The Godfather.
But, when Trump unreservedly took the Israeli (or, more properly the Netanyahu) 'line', he
assumed to himself all 'the baggage' that comes with it, too. The 1996 Clean Break document,
prepared by a study group led by Richard Perle for Binjamin Netanyahu, meshed the Israeli and
US neocon camps into one. And they are still umbilically linked. 'Team Trump' now is filled with neocons who
are unreserved Iran-haters. And Sheldon Adelson (a major Trump donor, a patron of Netanyahu,
and the instigator for the US embassy move to Jerusalem), consequently has been able to implant
his ally, John Bolton (a neocon), as Trump's chief foreign policy advisor.
The Art of the Deal has effectively been neocon-ised into a tool for enlarging American
power – and there is nothing of earlier 'mutual advantage' to be heard of, or to be seen,
these days.
And now, this week, the metamorphosis has been cemented. After the Helsinki summit between
Trump and President Putin, there seemed to have opened a small window of opportunity –
for co-operation between the two states - to return stability to Syria. Many hoped that from
this small terrain of tentative Syria co-ordination, some lessening of tensions between the US
and Russia, might have found fertile soil.
Trump said some positive things; the area around Dera'a, in south Syria, was smoothly
cleared of insurgents, and was retaken by the Syrian army. Israel did not demur in having the
Syrian army as their near neighbours. But then co-operation rather obviously stalled. It is not
clear why, but perhaps this was the first sign of power fracturing apart in Washington. The
Helsinki 'understandings' somehow were melting away (though military-to-military co-ordination
continued).
Putin dispatched the head of the Russian Security Council to a meeting with Bolton in Geneva
on 23 August, to explore whether there was still any possibility for joint co-operation; and,
if so, was such activity politically 'viable'. But before even that bilateral meeting with a
Russian envoy could be held, Bolton - speaking from Jerusalem (from what was billed as a
'roll-back Iran' brainstorming with PM Netanyahu) - warned that the United States would respond
"very strongly" if forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical
weapons in the offensive to retake Idlib province (expected to commence early September),
claiming that the US had intelligence of the intent to use such weapons in Idlib.
The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, however, said on August 25 "Militants of Hay'at
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [trained by a named British company], are preparing to stage a chemical
attack in northern Syria that will be used as a pretext for a new missile strike by the U.S.,
the UK and France - on facilities of the Damascus government". Russian officials said they had
full intelligence on this false flag operation.
What is clear is that since early August the US has been moving a task force (including the
USS The Sullivans and USS Ross) into position that would be able to strike Syria, as well as
positioning air assets into the US airbase in Qatar. French President Emmanuel Macron too has
declared that France was also ready to launch new strikes against Syria, in case of a chemical
weapons attack there.
The Turkish newspaper Hurriyetsays that the
US military is laying the groundwork to close the airspace over northern Syria. US military
freighters are reported to have transported radar systems to the city of Kobanî,
controlled by the Kurdish militia, and to the US military base in Al-Shaddadah in southern
al-Hasakah. Hurriyet claims that the US plans to use these complexes to establish a no-fly zone
over the territory between Manbij in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor. (This claim however, is
unconfirmed)
Evidently, Russia takes this US threat seriously (it has deployed 20 naval vessels into the
E. Mediterranean, off Syria). And Iran evidently takes the threat seriously, too. The Iranian
Defence Minister on Sunday made a rapid unscheduled visit to Damascus in order to agree a
tri-partite (Russia, Syria Iran) response to any US attack on Syria.
Then, in the wake of Bolton's chemical weapons claims, and the pre-positioning of US
guided-missile vessels close to Syria, Petrushev and Bolton met.
The meeting was a disaster. Bolton insisted that Petrushev admit to Russian interference in
the US elections. Petrushev refused. Trump said we have 'secret' evidence. Petrushev retorted
if that were so, what was the purpose of demanding admission. Bolton said effectively: We
sanction you anyway.
Well not surprisingly, the two were unable to agree on Iranian withdrawal from Syria (which
Petrushev put on the table). Bolton not only said flatly 'no', but afterwards went public with
the Russian initiative to talk possible Iran withdrawal – thus killing it, and killing
the initiative as a gambit to leverage further diplomacy. Even the customary, bland,
uninformative, final communiqué that is usual in such circumstances, could not be
agreed.
The message seems clear: any Helsinki understandings on Syria are dead. And the US is
prepared it seems (they have actually moved assets into position) to strike Syria. Why? What is
going on?
One obvious element is, that until now, Trump's hand in all this is not visible. Now,
power appears to have fractured in Washington with regard to Middle East policy. The
neocons are in the lead. This is very significant, since the slender pillar on which Trump's
rapport with President Putin had been built, was the prospect of US-Russian co-operation over
Syria. And that hat seems, now, to be a dead letter.
Lawrence Wilkerson, now a professor, but formerly the Chief of Staff to Secretary of State
Colin Powell during the infamous Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' episode
says it 'cold'
:
"It has to do with the return of the Neoconservatives (Neocons) what is happening today, as
Trump is preoccupied increasingly with the considerable, ever-growing challenges to him
personally and to his presidency institutionally, is the re-entry into critical positions in
the government of these people, the people who gave America the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even
those many of them who declared "Never Trump" -- as arch-Neocon Eliot Cohen summed it up -- are
salivating at the prospect of carrying out their foreign and security policy - while Trump
essentially boils in his own corrupt juices.
"A vanguard, of course, is already in our government to beckon, comfort, and re-establish
others of their type. John Bolton as national security advisor to the president leads this pack
though he's not, strictly speaking, a card-carrying Neocon
"Presently, their first and most identifiable target is the unfinished business -- which
they largely commenced -- with Syria and Iran, Israel's two most serious potential threats. If
the Neocons got their way -- and they are remarkably astute at getting their way -- it would
mean a reignited war in Syria and a new war with Iran, as well as increased support for the
greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, Saudi Arabia".
Bolton, Pompeo and the neocons have made it abundantly clear that they – at least
– have not abandoned 'regime change' in Syria, as their objective - and they remain set
on delivering somehow a strategic setback to Iran (Bolton has said that sanctions alone, on
their own, and without Iran suffering some extra strategic blow, would be insufficient to alter
Iranian 'malign behaviour').
Whether or not Mattis and Votel are fully on board with Bolton's "very strong" military
reprisal on Syria threat (for alleged chemical weapons use) is not clear. (Mattis succeeded in
mitigating the last missile strike by Trump on Syria, and to co-ordinating with Moscow a 'nil
response' to Trump's Tomahawk salvo). Will it be the same this time if the US again makes an
unsubstantiated (and later unproven) claim of chemical weapons use by the Syrian
government?
Will Israel join in any attack – using the pre-text of its self-awarded 'right' to
attack Iranian forces anywhere in Syria? Given the new strategic 'fact' of the Iranian Defence
minister's 'surprise' Sunday visit to Damascus to sign a common resolve on countering
any such attack on Syria. Will Netayahu 'bet' on the Russians not responding to hostile Israeli
aircraft entering Syrian airspace?
Who will blink first? Netanyahu? Or will Trump surface from his domestic tribulations
sufficiently, to take notice and to say
'no' ?
Whatever happens, Presidents Putin and Xi can 'read the runes' of this affair – which
is to say that President Trump's highest officials remain committed, openly, or through 'false
flags', to defend the American 'global order'. These officials share a disdain for the Obama
administration's retrenchment and retreat. They want to arrest, and even truncate the rise of
America's rivals, whilst restoring to their former position, those former pillars to U.S. world
power: i.e. America's military, financial, technological and energy, dominance.
Russia is trying to defuse the critical situation by sharing their intelligence with
Washington that Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra), was plotting a chemical attack
that would then be misrepresented as another 'atrocity' committed by the 'Syrian regime'. Eight
canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a
specially trained group of militants, prepped by a British security company, have also arrived
in the area, to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian 'victims'. Militants plan to
use child hostages in the staged incident, Russian officials say .
But will Washington listen? From the moment that the Syrian or the Iranian 'regime' is
subjected to a judgement of moral delinquency (irrespective of evidence) – in the context
of America's claim to its own Manifest (moral) Destiny – these 'regimes' become
transformed from being a temporary, relative adversaries, into an absolute enemy. For, when one
is upholding humanity's 'destiny' and seeking "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!", how can one wage
war - unless it is in the name of a self-evident good. What is afoot is
not attacking an adversary, but punishing and killing the guilty.
Faced with the radical moral devaluation of the 'Other' across western media; and - on the
other hand - with the virtue signaling of western good consciousness, can Russia's rational
presentations hope to carry weight? The only fact that might just weigh in the balance is the
threat that Russia will use its missile arsenal assembling in the East Mediterranean. But what
then?
"... Washington – does not give a fuck about the economic well-being of Ukrainians, does not have even the brotherly connection
of being of the same ethnic group, and for so long as Ukraine is willing to suffer being poor in silence, for that long it will not
be a problem for its new 'partners'. ..."
A few are beginning to wake up to the reality that snatching Ukraine away from Russia was never about prosperity and security
for its people, and all about destabilizing what the west perceived as the quickening of an unwelcome regional influence, and
curbing it. The EU – and its string-puller, Washington – does not give a fuck about the economic well-being of Ukrainians,
does not have even the brotherly connection of being of the same ethnic group, and for so long as Ukraine is willing to suffer
being poor in silence, for that long it will not be a problem for its new 'partners'.
Nationalist Nazi nutjobs are always proposing the border be sealed ever-tighter, if it were feasible to build a stainless-steel
wall between Ukraine and Russia which reached to low earth orbit, they would vote for it. But the Great Wall Of Yatsenyuk never
materialized, he's enjoying his Florida condo, and there is no practical way to limit commerce between the two countries while
the people are increasingly motivated toward its continuing.
Ukraine is on the edge of collapse, and I don't think any force on earth can prevent its sliding over the edge. The west is
not going to pony up the $170 Billion or so it would take to rescue it; if it did so, Porky and his minions would steal most of
it for themselves, and Russia is unlikely to ever permit again the degree of fraternal closeness that existed between the two
countries, since it is clear it would take only another western intervention to render it once again an untrustworthy spoiler.
Once Nord Stream II is built, Ukraine will have lost its leverage and will be of no further significant value to the western purveyors
of destabilization.
More such core realization is necessary to prevent Ukraine from officially blaming its collapse on anyone but itself. The government
will try that course, naturally, and you don't need to be able to see very far into the future to know that it is Russia who will
be blamed, despite plenty of empirical evidence that Russian investors and Ukrainian refugees working in Russia were all that
kept it alive before the end. But in order that Ukrainians know in their heart of hearts that their government stepped on its
own dick over and over, and that they passively failed to correct it, there needs to be more such public confession. I can show
you plenty of analysis, in English, published before things went pear-shaped in the dying moments of 2013, which proposed that
severing trade relationships with Russia as the nationalists insisted would cost Ukraine just about exactly what the Rada now
says will happen, years too late. But they got one thing right – Ukraine and Russia cannot be brothers, not even friends, for
so long as Ukraine harbours that nutty nationalist element.
Give western Ukraine to Poland, and encourage all the nationalists
to go to the new paradise, and ensure that happens. They can bore the Poles with their raptures about Kievan Rus. Then maybe some
relationship could be salvaged.
This war is tremendous waste of resources on both sides with no clear
victory in sight. Killing of individual commanders does not change the
strategic situation. It just invites retaliation.
Although the war did increase the coherence of the Ukrainian society
(like any war does) the price is way too high.
Zakharchenko was a soldier and knew the risks, many others are ready to take his
place.
VV Putin could have occupied the whole so-called ukraine in the same manner he occupied
Crimea, even better, he could've sent volunteers to shoot CIA and Mossad agents during the
maidan events.Lots of volunteers.
He didnt.
Please consider that ukraine project is an infinite black hole sucking money and resources
(agents, weapons, influence) from the Hegemon, at the same time bringing him absolutely
nothing.
Especially the Debaltsevo cauldron was painful, as lots of modern artillery control gear
was lost in pristine state and sent directly to Moscow.Without considering the humiliation of
German and Canadian mercenaries being caught and released for indeterminate price.
In exchange the Hegemon learned that Russian artillery is still as dangerous as in '45, at
Saur Mogila whole battalions of Ukrainian army disappeared literally in minutes when caught
by Buratino fire.
Perhaps some remember the shellshocked Ukrainian infantry lieutenant, when interviewed by
CNN freshly out of Ilovaisk, screaming into the mic that *two meters, you must dig two
meters, or you die!* , well-intentioned American female reporter decidedly confused.
The show will go on until Hegemon decides that he had enough, and gives green light to the
ukrainian army to coup the govt, exterminate the nazi battalions, and begin a very slow and
painful ascension back into a semblance of normality first, then re-unification with the
Motherland next.
As usual, the most vulnerable, old people, women, workers will suffer the most, and the
guilty will go unpunished.
Looks like we came very close in the USA to classic definition of fascism: (1) Powerful
and continuing expressions of nationalism (yes); (2). Disdain for the importance of human
rights (NO, only for brown people); (3). Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying
cause (yes); (4) The supremacy of the military/avid militarism (yes); (5) Rampant sexism
(NO); (6) A controlled mass media (NO; only MSM; Internel is still not controlled) (7)
Obsession with national security (yes); (8) Religion and ruling elite tied together (yes;
Pence is a good example here); (9) Power of corporations protected (yes); (10) Power of labor
suppressed or eliminated (yes). (11) Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
(no); (12) Obsession with crime and punishment (yes); (13) Rampant cronyism and corruption
(yes); (14). Fraudulent elections (yes; via two party system)
Notable quotes:
"... Hitler and Netanyahu's statements reflect the viewpoint of Social Darwinism, an ideology that justifies elite dominance of society to its own ends. ..."
"... This idea "that Fascism (and Nazism) are a form of Liberalism" seems like a really important idea. ..."
"... That's my point: Arendt's totalitarianism theory is 100% false. There is no "totalitarianism" in reality: it is a Cold War myth, a mirage. Nazism and Communism had absolutely nothing in common (as she states). Different ideology, different genesis in Western school of thought, different goals, different economic systems etc. ..."
"... Propaganda warfare, prison systems, war strategies, logistics -- those are all universal methodologies, means to achieve an end, there are no patents in then. This is so true that the USA is using many methods (including torture in black sites) that, during the Cold War, its propaganda (which would cause Goebbels envy) stated only a "totalitarian" (i.e. a communist or a fascist) would do. ..."
"... I am saying that liberalism may subvert democracy and tend towards criminality [including genocide] and that seems an area that has been neglected when considering what the nature of Nazism/Fascism really is. ..."
"... The US had social liberalism following WWII although tainted somewhat by the CIA and MIC and lasting until the early 70's. There was essentially a civil war fought starting in 1963 at the elite level by neoliberal globalists and social liberal nationalists leading to a number of assassinations and ending with Nixons impeachment/resignation in 1973/74. The good guys lost and its been downhill ever since as the US descends Jacobs Neoliberal Ladder. ..."
"... Although you're right in the sense that Liberalism has some diversity over history, its cornerstone is freedom=private property. ..."
"... 'Totalitarianism' has roots in 'total mobilisation' and 'total war' – in the total regimentation of the population, driven by the capitalist great powers and their competition to conquer colonies and global hegemony. Hitler aspired to German revanchism, winning back and expanding Germany's 'living space' and colonial territories. He saw himself as heir to the colonial tradition, which he sought to radicalise. ..."
"... He first of all identified with the US example, seeking his own Far West in Eastern Europe and reducing the Slavs to the condition of slaves in service of the Herrenvolk. Decisively, this project met its definitive defeat at Stalingrad; this defeat was, at the same time, the beginning of a gigantic wave of anti-colonial revolts. ..."
(Neo-)Liberalism, imperialism, Nazism, etc. are all internationalist as well.
I know so many people on the western left who believe that invading Syria, Iran,
Venezuela, intervening in Africa, sanctions/punishments (war?) on Russia, Soros, colour
revolutions, etc. is all good and justified because it moves away from the nation state
towards internationalism.
Even what you call Arendt's "same techniques" is wrong: nazi Germany had a completely
different socioecomic and cultural structure than the USSR. Germany didn't even had eg
commissaries, they didn't even had a planified central economy. It was really just
liberalism: an USA that went wrong.
Someone recently told me that the whole of human history boils down to one thing, "one
tribe wants to take something from another tribe". I would put it another way, sharing
outside of the family unit is learned, taking is natural selection at its best.
So, having stated Arendt as your belief, you now deny it, saying that fascism is
different from communism. So what makes fascism then, apart from the technique of declaring
the unity of the nation behind the leader, which the commies also did? The only answer is
nationalism, as I said before.
To those who say Statements 1 and 3 illustrate reality: don't confuse bullying with
strength.
Hitler and Netanyahu's statements reflect the viewpoint of Social Darwinism, an ideology
that justifies elite dominance of society to its own ends.
The question we should be asking ourselves is whether nations that have achieved
military power, often through intimidating and brainwashing their own peoples, and smashing
down those who resist. should be allowed to continue in this way. And for what purpose?
Can the actions and policies of Nazi Germany and Israel be construed as those of
powerful and strong nations? If Israel chooses easy targets to attack, and relies on
bullying others and intimidating them by exploiting the Shoah, are its actions those of a
strong nation?
I have been brought up with the history and consequences of the potato famine and one
thing that always puzzled me was why the British Empire just allowed it to happen? It would
have cost little to the Empire and cast the British in a whole new light in the eyes of the
Irish.
This proposition that it was ideological (liberalism) is something of an eye opener to
me, social darwinism (let the weak die) is a very persuasive reason. And this does lead to
a direct correlation with Nazism/fascism.
The more recent books (Kershaw) on Hitler talk about the freedom of officials to do what
they want and take what they want as a reason why there are not written orders from Hitler
authorising (amongst other things) the genocide of those considered weak and undesirable.
This is obviously frustrating to the writers because they are unable to convincing find
sufficient written documentation supporting the administrative implementation of the
presumed 'ideology'; a frustrating inability to adequately explain Hitler, as it were.
This
idea that Nazism is some kind of souped up liberalism is more convincing than saying Hitler
was just too lazy to get out of bed in the mornings.
The key objection that I think that most people will instinctively have (because the
idea is so contrary to what we have been taught) is that (neo-)liberalism and democracy go
together. However, some of (neo-)liberalism's prime ideological advocates (Hayek, James M.
Buchanan) clearly wanted to minimise democratic interference and envisaged a time when
democracy was no longer of use and could be discarded.
This idea "that Fascism (and Nazism) are a form of Liberalism" seems like a really
important idea.
Thank you for taking us back to the Greeks! I offer in tandem this quotation from the
website of a Plato scholar who has long been one of my heroes, Bernard Suzanne (his site is
still available, an amazing source of ongoing study):
"Unless either the philosophers become kings in the cities or those who are nowadays called kings and rulers get to philosophizing truly and adequately, and this falls together upon the same person, political power and philosophy, while the many natures of those who are driven toward the one apart from the other are forcibly set aside, there will be no cessation of evils, my dear Glaucon, for cities, nor, methinks, for the human race." Plato, République, V, 473c11-d61
I will just add that the title "Republic" is a bad translation of the Greek word
"Politeia" - to my mind "Citizenry" fits better, bearing in mind that cities in Socrates'
day were the equivalent of small states. And in Shakespearean terms, it would be prudent to
say of that 'forcible setting aside of many natures' - "Aye, there's the rub!"
ADKC: ... why the British Empire just allowed it to happen?
It wasn't liberalism or social darwinism. As proven by the success of Irish outside
Ireland. It was pacifying the unruly Irish that lived next door to the greatest Empire yet known.
Today we would call it a crime against humanity.
Prior to the contrived Potato Famine was Enclosure. Perhaps you've read Sir Thomas
More's Utopia which describes well the outcome of that quite deliberate policy. It
would be nice to ascribe such doings to the Policy favored by Sir Francis Bacon who
advocated waging war on the poor continuously and mercilessly, deeming them The Hydra
threatening the wellbeing of the well off.
As many have written, the British rehearsed
their colonial policies first on the Irish and the aims had nothing to do with Liberalism
or any other ism aside from Authoritarianism, which is quite close to being a Totalitarian
System and is certainly argued as such. That Liberalism can be in any way associated with
Fascism means a basic lack of understanding of Liberalism's defining
characteristics .
That's my point: Arendt's totalitarianism theory is 100% false. There is no
"totalitarianism" in reality: it is a Cold War myth, a mirage. Nazism and Communism had
absolutely nothing in common (as she states). Different ideology, different genesis in
Western school of thought, different goals, different economic systems etc.
Hitler never
laid out any economic plan, it was implicit the liberal model was the model: he simply
wanted a traditional colonial power that could mirror the British Empire to the East. He
didn't invent racism or genocide.
It was not just a difference of "the Third Reich was nationalist and the USSR was not"
-- on the contrary, Socialism in one country was the victorious ideology post-Lenin, and
the Cuban, Vietnamese and Chinese (to a lesser extent) were all nationalist in substance.
Fidel Castro wasn't even communist when he led the Revolution!
There are no coincidence in "techniques". Unless you characterize anything as tributary
to the place who first invented it. In this sense, everybody who uses Law is Roman, or
anybody who goes to space is Soviet -- which is absurd.
Propaganda warfare, prison systems,
war strategies, logistics -- those are all universal methodologies, means to achieve an
end, there are no patents in then. This is so true that the USA is using many methods
(including torture in black sites) that, during the Cold War, its propaganda (which would
cause Goebbels envy) stated only a "totalitarian" (i.e. a communist or a fascist) would
do.
The USSR was a unique experiment, which dissolved suddenly and unexpectedly. In my
opinion, it was valuable in the sense it was the first experience of a State in which the
working class was in power (dictatorship of the proletariat). Yes, it failed -- but no new
economic system is born ready, like Athena from the head of Zeus. Even capitalism failed
for more than 300 years before finally working in the least of probable of places: tiny and
peripheral England.
There is pretty strong debate on the nature of the British reaction to the 1845 Irish
Potato Famine. Some sources say it was deliberate genocide on the part of the British.
Either Irish people starved to death or they fled overseas (and gave up their land,
language and culture) to survive. Others point to the monoculture that the introduction of
potatoes back in the 1600s created, and the population boom that resulted. Potatoes are a
very nutritious crop staple for poor people.
The famines that began afflicting India from the 1770s on (after the Indian
subcontintent started to come under British rule through the British East India Company)
and which the British always never dealt with adequately - even though previous empires in
India had always been able to stave off famine and starvation when monsoons failed to
arrive or were late and harvests ended up ruined - might shed some light on the British
treatment of the Irish Potato Famine.
In India. the Mughals and others who came before them prevented famine in areas that had
suffered crop failures by reducing taxation and giving afflicted areas stored grain (from
previous years' surpluses). Under British rule, India was heavily taxed (by having to
supply food for the empire) and the levels of taxation were maintained regardless of local
or regional conditions. In times when the monsoon failed and crops failed, communities
continued to suffer from the brunt of heavy taxation. Combined with the British destruction
of the Indian textile industry over the 1700s, which put thousands out of work, British
taxation and other imperial policies turned India into a massive poorhouse.
And yet the British State would describe itself (then and now) as liberal and
democratic. Even today the British State does not recognise that any "crime against humanity"
happened in Ireland regarding the potato famine.
To avoid any confusion:- I am not suggesting that there wasn't a crime, I am not
advocating social darwinism, I am not suggesting that the Irish were weak or inferior in
anyway. I am saying that liberalism may subvert democracy and tend towards criminality
[including genocide] and that seems an area that has been neglected when considering what
the nature of Nazism/Fascism really is.
Communism is state owned capitalism where state controls the means of production, fascism
and neoliberalism (classic liberalism)is private owned capitalism where the owners of
production (elites) control the government to an unhealthy degree. Social liberalism
(called socialism by some) is a mix of state and privately owned production, a mix
determined to maximize benefits to society with the people in control of government, and
capitalism and government serving the people and not just the elites
The US had social liberalism following WWII although tainted somewhat by the CIA and MIC
and lasting until the early 70's. There was essentially a civil war fought starting in 1963
at the elite level by neoliberal globalists and social liberal nationalists leading to a
number of assassinations and ending with Nixons impeachment/resignation in 1973/74. The
good guys lost and its been downhill ever since as the US descends Jacobs Neoliberal
Ladder.
Only in some kind of hell could a guy like Trump be elected. At least the Germans never
elected their racist and fascist leader
Although you're right in the sense that Liberalism has some diversity over history, its
cornerstone is freedom=private property.
If you take the first Constitution of the French
Revolution, you'll see right in the first articles that by freedom they consider the right
of the individual to fully enjoy his life and his private property ("industrie"). This
chunk of the Constitution remained in the next versions.
So, colonialism was a perfectly liberal policy: the workers you're exploiting are your
property, so you're enjoying your individual freedom. It was only with the socialist
uprisings of the 19th Century that property-less people (i.e. workers) begun to enjoy some
rights -- the most illustrative being the right to vote (non-censitary vote, universal
vote).
There's absolutely no documentation that demonstrate Hitler and/or Mussolini tried to
end liberalism and create a new economic system (like the Communist). Nazism and Fascism
are literally liberalism with a bombastic narrative (one with the quest of the Aryan Race
of its Lebensraum; the other trying to revive the Roman Empire), but all the basic elements
of liberalism are there: the main one being the preservation of private property.
P.S.: the concept of freedom of speech was different back then: all those rights only
belonged to the capitalist class; workers and slaves were not considered human beings. The
concept of the "universal man" only really came in vogue with Marx; before him, it was
widely believed the dominant class was of a different breed than that of an dominated
class.
We're discussing isms here. What ism's being advocated by the
testimony before the Outlaw US Empire's Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Wess
Mitchell:
"Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and
ideological wherewithal to contest U.S. primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It
continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the
administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by
systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American
power."
Mitchell mentions a document I wasn't able to locate, the "Russia Integrated Strategy,"
but I was able to find what appears to be
its predecessor , "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017."
Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the
Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the planet and its people. Some would consider that
Totalitarianism--the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain
aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is
featured as one of its alleged values, which is why the many undemocratic aspects of
various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for example. What
do we call a government that directly lies to its populous? What sort of ism is in
play?
Mitchell's testimony was done in public so it didn't remain secret very long, was
written about in Russian, then
the analysis was translated into English . Hopefully barflies and others will read
these documents and shudder, although I'm sure a few will say "So, what's new?" Well, this
goes far beyond the millennia long, ongoing Class War, and confirms what I've been saying
for awhile now--We're already within a Hybrid Third World War being waged by people who
want everything or nothing. What sort of ism's that? In my book, it's the worst form of
Authoritarianism anyone might imagine.
One of the things I find missing in the discussion so far is the anthropological
perspective. A short version would be that with the rise of monotheistic religions came the
rise of human hubris about humans place in the cosmos and limited variations of us/them
proscriptions about how life should be led....and the belief that everyone should believe
this way or be eliminated.
This arrangement was challenge during the (as yet finished) Enlightenment period that
began with the start of the scientific revolution in 1620. This period was the birth of
liberalism and the church and state came under increased scrutiny.....but not
rejection....blind faith still lives on.
Fast forward to the present where we have ongoing elimination of any and all cultures
not "Western" which is my biggest problem with our social order....it is reducing our
genetic ability to survive by the monoculture focus.....as well as being a heinous form of
social organization that favors the few over the many.
On to fascism....Fascism is not just defined by a single aspect but a combination that
show the face of the beast. The best description of fascism is a list of 14 points written
in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes
of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet
(Chile). His points are as follows:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the
fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens
caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and
demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled
with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to
realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even
demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy,
denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a
means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures,
and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice -- relentless
propaganda and disinformation -- were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
"spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals,
Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other
religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes
were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial
infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an
expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals,
intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were
male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were
adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in
Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus
lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be
relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power
to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of
the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was
usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite.
It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints.
Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and
questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as
godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders
of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the
precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion
that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A
perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on
religion.
9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of
large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw
the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed
states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite
were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests,
especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the
political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed
or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright
contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were
anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to
national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled;
politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of
dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature
should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal
charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of
criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more
police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to
enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive
financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of
government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth
from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national
security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely
unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When
actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power
elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or
disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the
power elite.
Jr @ 138: Thanks for the link, but all I get from the endless semantics, is that the
English language is a lot like beauty, " in the eye of the beholder, or speaker.
English, or any language, can be used to inform or confuse.
How many of a similar sample of Germans in 1938 thought that their government would do
what it did? Consent must be manufactured. Caitlin Johnstone recently wrote this addition
to the genre
explaining how that's done .
I have a different perspective than psychohistorian.
For starters, I would see different causes of Enlightenment. It was a huge (if somewhat
misunderstood) ideological change in Europe, and such changes are caused by the profound
catastrophes undermining the trust in the status quo. While the scientific and other
cultural advances were definitely in place in 17 century Europe, a larger part of that
century were spent on horrific wars. If you add up their effects and compare to the
continent's population, it is hard to tell if 17 century was less horrible that World Wars
of 20-th century or not. And most of those wars were "religious", or had a major religious
component. In reaction, the thinkers and rulers got convinced that "reason" should have
primacy over "religion". Scientific advances played a role in fortifying the authority of
"reason", but ideas like defending one true faith and following rulers because of their
divine mandate were discredited by calamitous wars.
Advantages of "reason" were quite quickly noticed by elites, for example divine rights
of absolute rulers were patched by their enlightenment. Wars in Europe improved methods of
conscription, arming and disciplining the peasants and outright massacring and pillaging
was less evident than in 17-th century. But any discussion on fascism had to wait until
20-th century, because it made no sense in authoritarian systems of more traditional elites
-- manipulating public opinion makes little sense if public opinion matters only a little.
But as democracy became widespread AND the traditional elites got compromised once again by
WWI, radical movements emerged, including Communism and Fascism.
What I am trying to say is that mo st of points listed as features of fascism by
psychohistorian is "good old order" with appeals to "reason". Of course, all methods used
in the past are applied if handy, e.g. in Thailand divine mandate of the king is
energetically applied by the ruling military junta. To me, fascism is bit more specific.
For example, the cult of a uniquely qualified leader, championing the "common people",
projects of "national grandeur" that may include highway system and/or war of conquests,
rank intimidation augmenting more gentle "manipulation" etc.
But most of points listed by psychohistorian are more insidious features that follow
from "Iron law of oligarchy". Getting rid of them will require more effort than getting rid
of "true fascism".
vk, what text/interviews are you using for your claims about Arendt's theory of
totalitarianism? I mean, could you quote a specific place or paragraph? I come to her
thought through Life of Mind and Human Condition, and my take or sense of her ideas about
"totality" when it comes to social structures is that she gets it amazingly well how
contemporary technology destroys/yed the public realm by amplifying the organismic aspects
of the collective. Y'all talk about the ism of totalitarian being you find in Hannah's
writings, but it's like there's still something missing: the difference between the social
and the political isn't just a matter of concept but metaphysical. It isn't just
ideological but geo-metric. Social control isn't political when it reaches the point of
actualizing gods'-eyes-views, it has become self-aware bureaucracy -- what we already find
every day when our ego mistakes its beliefs about control for actions making history.
People forget the deepest slogan of The Party is GOD is POWER. If you believe war is not
peace and ignorance is not strength, then you have to figure out why Orwell wants you to
also start figuring out why god is not power.
Some like to amalgamate Nazism and communism into one, with the term 'totalitarianism'
covering both How would you analyse this concept?
'Totalitarianism' has roots in 'total mobilisation' and 'total war' – in the
total regimentation of the population, driven by the capitalist great powers and their
competition to conquer colonies and global hegemony. Hitler aspired to German revanchism,
winning back and expanding Germany's 'living space' and colonial territories. He saw
himself as heir to the colonial tradition, which he sought to radicalise.
He first of all identified with the US example, seeking his own Far West in
Eastern Europe and reducing the Slavs to the condition of slaves in service of the
Herrenvolk. Decisively, this project met its definitive defeat at Stalingrad; this defeat
was, at the same time, the beginning of a gigantic wave of anti-colonial
revolts.
A historical comparison is useful, here, for grasping how unserious the dominant
ideology's framing of 'totalitarianism' is. At the start of the nineteenth century
Napoleon sent a powerful army to Saint-Domingue with the mission of re-establishing
slavery, after it had been abolished thanks to the great black revolution led by
Toussaint Louverture.
We could indeed say that in the war that then raged, the attacked were no less
'savage' than the attackers. But we would cover ourselves in ridicule if we claimed that
we could reduce both sides to a common 'savagery' or a shared bloody
'totalitarianism'.
Much of the consideration of fascism here has been about the power and control of leaders
and elites. There is another side to the equation
One writer foretold the inevitable decline of the US toward fascism based on the social
construct used to establish law. At its' formation the US, like most of the West, had some
form of divinely sanctioned 'law' as the basis of its' civil code. While in theory law was
proclaimed to flow from democratic forms of government, the law was actually a projection
of a cultural/social ideal based on a religious text.
As that cultural/social/religious unity fractured in the face of secularism, humanism
and liberalism, there was a shift in the 'authority' that lay behind social law. The writer
I referred to indicated that cultural inertia would continue to carry the country for a
generation or two, but inevitably social/moral disintegration would occur. The result he
said would economic & social collapse which would in turn propel a movement toward
fascism.
Since then there has been a lot of evidence from evolutionary biology that suggests the
human predisposition to organize itself under some form of "authority structure" is
hard-wired into us.
"Not sure where the Romans and Genghiz Khan fit into that theory." dh |
We are not talking about wars but about societies in normal times. Both the Romans (see
eg Bread and Circuses) and the various post Genghiz states (the Mongol dynasty in China)
ruled by ensuring the general welfare of the population.
Incidentally there is no suggestion that the Irish were an 'inferior race'. Those
depending on the potato were weakened when there were no edible potatoes. The point is that
there was plenty of food to feed them but that liberal ideology did not allow of 'relief'
which would improve their fate.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its alive and
well today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. Pft at 43.
Yes.. I'd go further, the Fascists (as a standard narrow ex. Italy and Germany somewhat
before and during WW2) merely adopted parts of what was then mainstream 'Science' and/or
sociological accepted thinking, which itself was of course built on the zeitgeist, trends
in popular opinion etc. 'Modern' (late 18th - early 19th cent > 'misgenation', apartheid
laws, etc.) eugenics was very much a USA driven scientific trend. (Colonialist roots..)
Many got on the bandwagon - medicos, drug pedlers, breeders (of non-humans like chickens
and beef), socio pundits, pols, and more. Ex.
'Biologic' determinist credos (=> it's all in your genes) hold a strong sway in the
US today, stronger imho than in any other country, sticking out my neck as of course I know
little to nothing about 2/10 or far more of the world.
The fundamentalist and rigidly deterministic stance of course serves repressive
policies: ppl are born bad and 'need prison' etc.
Another nefarious result, e.g. 'ppl are born gender dysphoric' so need corrective
measures (surgery, drug dependence) is another, exploitative, side of the same coin.
The primary link between neoliberalism and fascism is their insistence that the weak go to
the wall. Communism denies this so did all societies before the British empire of the
C19th.
It is inconceivable that any previous society would have condoned the positions adopted by
the British government in Ireland during the 'Potato famine' or the policies pursued during
successive Bengal famines.
For those unfamiliar with the history of what occurred in Ireland it is worth recalling
that during the years in which the potato harvest failed entirely there were massive
shipments of food out of Ireland, vast quantities of meat, butter, cheese, barley and other
grains, were despatched to England and elsewhere for sale.
Benjamin Jowett, the Master of Balliol College Oxford, said of the liberal Political
Economists that he distrusted them and had done so since being told by one of them that,
while it was true that more than a million Irish people had died of starvation during the
famine, "He said that he wasn't sure that that that was enough."
For Bengal see, for example, Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts.
"... That she equated the two is intellectually dishonest, but hey, it was the height of the Cold War, there was poetic license to lie in the academic world. ..."
@ Posted by: Charles R | Sep 2, 2018 12:49:09 AM | 145
Her book in question is The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Possibly her most famous
book and the one which skyrocketed her career in the USA (and to the CIA, to which she was a
collaborator).
Also, in an article about modernism (I don't know how it was published in English), in the
last paragraphs, she mentions her "research on totalitarianism", and then goes on stating
that what united nazism and communism was the adoption of a "grand narrative" (see the
coincidence with post-modernism? Not a mere coincidence, for sure): the nazi adopting the
"grand narrative" of race struggle and the communist the one of class struggle. That she
equated the two is intellectually dishonest, but hey, it was the height of the Cold War,
there was poetic license to lie in the academic world.
I was born right at the end of the Cold War. I probably belong to the first generation of
historians born "post-Cold-War". And the first thing that amazed me was the sheer quantity of
pure lies and myths that pervaded Cold War era thought and science. It wasn't some
"conspiracy theory" level lies -- those very carefully crafted lies, extremely difficult to
debunk -- no, it was pure ideology, lies that can be easily debunked with a first look at
primary sources or with five minutes in internet research. Future historians (of the 22nd
Century) will probably see the Cold War era until today as a dark age for science.
Even Marxist production of this era suffered a lot: Marx must have had spinned in his tomb
like never before during the post-war era.
-//-
@ Posted by: les7 | Sep 2, 2018 3:36:39 AM | 149
Since then there has been a lot of evidence from evolutionary biology that suggests the
human predisposition to organize itself under some form of "authority structure" is
hard-wired into us.
The homo sapiens is an apex superpredator, a species of the fifth trophic level (level 5).
To top it off, we are also omnivorous, which makes us even more deadly and voracious.
Apex predators are not cannibal (the higher the trophic level, the lower the energy level,
so it wouldn't be energetically advantageous for apex predators to eat/hunt themselves. The
meat of apex predators have very low nutrition levels and are usually full of parasites and
other poisonous residues (e.g. dolphin meat is full of mercury, not edible for humans).
However, apex predator can and do kill themselves in territorial disputes -- be it among
themselves, be it with another apex predator species.
So, it is only natural that humans kill themselves for resources. It is in our nature.
However, there's a situation where apex predators stop killing themselves: when the
environment has enough for everybody. It will not be Teletubbies, where everybody will hug
and love themselves, but they would tolerate themselves. For example, you may want to kill a
stranger in the street -- but if that stranger is your children's doctor, then you'll think
twice, you'll tolerate his existence just because it is in your economic interest to keep him
alive.
That's what Marx was all about: capitalism increased interdependency, so are now, relative
to total population, killing ourselves less. The only reason the USA just don't nuke
everybody is that it depends on the rest of the world for trade. If we develop the productive
forces further, we could have a situation were the excedent would be so big that nobody would
have to exploit nobody (a fully-automated society). Again, Marx never stated communism would
be a hippie utopia: humans would still get happy, sad, anger, grief, violence for passional
motives would still happen, people would still cry when a parent would die etc. etc. What he
envisaged was a society without class.
-//-
Now, the last time about liberalism.
Liberalism is an umbrella term (although not as umbrella as illuminism) to designate the
legitimating of capitalism over four centuries. Liberalism was not just philosophy: it was an
economic theory etc.
What unites liberals of all sorts of kinds is the fact that, ultimately, the acted to
preserve or advocate for capitalism.
Liberalism can be better described thus as the way of life of capitalism; the way
capitalism perceives itself over time.
The separation we do nowadays between liberalism and nazifascism comes from neoliberal
propaganda.
Neoliberalism (new liberalism) was born in the 40s, in Mont Pelerin, and its doctrine
stated that 1) post-war social-democracy in Western Europe = socialism and should be combated
and 2) what happened between the WWI (1914) and WWII (1945) was an abortion of History, and
the world should continue from where it stopped (i.e. with the old liberalism).
That's why I consider neoliberalism more like the "return of the liberals" than "the new
liberalism", albeit it, I confess, from the point of view of the economists, the latter
definition suits better. New liberalism because they conceded liberalism collapsed in 1914
and needed to be updated (this happened with Friedman's monetarism); Return of the liberals
because, albeit it was born in the 40s, it was just in 1979, with the election of Margaret
Thatcher in the UK, that it would really come to power in a worldwide level (there was
already a neoliberal experiment in Pinochet's Chile, some years before).
But I think the definite empirical proof totalitarianism is a Cold War myth and that
nazifascism is really liberalism is that this new rise of the "far-right/alt-right" is not
coming from socialist countries (North Korea, Cuba, China and Vietnam), but from capitalist,
Western Democracies (Italy, France, USA, UK, Australia, Japan -- albeit Japan never gave up
fascism to begin with --, Sweden, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Austria and Ukraine). It was from
the liberals' womb that fascism was (re)born, not "communism". This is a fact, a fact we can
observe today, with our own senses.
Now, you can rationalized that many of these countries are from the ex-Iron Curtain. But
1) it only happened after they turned capitalist, not while they were under the USSR and 2)
those Iron Curtain countries were actually full-fledged Nazi countries before the USSR
liberated them in 1945, so they had a nazi past and culture as a nationalist narrative
against USSR hegemony; the Ukraine has a sui generis history, that involved a triple side
civil war (White, Black and Red Armies), so, albeit they were part of the USSR, they too had
a Nazi past.
"... During the Cold War, a cold warrior called Hannah Arendt published a book (with a CIA editor) that laid out the most famous version of the theory of totalitarianism. ..."
"... The theory of totalitarianism states that communism and fascism are the sides of the same coin. Arendt's central argument was that both communism and nazism were brother ideologies because both adopt a central, all-encompassing historical narrative: nazism adopting the narrative of the struggle between the races and communism adopting the narrative of struggle between classes. ..."
"... Yes, she equate racism to class struggle (which is a false dichotomy, because class struggle is empirically observable towards all written history we have available today, while race war is a modern late 19th Century invention). ..."
"... The Cold War ended and Arendt's theory was proved wrong: the USSR dissolved over the weight of its own internal contradictions. But the idea that nazifascism and communism were brother ideologies stuck in the West. ..."
"... Thanks karlof1 I look forward to you posts here. I am sure the elite could be identified as fascist as the concentration of wealth and power was certainly in their hands then after centuries of mercantile plunder. Equally they bundled the wealth generated from the progress of automation from horse drawn farm machinery through to steam power etc. ..."
"... As for American Fascism, the entire mindset of American Exceptionalism combined with the doctrine of Manifest Destiny provide it with a substantial foundation. ..."
"... "Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes ..."
"... Yes, he saw it but IMO was too soft toward it. I'd be remiss not to mention Bertram Gross's bold 1980 book Friendly Fascism and Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism . ..."
Fascism (and Nazism) is a form of Liberalism. But we need to clarify one of the most
persuading Cold War myths: the myth of totalitarianism.
(huge parenthesis alert)
-//-
During the Cold War, a cold warrior called Hannah Arendt published
a book (with a CIA
editor) that laid out the most famous version of the theory of totalitarianism.
The theory of totalitarianism states that communism and fascism are the sides of the same
coin. Arendt's central argument was that both communism and nazism were brother ideologies
because both adopt a central, all-encompassing historical narrative: nazism adopting the
narrative of the struggle between the races and communism adopting the narrative of struggle
between classes.
Yes, she equate racism to class struggle (which is a false dichotomy,
because class struggle is empirically observable towards all written history we have
available today, while race war is a modern late 19th Century invention).
Arendt's totalitarianism theory helped to give birth to modern liberal leftism, more
specifically, post-modernism, which states that there's no "long term narrative" in human
history (i.e. there's no class war; or class war was a random phenomenon of the late
19th-early 20th Centuries) and that there's no truth: only points of view based on the
observer's immediate observation.
Alongside post-modernism, there was, at the same time, a rehabilitation of Christianism,
as a part of the ideological war against communism/socialism in the Cold War: that meant a
tendency to secularism and reason begun to be reversed in the West from the 70s onwards. Such
"imbecilization" process is not new: it happened during the decline of the Roman Empire,
during the late Severan dinasty and throughout the crisis of the Third Century and progressed
with the reforms of Diocletian, reaching its appex with Constantine and Justinian. This
period of time saw the economy of Rome collapse, while Christianism flourished.
So yes, everytime society tries to progress, the Western elite calls 911-Christianism to
the rescue, it is not new: it is important to notice that, after the French Revolution, the
legitimizing narrative was that the Roman Republic was being revived (Napoleon was in love
with Ancient Rome, and read all of Caesar's Commentaries ) -- what Marx called the
"farce" in the Brummaire -- and that both the British and the American empires like to
mirror themselves with the Roman Empire (and many of modern laws and principles are based on
Roman jurists). So, there's a lot of inspiration there by the Western elites.
But Arendt came out with another very important conclusion: that a totalitarian society
can not disintegrate from within, only from the outside. Put it in other terms, the peoples of
totalitarian states can never do a revolution, only be liberated by an alien liberal society.
At the time, there was no perspective the USSR would ever go away, and there was plenty of
demand to ideologies that legitimized rising military spending and invasions in the Third
World.
The Cold War ended and Arendt's theory was proved wrong: the USSR dissolved over the
weight of its own internal contradictions. But the idea that nazifascism and communism were
brother ideologies stuck in the West.
-//-
Nazifascism is a mode of liberalism (classic liberalism) because that's what history shows
us: both Hitler and Mussolini were born and created during the apex of liberalism, in liberal
countries and received liberal education. Both declared the communists as their main enemies
once they got to power. Both economies remained highly decentralized, liberal style, during
the WWII. If you take out both lunatic narratives, you wouldn't be able to discern, e.g., a
typical German Aryan family in Berlin from a typical suburban family in the 60s USA.
Communism/socialism both came from classical Social-Democracy (not the post-war version,
the original version). Classical Social-Democracy has a very well documented paternity: Karl
Marx.
Marx took the term "socialism" from the nowadays so-called "utopian socialists", a
movement from France, whose main intellectual was Proudhon. Those "utopian socialists" come
from the old late-feudal artisan class, the class which lost the most with industrialization.
Communism (as in communist parties) come from the late 19th Century/early 20th Century schism
between the German and Russian Social-Democrat parties. At the time, the German one made a
turn to the right (which would culminate, decades later, with it supporting the German
bourgeoisie in WWI, a pivotal episode to the rise of Nazism in the 30s), and Lenin, in order
to make the ideological differences clear, changed the name to "communist". So, whatever
point of view you adopt, neither communism nor socialism come from liberalism, so it doesn't
even belong to the same branch as nazifascism.
The last "common ancestor" of both Social-Democracy and Liberalism is illuminism. But
"illuminism" was not a school or ideology per se, but an umbrella term to designate a
significant change in thought after the 16th Century. If you take the concept of Reason as
the condition sine qua non to designate something illuminist, then the only existing "child"
of "illuminism" today is Marxism.
Controlled dissent relies on obscuring the Pincer Movement being used to corral Freedom
and Liberty.
'(Commercial consumerism is) consistent with banal economic relations and routine familial
and social patterns, and, as a means towards those ends, imprisonimg...the authentic, strong,
free, vital human beings who learned to break loose and live heroic lives, in defiance of
(Judaic) 'static legalism'.
Simplicity is the panacea for the evils of the present. In short, back to Nature. We must
look to the Artist, not to the Scientist as our teacher and guide, for the artist was the
genius who knew the goal and the way ...through the ideals which the new 'vitalist' culture
intended to displace decadent 'civilization': childlike simplicity, natural spontaneity, an
Olympian will to risk and dare, an unerring intuition into the hidden and transcendent, a
sense of awe and mystery, an abundance of unrestrained passions, and an exhilirating torrent
of energy.'
(Vision and Violence, Arthur Mendel)
So Nietzche, but also Euell Gibbons and Carlos Casteňeda were 'Back to Nature' NAZIs.
Nietzche saw Judaic culture of regimental Bolshevism as the 'unpure enemy', and eugenic
extermination as the solution, while the Hippies saw 'The Pigs' (regimental military
Bolshevism) as the unclean enemy, and 'Get Back to the Land and Set My Soul Free' as the
solution. They're both a form of Fascism.
If you don't 'turn on, tune, in and drop out', if you won't let your hair grow long as you
can show it, and wear beads braided in your beard and hemp sandals, write graffiti about AGW
and fossil fuels, and eat meal worms and cannabis cookies, then you are an 'unclean pig'.
The End of History Rational Supra-National State, versus the Hot Money Pay-for-Play
Uber-Capitalist Renegades. Regimental Bolshevism and Iconoclastic Fascism are just the
two-sided Janus-faced nature of our human reality. Rodham the Bolshevik versus Trump the
Fascist. Lose-lose.
Lose-lose most especially in USA, because State-Corporate Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty
represents the unholy union of these two anti-human forces. Think Israel joining with the
Syrian 'rebels' (sic). Think the globalist ECB/IMF/WB finance marauders aligning with the
NATO Wehrmacht.
That's the NWO Spawn of Satan. They are One. Netanyahu is your Father. Come into the
Light. Use the Force, Luke. A
Oh, and be sure to get your vaccinations!
@22 ex-Reedie nails it. All three quotes were pre-empted by Thucydides so very many
centuries ago, when he has the Athenians responding to the Melians appeal to decency with
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
Before, of course, the Athenians slaughtered the Melians.
But the other side of the coin is, of course, "he who lives by the sword dies by the
sword".
The Siege of Melos is a classic example: the Athenians conquered the Melians and then
colonized Melos (sound familiar?). And then.... in the long run lost the Peloponnesian War
and all those colonists were sent packing.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Cock of the walk one day, a feather duster the next.
It's a long way to the top, and a quick ride to the bottom.
All concepts that would be utterly foreign to Netanyahu.
Until, that is, it happens to him and his Zionist throwbacks to the 19th century.
" It is not just by chance that Netanyahoo sounds like Hitler. Both, Theodore Herzl, the
founder of Zionism, and Adolph Hitler developed their political awareness around the turn of
the century "
Interestingly, the Indian fascists of the Hindutva movement, of which the RSS organisation
is the mothership, also have intellectual links to the Nazis... The romantic irrationalist
texts from which the European fascists drew their inspiration were translated into Marathi
and read avidly, by the brahmins of western India where Hindutva ideology was incubated.
It is important to make a distinction between Hinduism, the religion, and 'Hindutva' which
is a political ideology. Hindutva is more old-fascism than neo-fascism. The RSS, the
mothership of this ideology, has been organising their movement for nearly a hundred years.
And it is follows quite well the old-fascist pattern. The mothership sends expeditionary
contingents into each area of social life and captures it - nazi youth, nazi unions, nazi
lawyers, etc. The present phase is probably best captured by the old nazi term,
'gleichschaltung' , the attempt to force social institutions into the fascist mould... there
seems to be now an ongoing attempt to capture the universities, the media, the supreme court
etc. in India.
Those interested can check out the following books
1. Walter Andersen and S Damle Brotherhood in Saffron...
(a reliable objective description of the RSS.. unfortunately out-of-print for decades, but it
should be available in the Univ.of Heidelberg South Asia institute library . no electronic
copy seems to be available, if anyone has a link, please post. Andersen and Damle have a new
book to be published this year)
2. MS Golwalkar We or out nationhood defined and Bunch of Thoughts.
MSG was the second head and most important ideologue of the RSS who admired nazi 'race
pride'. he wrote,
"To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging
the country of the semitic races -- the Jews... Race pride at its highest has been manifested
here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having
differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us
in Hindusthan to learn and profit by."
and
"the foreign races [he meant other religions too] in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu
culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must
entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, ie of the
Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay
in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no
privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen's rights."
Thanks karlof1 I look forward to you posts here. I am sure the elite could be identified
as fascist as the concentration of wealth and power was certainly in their hands then after
centuries of mercantile plunder. Equally they bundled the wealth generated from the progress
of automation from horse drawn farm machinery through to steam power etc.
I guess the englander workers could be coerced or press ganged into supporting their
fascist lords as they were to support the various wars and defense needs. I doubt that one
should class the workers and common folk as naturally fascist though. Cowed into compliance
from centuries of oppression seems a better description.
Engels was a mighty keen observer and knew well the ways of the ruling class
industrialists.
"...since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must..." Thucydides - he said it in Melian Dialogue.
But the quote should be read in context...and is itself a paraphrase of Athenian
Policy,
It is also True. Yes indeed, fascists do sometimes say true things...it happens. I do not
like fascists, but I do like truth, doesn't everybody?
Gramsci's thinking thrives in many fields, being a safe haven for political and
intellectual organizations midway between the pure abandonment of Marxism and unrestricted
adherence to neoliberal "democracy".
Gramsci became the prostitute of the neoliberals, as he was before that of the recycled
Stalinists when against "Trotskyism", whatever this was.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its alive and well
today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. The strong (cognitive or
physical) rule the weak. Any attempt at equalizing the disparity is labelled as Socialism and
is opposed in part for fears it promotes dysgenics.
Darwin had it right I think. Or maybe it was the ancient Greeks. I'm trying pretty hard to
keep up here ,eugenics might be partly responsible for that.
Thank Christ somebody broke in with news of that guy getting blowed up. Somebody said
Canada might be the culprit. Well, suck me dry and call me Dusty, I never heard of that
motherfucker and neither have any of my friends at the bar. Maybe it's because of that gal
who had a granddad that was a Uke who liked Nazi invaders better than the Russians. But she's
pretty busy right now trying deal with other stuff. Like the biggest trade deal in the
world.
I had been going to propose that the answer to all three questions was "Thrasymachus" (from
Plato's Republic) - but I see in checking my source that all that fine young man did actually
say was that justice is the advantage of the stronger, using as an example the rulers of
cities who order things to their own advantage. And indeed, the statement is refuted, which
causes the frightening man to blush...But best to read the original, as what Thrasymachus
represents looms larger in that setting and in the labyrinthian dialogue upon whose threshold
he makes his claim.
Posted by: juliania | Aug 31, 2018 6:45:58 PM |
link
England is now divided down the middle politically, as is a whole list of country's, to many
to mention. left and right increasingly polarized ! Perhaps the most important being
the USA. If
we look at the right wing street violence in Germany this week, we see what is going to
happen all the way round very soon.
This weeks violent aggressive protest is much much bigger
than people realize ! It was aimed at innocent people in the street, it was apparently
protesting about victims of western military aggression emigrating to Germany. But not
addressing the root couse of why they became victims, but the problems
caused by their emigration to Germany.
Last Sunday these nazi's and there sympathizers numbered 6000 but the truth is a large
proportion of the police present were on their side. Looking the other way when violence
occurred failing to arrest people doing the nazi salute. The coalition
government has a large
part of extreme right wing politicians.
These next weeks determine which way western country's will swing. We can stop the nazi's on
the street's or we can except the consequences.
Whatever thing Trump and his minions (American allies, "Western Civilization") are doing
right now, they are just restructuring already existing trade deals at best.
-//-
As for the "Greek" discussion. It's not a surprise Hitler took at least some inspiration
from the ancient Greek. From the 19th to early 20th Century, there was some kind of "Greek
revival" in Germany's academic circles. Take Nietzsche for example: he dialogues with the
Greeks (mainly Plato and Socrates) many times. Even that so-called Nazi historian (forgot his
name) focused on the ancient Greek. Hell, even Marx did his doctorate thesis over Epicurus.
So, Hitler essentially lived in the end of a "philellene" period of Germany.
As far as the strong protecting the weak, the human animal is a prime example of this as
the mother and infant must be protected for several years before either can fend for
themselves. Another well known example is the mother bear protecting her cubs--don't mess
with either!
There's no superiority/inferiority involved as such in either example as both
are natural mechanisms. The concept of social castes/classes was very well established
millennia ago with numerous ideas put forth to justify their existence, many of which still
operate today. Many of those ideas are present within the Monthly
Review article I linked to yesterday.
Engels may or may not have coined the term
Social Murder, but even the Whigs agreed as this passage shows:
"In 1844, Frederick Engels wrote that 'English society daily and hourly commits what the
working-men's organs, with perfect correctness, characterize as social murder. It has placed
the workers under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long [and] it
undermines the vital force of these workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them
to the grave before their time.'24 Anyone who thinks that Engels was not an objective witness
should compare his judgement to that of the influential Whig journal the
Edinburgh
Review :
"Out of every two persons who die in the east of London, one perishes from preventable
causes. From twenty to thirty thousand of the labouring population of London are killed every
year by causes which, if we chose, we might expel by a current of water. Though we do not
take these persons out of their houses and murder them, we do the same thing in effect, -- we
neglect them in their poisonous homes, and leave them there to a lingering but a certain
death."
It's very easy to see why Marx and Engels characterized what they observed in England and
Europe as Class War. But can the English of the mid 1800s be characterized as fascist, or
perhaps just the elite?
...As for American Fascism, the entire mindset of American Exceptionalism combined with
the doctrine of Manifest Destiny provide it with a substantial foundation.
Combined with the
implied imperialism within JQ Adams speech that outlined what became known as The Monroe
Doctrine, White, Anglo-Saxon superiority was further institutionalized. Social-Darwinism is
quite complex to discuss despite it being a relatively simple concept on the surface.
Wikipedia's
page is rather good on this topic and shows Herbert Spencer published his ideas before
Darwin published his revolutionary book. Vice-President Henry Wallace is the most prominent
American citizen I know of to write boldly about American Fascism In his famous NY
Times op/ed The Dangers of
American Fascism that concludes thusly:
"Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and
eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about
this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward
certain races, creeds and classes."
Yes, he saw it but IMO was too soft toward it. I'd be remiss not to mention Bertram
Gross's bold 1980 book Friendly Fascism and Sheldon Wolin's Inverted
Totalitarianism .
This discussion is getting out of hand. vk 99 is not right (to be
polite).
Laguerre | Sep 1, 2018 2:48:22 PM | 114
Nazifascism is a mode of liberalism (classic liberalism)
because that's what history shows us: both Hitler and Mussolini were
born and created during the apex of liberalism...
Communism and Fascism are not the same thing, as in the theory of
Arendt. They merely used the same techniques. Nor is fascism really
liberalism. Perhaps a reaction, but not even that.
The states in which Hitler and Mussolini grew up were not liberal
democracies, but rather monarchical autocracies, which had failed. So
reactions to that.
The demonstration is that Neo-Nazis today are not in any way liberal,
but rather far right, based on uber-nationalism. That is the basis also
of 1930s fascism. Nationalism taken to an extreme, and employing
totalitarian techniques.
Neoliberalism did improved that conditions of top 20% population, but not the rest, who
actually lost the standard of living achived under the New Deal capitalism
Notable quotes:
"... Financial capitalism under the neoliberal 'ideology' that has started in the early 70s, has offered a fake prosperity - all based on debt - for the masses in Western societies, for a couple of decades. Through this way, the ruling class managed to 'hypnotize' the majority, hiding the enormous fraud. This 'hypnosis' made societies compromise with the wars and destruction outside the Western soil. ..."
"... When this illusion collapsed, the ugly picture of reality paralyzed the societies. The police state became stronger under the pretext of terrorism to crush any thoughts for uprising against the fake democracy. ..."
"... the warmongers of the regime don't even bother to search for pretexts to conduct new wars. ..."
Financial capitalism under the neoliberal 'ideology' that has started in the early 70s,
has offered a fake prosperity - all based on debt - for the masses in Western societies, for a
couple of decades. Through this way, the ruling class managed to 'hypnotize' the majority,
hiding the enormous fraud. This 'hypnosis' made societies compromise with the wars and
destruction outside the Western soil.
As long as this colourful circus was performing on the stage of a deceptive ideological
framework, very few bothered to question and condemn the undemocratic nature of the West. And
they were often being characterized as 'radicals' by the establishment machine. When this illusion collapsed, the ugly picture of reality paralyzed the societies. The
police state became stronger under the pretext of terrorism to crush any thoughts for uprising
against the fake democracy.
The more people wake up and realize the authoritarian nature of the regime, the more it will
becoming more authoritarian. Just think for a moment: it's not only the increasing censorship,
the brutality of the police state. It is also the fact that the warmongers of the regime
don't even bother to search for pretexts to conduct new wars.
Varoufakis says that Europe and the United States were never set up as democracies. And that it
is impossible for our sophisticated societies to become sustainable without democracy. It is
highly questionable whether our societies are indeed sophisticated apart from the technological
progress. Yet, there is no doubt that they are walking away from real democracy instead of
trying to approach it. So, instead of becoming sustainable, they become increasingly unstable,
which fatally leads to their final collapse.
"... "The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With Russia With New Sanctions ..."
"... "The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department thinks they are a bad idea.' ..."
"... Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East. ..."
"... And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of him existed. ..."
"... His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like – of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious threat. ..."
"... This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after largely non-existent communists across America. ..."
"The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With
Russia With New Sanctions
"The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury
department thinks they are a bad idea.'
I think in many such analyses about American-Russian strained relations an important actor
is left out, and that actor is America's strange Middle East quasi-colony, Israel.
Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set
of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East.
In order to have the kind of highly aggressive America represented by those wars, much in
Israel's favor, effort has to be made to keep antagonisms high. And Russia is inevitably viewed
as a barrier to an aggressive America, no matter how friendly Russian-Israeli relations are,
and Putin does a very good job of trying to keep good relations.
But, still, while Netanyahu and his gang smile for the cameras after meetings, their
deep-down drives are in conflict with Russia in some fundamental ways that cannot be made to
disappear with handshakes or smiles. A highly aggressive America serves Israel in its own
aggressive regional ambitions as well as in vague matters as "security," the term likely used
by its lobby in America.
Russia has her own experience with these drives in the unhappy induced-coup in Ukraine,
something in which that charming Neocon from the State Department, Barbara Nuland, famous for
bragging that America spent $5 billion on its Ukraine operation and also for once shouting
within earshot of others, "Fuck Europe!" played an important role.
The anti-Russian crowd in Washington – very much including the Neocons, who are part
and parcel of the total multi-fronted Israel Lobby in Washington, many of the Neocons holding
(or having held, as Nuland did) influential government posts – won something for their
cause whichever way events in Ukraine went.
They gained either a large country, hostile to Russia right on its border, one with good
American connections, to harass and worry Russia, or with the outcome we see, Ukraine having
made a fool of itself in falling apart through incompetence and pig-headedness, they have
gained the theme of Russian aggression. While Putin's moves were masterful and required, making
the very best of a very bad situation, what has emerged still serves these nasty folks in
stoking hatred of Russia, now accused of aggression, a charge strongly embraced in Washington
and in American-influenced parts of Western Europe.
Lindsay Graham is about the most vocal and reactionary defender of Israel in the Congress.
He might be matched by John McCain, but I'm not sure he doesn't in fact earn top honors in his
service to another country. He quite literally leaps to his feet at any mention of Israel. So,
when a guy like that strongly advocates greatly increased hostility towards Russia, it should
tell us something.
And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was
caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of
him existed.
You see, Graham is known as a fairly flagrant gay in Washington.
His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like –
of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious
threat.
This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover,
also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to
have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long
reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after
largely non-existent communists across America.
"... A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq. ..."
"... The article , entitled "Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin's Plans for Midterms," claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian president "who have provided crucial details" that have now stopped reporting at a critical time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to " American officials familiar with the intelligence" who " spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal classified information." ..."
"... Having Brennan as a source is an indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone. ..."
"... And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a "plan" for America's midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny and ineffective because "The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people" in their expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA. ..."
A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by
the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the
Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq.
The
article , entitled "Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin's Plans
for Midterms," claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian
president "who have provided crucial details" that have now stopped reporting at a critical
time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to " American officials
familiar with the intelligence" who " spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to reveal classified information."
After reading the piece, my first reaction was that Judith Miller was back but the byline
clearly read Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg . Noms de plume , perhaps? The
article is so astonishingly bad on so many levels that it could have been featured in Marvel
Comics instead of the Gray Lady. First of all, if American intelligence truly has in the
Kremlin high level human agents, referred to as humint, it would not be publicizing the fact
for fear that Moscow would intensify its search for the traitors and discover who they were. No
intelligence officer speaking either openly or anonymously would make that kind of fatal
mistake by leaking such information to a journalist.
If indeed the source of the leak was a genuine intelligence officer it suggests a different,
more plausible interpretation. The CIA might, in fact, have no high-level agents at all at the
Kremlin level and is intent on having the Russians waste time and energy looking for the moles.
There is additional evidence in the article that the agent story might be a fabrication. The
authors assert that the CIA agents in Moscow provided critical information relating to the
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The nature of that information, if it
existed at all, is something less than transparent and the piece cites no less an authority on
Moscow's subversion than ex-Agency Director John Brennan, who connived at electing Hillary when
he was at CIA and has had an axe to grind ever since. Having Brennan as a source is an
indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone.
And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story
credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir
Putin has a "plan" for America's midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent
assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber
systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no
evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia.
So, does Putin have a plan? The New York Times apparently believes he does. And
what would that plan involve? The Times thinks it is no less than "a broad chaos
campaign to undermine faith in American democracy." It also cites Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats as affirming that Putin is "intent on undermining American democratic
systems." Think about that for a moment. Why would Russia want to damage an already oftentimes
dysfunctional system of government? To replace it with what? A dictatorship might be more
effective and even warlike, contrary to Russia's own interests. Why mess with something that is
already messy all by itself?
The article also hurls out other lies and half-truths. It assumes that Russia was trying to
change the outcome of the 2016 US election, for which there is no evidence at all, and it also
claims that Putin is killing off spies, citing the Skripal case in Britain, for which proof of
an actual Russian connection has never been presented.
And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher
blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny
and ineffective because "The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people" in their
expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow
that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA.
He also needs to recall that the persona non grata (PNG) move was in response to
the US expelling sixty Russians and closing two diplomatic facilities over Skripal, which means
the United States deliberately took self-inflicted steps that it should have known would
cripple its ability to spy in Moscow. And now it is complaining because it doesn't know what is
going on.
*
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence
officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA
Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter
Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a
frequent contributor to Global Research.
It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out
of the project due to the risk of US sanctions (previously it said Uniper will pull
out sic see link.).* In related news, construction has been started in German waters.
Still silence from Denmark as to whether they will block it or not.
If I were Moscow, I would announce that the pipeline's route will avoid Danish waters and
sit back to see the reaction. Why? Coz you can bet that some will claim it is
punishment/bribe/threat/anti-competitive to Denmark, to whit, Russia can simply reply that
Denmark has XXX days to provide the permits before it is no longer economically feasible for
the route to go through its waters.
What p* me off about the reported 'threat from NSII' and even in articles like the one
above that point out it is in Europe's interest, none of them mention the preceding sabotage
of South Stream II under the mighty Obama and the impact from that led directly to
Nord Stream II.
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've
suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with
John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further
proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes
anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there
is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for
cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the
thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben
Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
Yes kids. Warmonger McCain was at the forefront of getting it killed after interference
from Brussels failed to shift the asshole Borissov's government. So when a European asks
"What has John McCain done for us? , he's already f*ed you over for the benefit of the US
and U-ropean poodle Krazy K**t Klan.
See,
this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that
Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty
is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a
realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States
cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high
opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.
Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy
– arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest
economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in
order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of
feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.
Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on
punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy
industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the
other.
In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington
pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of
Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen
then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would
happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an
8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump
government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with
it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European
resolve against the USA.
" it is under $500 million and is likely mostly money from Ukrainians working in
Russia. I do not see any corporate level investment happening in the current climate.
"
The above linked RBK article goes on to read:
According to the presented data, during the period from January to June, the Ukraine
received $1,259 billion, of which $436 million came from Russia. In second place was Cyprus,
which invested $219 million and in third place amongst the largest investors was the
Netherlands ($207.7 million).
In addition, contributions were made to the Ukraine economy by Austria ($58.7 million),
Poland ($54.1), France ($46.9) and the UK ($43.4).
The report says that almost 60% of these funds ($750 million) were invested in the
financial and insurance sphere; 9.6% of of the funds were invested by the Ukrainian
authorities into the wholesale and retail trade; 8.2% into industry and 7.9 per cent. into
information and telecommunications.
In mid-August, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said that Russia had been
the main trading partner of the Ukraine since 2014 and because of this the return of the
Crimea and the resolution of the conflict in the Donbass were becoming impossible. "There is
no plan for victory in this state. Because you are not behaving like people who want a
victory. You are already slaves", he said.
In response to Yushchenko's statement, the ex-head of the Ukrainian Ministry of the
Economy, Viktor Suslov, said that the words of the former Ukrainian leader were "absurd" and
considered any damage to Kiev caused by breaking off trade with Russia as being
"colossal".
Doesn't sound like all of this money sloely consists of that sent off to "Independent"
Ukraine by economic migrants from that country who are eking out a living in the Evil
Empire.
Verkhovna Rada Deputy Vadym Rabinovich on air of TV channel "112 Ukraine" said that the
termination of trade with Russia will destroy Ukrainian economy.
According to him, Russia remains the largest trading partner of the Ukraine, as trade
turnover between the two countries is growing every month.
"The trade balance with Russia is growing every month for one simple reason: the free
economic zone with Europe has brought us only losses", said Rabinovich.
He noted that the interruption of trade between Moscow and Kiev is fraught with the
loss, of "approximately one third of the gross national product".
"With all of the stupidity that you have done in the country, then with another
unbalanced step you'll destroy the economy", summed up the Rada deputy.
Earlier, former head of the Main Department of the Ukrainian security Service, Vasily
Vovk, proposed that the border with Russia be completely blocked and that ties with her be
cut.
A few are beginning to wake up to the reality that snatching Ukraine away from Russia was
never about prosperity and security for its people, and all about destabilizing what the west
perceived as the quickening of an unwelcome regional influence, and curbing it. The EU
– and its string-puller, Washington – does not give a fuck about the economic
well-being of Ukrainians, does not have even the brotherly connection of being of the same
ethnic group, and for so long as Ukraine is willing to suffer being poor in silence, for that
long it will not be a problem for its new 'partners'.
Nationalist Nazi nutjobs are always proposing the border be sealed ever-tighter, if it
were feasible to build a stainless-steel wall between Ukraine and Russia which reached to low
earth orbit, they would vote for it. But the Great Wall Of Yatsenyuk never materialized, he's
enjoying his Florida condo, and there is no practical way to limit commerce between the two
countries while the people are increasingly motivated toward its continuing.
Ukraine is on the edge of collapse, and I don't think any force on earth can prevent its
sliding over the edge. The west is not going to pony up the $170 Billion or so it would take
to rescue it; if it did so, Porky and his minions would steal most of it for themselves, and
Russia is unlikely to ever permit again the degree of fraternal closeness that existed
between the two countries, since it is clear it would take only another western intervention
to render it once again an untrustworthy spoiler. Once Nord Stream II is built, Ukraine will
have lost its leverage and will be of no further significant value to the western purveyors
of destabilization.
More such core realization is necessary to prevent Ukraine from officially blaming its
collapse on anyone but itself. The government will try that course, naturally, and you don't
need to be able to see very far into the future to know that it is Russia who will be blamed,
despite plenty of empirical evidence that Russian investors and Ukrainian refugees working in
Russia were all that kept it alive before the end. But in order that Ukrainians know in their
heart of hearts that their government stepped on its own dick over and over, and that they
passively failed to correct it, there needs to be more such public confession. I can show you
plenty of analysis, in English, published before things went pear-shaped in the dying moments
of 2013, which proposed that severing trade relationships with Russia as the nationalists
insisted would cost Ukraine just about exactly what the Rada now says will happen, years too
late. But they got one thing right – Ukraine and Russia cannot be brothers, not even
friends, for so long as Ukraine harbours that nutty nationalist element. Give western Ukraine
to Poland, and encourage all the nationalists to go to the new paradise, and ensure that
happens. They can bore the Poles with their raptures about Kievan Rus. Then maybe some
relationship could be salvaged.
"... I was not sure whether Trump was controlled opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly engineering. Now it appears that he is both. ..."
"... Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks. ..."
"... If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public psyche. ..."
"... the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists, attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become whatever the globalists want us to become. ..."
"... Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown. ..."
At that time I was certain that the globalists would find great use for a Trump presidency,
more so in fact than a Clinton presidency. However, I was not sure whether Trump was controlled
opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly
engineering. Now it appears that he is both.
Trump's history was already suspicious. He was bailed out of his considerable debts
surrounding his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City in the early 1990s by
Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross , which saved him from embarrassment and
possibly saved his entire fortune . This alone was not necessarily enough to deny Trump the
benefit of the doubt in my view.
Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their
careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from
Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of
Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks.
Some liberty movement activists ignore this reality and attempt to argue around the facts of
Trump's associations. "What about all the media opposition to Trump? Doesn't this indicate he's
not controlled?" they say. I say, not really.
If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated
division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation
warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public
psyche.
This is not to say that leftist opposition to Trump and conservatives is not real. It
absolutely is. The left has gone off the ideological deep end into an abyss of rabid frothing
insanity, but the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to
look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists,
attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is
designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become
whatever the globalists want us to become.
... ... ...
As this is taking place, conservatives are growing more sensitive to the notion of a leftist
coup, from silencing of conservative voices to an impeachment of Trump based on fraudulent
ideas of "Russian collusion."
To be clear, the extreme left has no regard for individual liberties or constitutional law.
They use the Constitution when it suits them, then try to tear it down when it doesn't suit
them. However, the far-left is also a paper tiger; it is not a true threat to conservative
values because its membership marginal, it is weak, immature and irrational. Their only power
resides in their influence within the mainstream media, but with the MSM fading in the face of
the alternative media, their social influence is limited. It is perhaps enough to organize a
"coup," but it would inevitably be a failed coup.
Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the
globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used
as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be
fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown.
I have always said that the only people that can destroy conservative principles are
conservatives. Conservatives diminish their own principles every time they abandon their
conscience and become exactly like the monsters they hope to defeat. And make no mistake, the
globalists are well aware of this strategy.
Carroll Quigley, a pro-globalist professor and the author of Tragedy and Hope, a book
published decades ago which outlined the plan for a one world economic and political system, is
quoted in his address ' Dissent: Do We Need It
':
"They say, "The Congress is corrupt." I ask them, "What do you know about the Congress? Do
you know your own Congressman's name?" Usually they don't. It's almost a reflex with them,
like seeing a fascist pig in a policeman. To them, all Congressmen are crooks. I tell them
they must spend a lot of time learning the American political system and how it functions,
and then work within the system. But most of them just won't buy that. They insist the system
is totally corrupt. I insist that the system, the establishment, whatever you call it, is so
balanced by diverse forces that very slight pressures can produce perceptible results.
For example, I've talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the
future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were
consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are
pretty generally in this group."
Is a "failed coup" being staged in order to influence conservatives to become the very
"fascists" the left accuses us of being? The continuing narrative certainly suggests that this
is the game plan.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills.
... The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal
victory of the strong over the weak.
Who is paraphrased here?
The first state to adopt evolutionary ethics would prevail over all others in the struggle
for existence. ... Extermination and war then became moral goods to eliminate the weak.
And who said this?
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or
for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in
the end peace is made with the strong.
2. Wilhelm Schallmayer, co-founder of the German eugenics movement in the early 20th
century, paraphrased here .
3. Benjamin Netanyahoo on August
29 2018 at the Negev Nuclear Weapon Center (Also here .)
Also:
It is not just by chance that Netanyahoo sounds like Hitler. Both, Theodore Herzl, the
founder of Zionism, and Adolph Hitler developed their political awareness around the turn of
the century in imperial Vienna. Social Darwinism was the rage of that time. Fascists and
Zionists drank from the same poisoned well.
Besides - did you know that Hitler did not want to exterminate the Jews? An Arab made him do
that. A Muslim. That is according
to one Benjamin Netanyahoo, currently prime minister of the Zionist entity in
Palestine:
In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting
between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at
the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If
you expel them, they'll all come here (to Palestine).' According to Netanyahu, Hitler then
asked: "What should I do with them?" and the mufti replied: "Burn them."
The account is, of course, historically nonsense.
Related:
The administration of the Hindu supremacist Narendra Modi in India launched an
arrest campaign to silence its critics. Its demonetization program, a first step to introduce a degressive bank
transaction tax , did not achieve the desired results but
created an economic mess . Modi's re-election is in danger. The accusations against the
arrested people imply, correctly in my view, that the government of India is fascist:
I figured one of those quotes had to have been from Winston Churchill. Though on second
thought, his forte was more in the denigration of brown-skinned people.
When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled "made in Germany"; it will not be
marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course,
"Americanism."
Professor Halford E. Luccock of the Divinity School of Yale University in a sermon at the
Riverside Church, Riverside Drive and 122d Street, NYC. September 1938.
So what.
1 and 3 are not even arguments, they are plain old description of reality as it is.
As for point 2, that's that old German arrogance, how the hell do you know what the genome
"wants". Taken form what we know today, a eugenic state would initiate a program of forced
miscegenation.
Such is the arrogance of evolutionary ethics. And so too, we pay the price of a system
built on such folly. Certainly no better than those who claim divine sanction to slaughter
and destroy.
"The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or
for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in
the end peace is made with the strong."
It is ironic that Netanyahoo should say that. Netanyahoo himself is extremely weak and
unstable due to his corruption and the criminal probes against him. He flexes his muscles and
violently bullies the Palestinians and illegally bombs Syria to assert a strength that is
nonexistent. Israel is weak against its neighbours especially Hezbollah and Syria, its IDF is
weak and ineffective against Hezbollah and the Syrian army, and in its insane paranoia it is
so fanning the flames of conflict that it risks inciting (or may even itself initiate) a war
that realistically could result in its own annihilation.
Russia's foreign minister is the latest official to warn the US against using a possible
chemical weapons provocation to justify a new strike against Syrian forces. He said Moscow
warned the West not to play with fire in Syria.
Sergey Lavrov reiterated the warning that a staged chemical weapons attack in Syria's
Idlib province may trigger a US-led attack on the forces loyal to Damascus.
READ MORE: US & allies can have missiles ready to strike Syria within 24 hours –
Russian Foreign Ministry
Earlier, the Russian military reported that a group of militants in Syria was preparing a
provocation, in which chlorine gas would be used to frame the Syrian government forces. The
incident would be used by the US and its allies to justify a new attack against the country,
similar to what happened in April, according to the claim.
Amid international tensions, Russia has launched a massive naval exercise in the
Mediterranean Sea, which involves 25 ships and 30 aircraft, including Tu-160 strategic
bombers.
The US earlier stated that it would retaliate to a possible a chemical attack by the
Syrian government, using more firepower than it did in April. The previous tripartite strike
by the US, the UK and France targeted what they called sites involved in chemical weapons
research. It came in response to an alleged use of an improvised chlorine bomb against a
militant-held area. Russia insists that the incident had been staged with the goal of
triggering the Western response.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It will take the US and its allies just 24 hours to ready its missile-strike group for an
attack against Syria, the Russian Foreign Ministry said. The statement comes amid warnings of
a possible false-flag chemical attack.
Earlier, the Pentagon denied Moscow's claim that Washington was building up military
forces in the region. One of the US warships, USS 'The Sullivans,' left the Persian Gulf
after media reports about an increased American military presence in the area, according to
Zakharova.
While rejecting news of its growing presence in the region, the "US military forgot to
mention that they can build up missile capabilities to strike Syria in just 24 hours. The
strike group of the United States, France and the UK currently consists of planes, strategic
and tactical aircraft at bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Crete," Zakharova said.
Moscow has repeatedly warned that a false flag chemical weapons attack is being planned in
Syria's Idlib province to frame Damascus and use as a pretext for a new strike. Eight
canisters of chlorine were delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a group of
militants, trained in the handling of chemical weapons by the British private military
contractor Olive Group, arrived in the area, according to Defense Ministry.
On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the planned provocation is
aimed only at preventing the expulsion of terrorists from the de-escalation zone in Idlib. He
also accused the US of trying to get rid of another "dissident regime" in Syria, as was the
case in Iraq and Libya.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The second of these RT links is being totally censored by Google and DuckDuckGo. I think
something big is up. Perhaps WW-III.
Hitler's inspiration for the specifics of Nazism was Sparta (while the political system in
itself was inspired from Fascism). It's amazing (and one of the most glaring examples of
liberal self-censorship) that people don't know about this fact.
For people who don't know, (the famous version of) Sparta was a post-communist polis of
Classical Greece, born from the reforms of mythological Lycourgos in the 9th Century BCE.
Apart from the apparent military discipline, Classical Sparta was famous for two things:
1) it didn't killed the male population of the conquered poleis in the Peloponnese and
captured and assimilated the adult female population; instead, it enslaved them, and
institutionalized their status (the helots). It was impossible, in theses, for a helot to
become a Spartiate, so the helots population became much larger than the Spartiate population
over time. The most amazing fact here is that, albeit some helot revolts probably happened,
they were never victorious. Hitler rationalized it as Spartiate genetic superiority.
2) the Spartiates allegedly practiced eugenics among themselves. This was immortalized in
our times by the popular movie "300", where they threw defective newborns over a cliff. This
cliff really exists and there are many skeletons found there by archaeologists, but none of
them are from babies or even children -- only adult males were found (probably criminals;
there was no prisonal system in the ancient world because it would be very expensive:
penalties were usually execution for the common guy -- and throwing from a cliff was a very
traditional way of execution, practiced by the Romans since the kingdom times -- and exile
for the powerful). Again, Hitler rationalized this (probably myth) as the cause for (1).
But the rationalization behind those three quotes is wrong: yes, it is true that "might"
is an essential ingredient for "right", but might doesn't come from intrinsic characteristics
of a given people (be it genetic or religious).
For the first case, Darwin's Natural Selection theory is clear: it only happens because
reproduction is random. Factors such as geographical isolation are hindering factors of
natural selections. In other words, artificial selection (eugenics) is a bad way of doing
natural selection: it is always the environment that should decide who reproduces and who
doesn't, human breeding should always be random (i.e. by chance) if we want to keep our
genetic diversity at the healthies state possible.
For the second case, just empirical investigation is enough: a religion only consolidates
itself as dominant ex post facto, i.e. after the domination is done. Religion is only to
reinforce consensus of the power. But religion by itself doesn't generate power: Islam, for
example, was born as a necessity of the merchants of Mecca to initiate a bellicose expansion
through the Arabian peninsula (and beyond). But it was economic necessity which gave birth to
the religion, not the religion that gave birth to the economic necessity.
-//-
As for Modi. It was a known fact his monetary policy would fail. The Chinese had already
warned, days after it was approved:
His demonetisation policy only didn't result in the immediate collapse of his government
because most Indian people don't have access to such big notes to begin with. He gained
significant popular support from the poorest rural areas with this:
Could have been Churchill, Kissinger, Poppy Bush, Henry Ford, Lloyd Blankfein, Patton,
Sherman, John McCain, Ollie North, any member of the Cheney family, either of the Kagan
brothers plus Nudelman, Andrew Jackson, Karl Rove, Pliny the elder, or hundreds of other
like-minded heroes whom made sincere, heartfelt remarks such as these.
Now JEB or Dubya or Nikki Haley, or Betsy DeVoss, for example, don't have the brain cells
to put together sentences like these, but they uphold this worldview for a trust fund or a
paycheck.
Full title of Darwin's magnum opus: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'. Presumably, though, favoured
by nature, not by human intervention. Therein lies the problem: Man has a mind, a will and an
awareness of the past, and for thinkers like Samuel Butler and Marx, Darwin (who was
influenced by Malthus) had advanced scientific thought a lot, but had not given a full
picture.
@8 I did a duck-duck-go and google search on "missiles ready to strike Syria within 24 hours"
and both popped up the RT article at the head of the search.
"Meglio viviere un giorno da leone che cento da pecore." " Better to live a day as lion then
100 days as a sheep. "
Benito Mussolini circa 1924. Fascist and Zionist LA MEME CHOSE
Agree totally with b's take on Netanyahu. What an a-hole.
I am eagerly awaiting b's commentary on the neo-Nazi mobs in Germany. No doubt the rise of
fascism in Europe is related to U.S. driven wars in the Middle East which have produced
hundreds of thousands of refugees, but what can be done about it? I should think that step
number one is to cease hostilities in Syria, thus allowing civil society to normalize. This
would stem the outward flow of refugees and encourage the inward flow of many who would want
to return to their homeland.
Communists and Jews were in concentration camps in Germany since 1933 in Dachau eight years
before the meeting, starved, exploited to collapse and death in quarries. In fact most of
first Jews were communists, candidates from KPD arrested before elections of April 1933
conducted under emergency law with Hitler's designated as Kantzler.
"We hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the
Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what
is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do
that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong
do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
A summary of Athenian statements to the Melians, Book V, 5.89-[1]
Melian Dialogue
History of the Peloponnesian War
Thucydides
The final clause is often quoted by many people, among them Noam Chomsky.
The Melian Dialogue is a brilliant fictionalized recreation of the pre-siege negotiations
between Athens and Melos. It is important to note that, from a military point of view, the
brutal genocidal siege, while initially successful, was short-lived, successfully over-turned
by the Spartans, and ultimately regretted by many Athenians (Cf. example of hubris).
Perhaps more revealing is the spirit in which Thucycides is quoted: Triumphantly,
realistically, or lamentably.
The Twitter link on the Netanyahu quote is a gold mine! Simply scroll down!
'Russian interference???' 'We're working to prevent Iran from establishing military
presence in Syria. We won't relent in pursuit of this goal as we did not relent in bringing
about the cancellation of the bad nuclear deal w/ Iran, a goal seen impossible when I put it
on the intl agenda several years ago
10:05 - 29. 8. 2018'
Posted by: Northern Observer | Aug 31, 2018 10:10:13 AM | 5
1 and 3 are not even arguments, they are plain old description of reality as it
is.
Not quite.
In (1) the second sentence could pass as an observation, but the first one cannot. It
contains the verb "has to" so it is not a passive statement but the assertive one. It implies
a necessity and desire.
In (3), yes, from that quote alone it is not clear is Bibi identifies himself with the weak,
or with the strong. So, you might be right, it could be that he just cynically describes the
world as is, without endorsing it. However, it clear IMO on which side he prefers to be.
But, I do not see that kind of attitude much different than for example of my realtor who
told that I should install alarm in my apartment so that a prospective burglar chooses
someone else's place to rob, instead of mine.
Or a car dealer who sells huge 4x4 SUV monsters to moms telling them that it is safer for her
children, because in case of collision, passengers in larger vehicle are less injured than in
the smaller one. And moms do buy them. And put a sticker on the back 'Baby in car' what I
find quite ironic.
"Surely some will always be stronger than others. The real question is whether the strong
have an obligation to help the weak." dh
There is no question about it: unless the strong assist the weak the community will dissolve.
Society depends upon mutual aid and without society the strongest individual perishes and
disappears.
Nothing is more mistaken than to regard the ravings of fascists and the fantasies of
eugenicists as 'common sense' axioms. In reality man is a social creature almost uniquely
unable to survive alone.
Hitler and Netanyahu were/are whistling in the dark, attempting to banish their consciousness
of the inevitable fate of the unjust whose actions are a stench in the nostrils of
humanity-Karma.
Will Israel survive until 2030?
In his report , Garrie says: "The Russian Foreign Minister has condemned the terrorist
act and has accused the Kiev regime of committing an act of state terrorism." I've yet to see
Lavrov's statement, but I trust Garrie.
As for American Fascism, the entire mindset of American Exceptionalism combined with the
doctrine of Manifest Destiny provide it with a substantial foundation. Combined with the
implied imperialism within JQ Adams speech that outlined what became known as The Monroe
Doctrine, White, Anglo-Saxon superiority was further institutionalized. Social-Darwinism is
quite complex to discuss despite it being a relatively simple concept on the surface.
Wikipedia's page
is rather good on this topic and shows Herbert Spencer published his ideas before Darwin
published his revolutionary book. Vice-President Henry Wallace is the most prominent American
citizen I know of to write boldly about American Fascism In his famous NY Times op/ed
The Dangers of
American Fascism that concludes thusly:
"Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and
eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this
conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain
races, creeds and classes."
Yes, he saw it but IMO was too soft toward it. I'd be remiss not to mention Bertram
Gross's bold 1980 book Friendly Fascism and Sheldon Wolin's Inverted
Totalitarianism .
Northern Observer - "1 and 3 are not even arguments, they are plain old description of
reality as it is"
Not so. The Primitive Darwinists took no account of feedback, or inter-related systems.
The super-tiger eats all the prey and then dies out. There has to be a balance.
But that's a mechanistic refutation of the Primitive Darwinist argument, not that much
better than the argument itself. To be human surely means something different in any case,
unless we are to succumb to mechanistic determinism.
I thought it comes from Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, who is after all blamed as a
father/idelogue of Nazim.
"What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and the power
itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling
that power is increasing -- that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more
power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but competence. The first principle of
our humanism is that the weak and the failures shall perish. And they ought to be helped to
perish."
As far as the strong protecting the weak, the human animal is a prime example of this as the
mother and infant must be protected for several years before either can fend for themselves.
Another well known example is the mother bear protecting her cubs--don't mess with either!
There's no superiority/inferiority involved as such in either example as both are natural
mechanisms. The concept of social castes/classes was very well established millennia ago with
numerous ideas put forth to justify their existence, many of which still operate today. Many
of those ideas are present within the Monthly
Review article I linked to yesterday. Engels may or may not have coined the term
Social Murder, but even the Whigs agreed as this passage shows:
"In 1844, Frederick Engels wrote that 'English society daily and hourly commits what the
working-men's organs, with perfect correctness, characterize as social murder. It has placed
the workers under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long [and] it
undermines the vital force of these workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them
to the grave before their time.'24 Anyone who thinks that Engels was not an objective witness
should compare his judgement to that of the influential Whig journal the Edinburgh
Review :
"Out of every two persons who die in the east of London, one perishes from preventable
causes. From twenty to thirty thousand of the labouring population of London are killed every
year by causes which, if we chose, we might expel by a current of water. Though we do not
take these persons out of their houses and murder them, we do the same thing in effect, -- we
neglect them in their poisonous homes, and leave them there to a lingering but a certain
death."
It's very easy to see why Marx and Engels characterized what they observed in England and
Europe as Class War. But can the English of the mid 1800s be characterized as fascist, or
perhaps just the elite?
"...since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must..." Thucydides - he said it in Melian Dialogue.
But the quote should be read in context...and is itself a paraphrase of Athenian
Policy,
It is also True. Yes indeed, fascists do sometimes say true things...it happens. I do not
like fascists, but I do like truth, doesn't everybody?
Gramsci's thinking thrives in many fields, being a safe haven for political and
intellectual organizations midway between the pure abandonment of Marxism and unrestricted
adherence to neoliberal "democracy".
Gramsci became the prostitute of the neoliberals, as he was before that of the recycled
Stalinists when against "Trotskyism", whatever this was.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its
alive and well today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. The strong
(cognitive or physical) rule the weak. Any attempt at equalizing the disparity is labelled as
Socialism and is opposed in part for fears it promotes dysgenics.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its alive and well
today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. The strong (cognitive or
physical) rule the weak. Any attempt at equalizing the disparity is labelled as Socialism and
is opposed in part for fears it promotes dysgenics.
So since this blog entry is dedicated on "The delusions of grandeur that the
United States of America suffer", I will let you on a little secret....
I am doing this because USA is literally a midget and that is not my personal oppinion.
USA is as defenceless as a baby cockroach trying to find its way out of a stinky poophole using
as a nest.
God has a very strange sense of humor it seems.
For the love of me I can't figure out why He chose these clowns to pretend they are the
global superpower in order for Mankind to be bullied around.
It must be our collective sins!
I can understand, Rome, Persia, Greece, China, India, even some portions of European
history, but USA is a total joke.
... ... ...
So since this blog entry is dedicated on "The delusions of grandeur that the United States
of America suffer", I will let you on a little secret....
I am doing this because USA is literally a midget and that is not my personal oppinion.
USA is as defenceless as a baby cockroach trying to find its way out of a stinky poophole
using as a nest.
God has a very strange sense of humor it seems.
For the love of me I can't figure out why He chose these clowns to pretend they are the
global superpower in order for Mankind to be bullied around.
It must be our collective sins!
I can understand, Rome, Persia, Greece, China, India, even some portions of European
history, but USA is a total joke.
Darwin had it right I think. Or maybe it was the ancient Greeks. I'm trying pretty hard to
keep up here,eugenics might be partly responsible for that.
Thank Christ somebody broke in with news of that guy getting blowed up. Somebody said
Canada might be the culprit. Well, suck me dry and call me Dusty, I never heard of that
motherfucker and neither have any of my friends at the bar. Maybe it's because of that gal
who had a granddad that was a Uke who liked Nazi invaders better than the Russians. But she's
pretty busy right now trying deal with other stuff. Like the biggest trade deal in the
world.
I had been going to propose that the answer to all three questions was "Thrasymachus" (from
Plato's Republic) - but I see in checking my source that all that fine young man did actually
say was that justice is the advantage of the stronger, using as an example the rulers of
cities who order things to their own advantage. And indeed, the statement is refuted, which
causes the frightening man to blush...But best to read the original, as what Thrasymachus
represents looms larger in that setting and in the labyrinthian dialogue upon whose threshold
he makes his claim.
So back to current affairs !
England is now devided down the middle politically, as is a whole list of country's, to many
to mention. left and right increaseingly polerised ! Perhaps the most important being usa. If
we look at the right wing street violence in Germany this week, we see what is going to
happen all the way round very soon. This weeks violent aggressive protest is much much bigger
than people realise ! It was aimed at inocent people in the street, it was apparently
protesting about victems of western military aggression being in Germany. But not stateing
their victems, but the problem.
Last Sunday these nazi's and there simperfiers numbered 6000 but the truth is a large
proportion of the police present were on there side. Looking the other way when violence
occurred failing to arrest people doing the nazi salute. The coalition govenment has a large
part extreme right wing.
These next weeks determine which way western country's will swing. We can stop the nazi's on
the street's or we can except the consequences.
Whatever thing Trump and his minions (American allies, "Western Civilization") are doing
right now, they are just reestructuring already existing trade deals at best.
-//-
As for the "Greek" discussion. It's not a surprise Hitler took at least some inspiration
from the ancient Greek. From the 19th to early 20th Century, there was some kind of "Greek
revival" in Germany's academic circles. Take Nietzsche for example: he dialogues with the
Greeks (mainly Plato and Socrates) many times. Even that so-called Nazi historian (forgot his
name) focused on the ancient Greek. Hell, even Marx did his doctorate thesis over Epicurus.
So, Hitler essentially lived in the end of a "philellene" period of Germany.
I have been a student of the history of hemispheres and I see this as an abrupt redirect.
Several heavily destructive wars have been fought over this in just the last 55 years. LAND
REFORM is on the economic agenda. At the IMF indeed.
Even at this late stage, the right wing can be stopped peacefully! By sheer weight of numbers
alone. tomorrow again they plan a large demonstration. It's now time for the German public to
stand up against the reemergence of full blown hitler style fascism taking over there
country. And lastly a warning as shocking as it is you can no longer trust your police, they
are no longer on your side or on the side of law and order. I don't say this lightly ! I have
been following events closely !
Netanyahoo and David Irving arguing in the same direction regarding Hitler and
the slaughter of Europe's Jews. Wow.
Thanks, b, I didn't see the (scroll down) so leapt right to search engines and in: Vision and
Violence
Arthur P. Mendel · 1999 · Philosophy
from the Google Books access, found some pretty dundew'd up stuff. Are these really
quotations? Wow, eugenics must have been a thrill ride in the 1930s for a gimp.
"... Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite , in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital. ..."
Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite
, in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the
nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite
centralized on the control of global capital.
Thus, in his just-released study Giants: The Global
Power Elite , Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University
in the USA, identifies the world's top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and
J.P Morgan Chase, each with more than one trillion dollars of investment capital under
management, as the 'Giants' of world capitalism. The seventeen firms collectively manage more
than $US41.1 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the
globe.
This $41 trillion represents the wealth invested for profit by thousands of millionaires,
billionaires and corporations. The seventeen Giants operate in nearly every country in the
world and are 'the central institutions of the financial capital that powers the global
economic system'. They invest in anything considered profitable, ranging from 'agricultural
lands on which indigenous farmers are replaced by power elite investors' to public assets (such
as energy and water utilities) to war.
In addition, Phillips identifies the most important networks of the Global Power Elite and
the individuals therein. He names 389 individuals (a small number of whom are women and a token
number of whom are from countries other than the United States and the wealthier countries of
Western Europe) at the core of the policy planning nongovernmental networks that manage,
facilitate and defend the continued concentration of global capital. The Global Power Elite
perform two key uniting functions, he argues: they provide ideological justifications for their
shared interests (promulgated through their corporate media), and define the parameters of
action for transnational governmental organizations and capitalist nation-states.
More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 directors of the seventeen global financial
Giants and offers short biographies and public information on their individual net wealth.
These individuals are closely interconnected through numerous networks of association including
the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference, university affiliations,
various policy councils, social clubs, and cultural enterprises. For a taste of one of these
clubs, see this account of The Links in New York. As Phillips
observes: 'It is certainly safe to conclude they all know each other personally or know of each
other in the shared context of their positions of power.'
The Giants, Phillips documents, invest in each other but also in many hundreds of investment
management firms, many of which are near-Giants. This results in tens of trillions of dollars
coordinated in a single vast network of global capital controlled by a very small number of
people. 'Their constant objective is to find enough safe investment opportunities for a return
on capital that allows for continued growth. Inadequate capital-placement opportunities lead to
dangerous speculative investments, buying up of public assets, and permanent war spending.'
Because the directors of these seventeen asset management firms represent the central core
of international capital, 'Individuals can retire or pass away, and other similar people will
move into their place, making the overall structure a self-perpetuating network of global
capital control. As such, these 199 people share a common goal of maximum return on investments
for themselves and their clients, and they may seek to achieve returns by any means necessary
– legal or not . the institutional and structural arrangements within the money
management systems of global capital relentlessly seek ways to achieve maximum return on
investment, and the conditions for manipulations – legal or not – are always
present.'
Like some researchers before him, Phillips identifies the importance of those transnational
institutions that serve a unifying function. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, G20,
G7, World Trade Organization (WTO),
World Economic Forum (WEF), Trilateral
Commission, Bilderberg Group ,
Bank for International Settlements, Group of 30 (G30), the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Monetary
Conference serve as institutional mechanisms for consensus building within the transnational
capitalist class, and power elite policy formulation and implementation. 'These international
institutions serve the interests of the global financial Giants by supporting policies and
regulations that seek to protect the free, unrestricted flow of capital and debt collection
worldwide.'
But within this network of transnational institutions, Phillips identifies two very
important global elite policy-planning organizations: the Group of Thirty (which has 32 members) and the extended executive
committee of the Trilateral Commission
(which has 55 members). These nonprofit corporations, which each have a research and support
staff, formulate elite policy and issue instructions for their implementation by the
transnational governmental institutions like the G7, G20, IMF, WTO, and World Bank. Elite
policies are also implemented following instruction of the relevant agent, including
governments, in the context. These agents then do as they are instructed. Thus, these 85
members (because two overlap) of the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission comprise a
central group of facilitators of global capitalism, ensuring that 'global capital remains safe,
secure, and growing'.
So, while many of the major international institutions are controlled by nation-state
representatives and central bankers (with proportional power exercised by dominant financial
supporters such as the United States and European Union countries), Phillips is more concerned
with the transnational policy groups that are nongovernmental because these organizations 'help
to unite TCC power elites as a class' and the individuals involved in these organizations
facilitate world capitalism. 'They serve as policy elites who seek the continued growth of
capital in the world.'
Developing this list of 199 directors of the largest money management firms in the world,
Phillips argues, is an important step toward understanding how capitalism works globally today.
These global power elite directors make the decisions regarding the investment of trillions of
dollars. Supposedly in competition, the concentrated wealth they share requires them to
cooperate for their greater good by identifying investment opportunities and shared risk
agreements, and working collectively for political arrangements that create advantages for
their profit-generating system as a whole.
Their fundamental priority is to secure an average return on investment of 3 to 10 percent,
or even more. The nature of any investment is less important than what it yields: continuous
returns that support growth in the overall market. Hence, capital investment in tobacco
products, weapons of war, toxic chemicals, pollution, and other socially destructive goods and
services are judged purely by their profitability. Concern for the social and environmental
costs of the investment are non-existent. In other words, inflicting death and destruction are
fine because they are profitable.
So what is the global elite's purpose? In a few sentences Phillips characterizes it thus:
The elite is largely united in support of the US/NATO military empire that prosecutes a
repressive war against resisting groups – typically labeled 'terrorists' – around
the world. The real purpose of 'the war on terror' is defense of transnational globalization,
the unimpeded flow of financial capital around the world, dollar hegemony and access to oil; it
has nothing to do with repressing terrorism which it generates, perpetuates and finances to
provide cover for its real agenda. This is why the United States has a long history of CIA and
military interventions around the world ostensibly in defense of 'national
interests'.
An interesting point that emerges for me from reading Phillips thoughtful analysis is that
there is a clear distinction between those individuals and families who have wealth and those
individuals who have (sometimes significantly) less wealth (which, nevertheless, is still
considerable) but, through their positions and connections, wield a great deal of power. As
Phillips explains this distinction, 'the sociology of elites is more important than particular
elite individuals and their families'. Just 199 individuals decide how more than $40 trillion
will be invested. And this is his central point. Let me briefly elaborate.
There are some really wealthy families in the world, notably including the families
Rothschild (France and the United Kingdom), Rockefeller (USA), Goldman-Sachs (USA), Warburgs
(Germany), Lehmann (USA), Lazards (France), Kuhn Loebs (USA), Israel Moses Seifs (Italy),
Al-Saud (Saudi Arabia), Walton (USA), Koch (USA), Mars (USA), Cargill-MacMillan (USA) and Cox
(USA). However, not all of these families overtly seek power to shape the world as they
wish.
Similarly, the world's extremely wealthy individuals such as Jeff Bezos (USA), Bill Gates
(USA), Warren Buffett (USA), Bernard Arnault (France), Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico) and Francoise
Bettencourt Meyers (France) are not necessarily connected in such a way that they exercise
enormous power. In fact, they may have little interest in power as such, despite their obvious
interest in wealth.
In essence, some individuals and families are content to simply take advantage of how
capitalism and its ancilliary governmental and transnational instruments function while others
are more politically engaged in seeking to manipulate major institutions to achieve outcomes
that not only maximize their own profit and hence wealth but also shape the world itself.
So if you look at the list of 199 individuals that Phillips identifies at the centre of
global capital, it does not include names such as Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Koch, Walton or even
Rothschild, Rockefeller or Windsor (the Queen of England) despite their well-known and
extraordinary wealth. As an aside, many of these names are also missing from the lists compiled
by groups such as Forbes and
Bloomberg , but their
absence from these lists is for a very different reason given the penchant for many really
wealthy individuals and families to avoid certain types of publicity and their power to ensure
that they do.
In contrast to the names just listed, in Phillips' analysis names like Laurence (Larry) Fink
(Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), James (Jamie) Dimon (Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and
John McFarlane (Chairman of Barclays Bank), while not as wealthy as those listed immediately
above, wield far more power because of their positions and connections within the global elite
network of 199 individuals.
Predictably then, Phillips observes, these three individuals have similar lifestyles and
ideological orientations. They believe capitalism is beneficial for the world and while
inequality and poverty are important issues, they believe that capital growth will eventually
solve these problems. They are relatively non-expressive about environmental issues, but
recognize that investment opportunities may change in response to climate 'modifications'. As
millionaires they own multiple homes. They attended elite universities and rose quickly in
international finance to reach their current status as giants of the global power elite. 'The
institutions they manage have been shown to engage in illegal collusions with others, but the
regulatory fines by governments are essentially seen as just part of doing business.'
In short, as I would characterize this description: They are devoid of a legal or moral
framework to guide their actions, whether in relation to business, fellow human beings, war or
the environment and climate. They are obviously typical of the elite.
Any apparent concern for people, such as that expressed by Fink and Dimon in response to the
racist violence in Charlottesville, USA in August 2017, is simply designed to promote
'stability' or more precisely, a stable (that is, profitable) investment and consumer
climate.
The lack of concern for people and issues that might concern many of us is also evident from
a consideration of the agenda at elite gatherings. Consider the International Monetary
Conference. Founded in 1956, it is a private yearly meeting of the top few hundred bankers in
the world. The American Bankers Association (ABA) serves as the secretariat for the conference.
But, as Phillips notes: 'Nothing on the agenda seems to address the socioeconomic consequences
of investments to determine the impacts on people and the environment.' A casual perusal of the
agenda at any elite gathering reveals that this comment applies equally to any elite forum.
See, for example, the agenda of the recent WEF meeting in
Davos . Any talk of 'concern' is misleading rhetoric.
Hence, in the words of Phillips: The 199 directors of the global Giants are 'a very select
set of people. They all know each other personally or know of each other. At least 69 have
attended the annual World Economic Forum, where they often serve on panels or give public
presentations. They mostly attended the same elite universities, and interact in upperclass
social setting[s] in the major cities of the world. They all are wealthy and have significant
stock holdings in one or more of the financial Giants. They are all deeply invested in the
importance of maintaining capital growth in the world. Some are sensitive to environmental and
social justice issues, but they seem to be unable to link these issues to global capital
concentration.'
Of course, the global elite cannot manage the world system alone: the elite requires agents
to perform many of the functions necessary to control national societies and the individuals
within them. 'The interests of the Global Power Elite and the TCC are fully recognized by major
institutions in society. Governments, intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police
forces, military, and corporate media all work in support of their vital interests.'
In other words, to elaborate Phillips' point and extend it a little, through their economic
power, the Giants control all of the instruments through which their policies are implemented.
Whether it be governments, national military forces, 'military contractors' or mercenaries
(with at least $200 billion spent on private security globally, the industry currently employs
some fifteen million people worldwide) used both in 'foreign' wars but also likely deployed in
future for domestic control, key 'intelligence' agencies, legal systems and police forces,
major nongovernment organizations, or the academic, educational, 'public relations propaganda',
corporate media, medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, all instruments are fully
responsive to elite control and are designed to misinform, deceive, disempower, intimidate,
repress, imprison (in a jail or psychiatric ward), exploit and/or kill (depending on the
constituency) the rest of us, as is readily evident.
Defending Elite Power
Phillips observes that the power elite continually worries about rebellion by the 'unruly
exploited masses' against their structure of concentrated wealth. This is why the US military
empire has long played the role of defender of global capitalism. As a result, the United
States has more than 800 military bases (with some scholars suggesting 1,000) in 70 countries
and territories. In comparison, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia have about 30 foreign
bases. In addition, US military forces are now deployed in 70 percent of the world's nations
with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) having troops in 147 countries, an increase of 80
percent since 2010. These forces conduct counterterrorism strikes regularly, including drone
assassinations and kill/capture raids.
'The US military empire stands on hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and continues
to support repressive, exploitative governments that cooperate with global capital's imperial
agenda. Governments that accept external capital investment, whereby a small segment of a
country's elite benefits, do so knowing that capital inevitably requires a return on investment
that entails using up resources and people for economic gain. The whole system continues wealth
concentration for elites and expanded wretched inequality for the masses .
'Understanding permanent war as an economic relief valve for surplus capital is a vital part
of comprehending capitalism in the world today. War provides investment opportunity for the
Giants and TCC elites and a guaranteed return on capital. War also serves a repressive function
of keeping the suffering masses of humanity afraid and compliant.'
As Phillips elaborates: This is why defense of global capital is the prime reason that NATO
countries now account for 85 percent of the world's military spending; the United States spends
more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
In essence, 'the Global Power Elite uses NATO and the US military empire for its worldwide
security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world,
whereby the US/ NATO military empire, advised by the power elite's Atlantic Council , operates in service to the
Transnational Corporate Class for the protection of international capital everywhere in the
world'.
This entails 'further pauperization of the bottom half of the world's population and an
unrelenting downward spiral of wages for 80 percent of the world. The world is facing economic
crisis, and the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security. It is
a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to economic collapse is to print
more money through quantitative easing, flooding the population with trillions of new
inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction
requires further spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the Giants and global networks of
economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, death, and
destruction, at home and abroad.'
Where is this all heading?
So what are the implications of this state of affairs? Phillips responds unequivocally:
'This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war,
starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching a
species-level threat. We realize that humankind is in danger of possible extinction'.
He goes on to state that the Global Power Elite is probably the only entity 'capable of
correcting this condition without major civil unrest, war, and chaos' and elaborates an
important aim of his book: to raise awareness of the importance of systemic change and the
redistribution of wealth among both the book's general readers but also the elite, 'in the hope
that they can begin the process of saving humanity.' The book's postscript is a 'A Letter to
the Global Power Elite', co-signed by Phillips and 90 others, beseeching the elite to act
accordingly.
'It is no longer acceptable for you to believe that you can manage capitalism to grow its
way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution
and waste, and civil unrest is everywhere inevitable at some point. Humanity needs you to step
up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every
family, and all human beings. We urge you to use your power and make the needed changes for
humanity's survival.'
But he also emphasizes that nonviolent social movements, using the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights as a moral code, can accelerate the process of redistributing wealth by pressuring
the elite into action.
Conclusion
Peter Phillips has written an important book. For those of us interested in understanding
elite control of the world, this book is a vital addition to the bookshelf. And like any good
book, as you will see from my comments both above and below, it raised more questions for me
even while it answered many.
For this reason I do not share his faith in moral appeals to the elite, as articulated in
the letter in his postscript. It is fine to make the appeal but history offers no evidence to
suggest that there will be any significant response. The death and destruction inflicted by
elites is highly profitable, centuries-old and ongoing. It will take powerful,
strategically-focused nonviolent campaigns (or societal collapse) to compel the necessary
changes in elite behavior. Hence, I fully endorse his call for nonviolent social movements to
compel elite action where we cannot make the necessary changes without their involvement. See
'A Nonviolent Strategy to End Violence and Avert Human Extinction' and Nonviolent Campaign Strategy .
Fundamentally, Giants: The Global
Power Elite is a call to action. Professor Peter Phillips is highly aware of our
predicament – politically, socially, economically, environmentally and climatically
– and the critical role played by the global power elite in generating that
predicament.
If we cannot persuade the global power elite to respond sensibly to that predicament, or
nonviolently compel it to do so, humanity's time on Earth is indeed limited.
*
Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence.
He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are
violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of 'Why Violence?' His email address
is [email protected]
and his website is here . He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
Once the spy agencies become the controlling element a government degenerates into a
regime or imperium depending upon its level of power.
The rule of law is sidelined and a cynical form of dictatorship develops.
Britain, the US and all anglophone countries are exhibiting the results of this sort of
evolution.
It is more dangerous now than when the historical odious tyrannies ran riot during the
'30s and '40s of last century because technology has advanced to the point that their
continuance is a threat to our survival as a species.
Samuel Moyn's review of Michael Walzer's A Foreign
Policy for the Left is worth reading in its entirety. This passage jumped out at me:
Walzer's attempt to snatch the promise of American intervention from the jaws of recent
horrors shows the need to repeat the litany. The left has long since learned how difficult it
is to respond to those who laughed when it tried to save the pure idea of communism from its
totalitarian applications. Walzer applies the same strategy to humanitarian intervention, as
if it might work better in this case.
Remarkably, Walzer does not even mention the Libyan intervention in 2011 [bold mine-DL],
which -- like the Iraq War -- has left hopes for militarized humanism in shambles. Ever since
Democrats and their allies abroad acted to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi under the cover of
humanitarian protection, the possibility of insulating the so-called "responsibility to
protect" civilians abroad from great power designs and horrendous long-term outcomes has
become incredible. Much like a stock newsletter touting a new strategy to beat the odds after
a market crash, the promise of a better scheme for picking winners among prospective
interventions has become unbelievable, at least for now. For Walzer, however, the priority is
to chide fellow leftists for failing to defend the option of humanitarian intervention in
theory, not to understand today why almost nobody thinks it improves the world in
practice.
It seems strange that Walzer wouldn't mention the Libyan war at all in this book. As Moyn
says, it is extremely relevant to the debate over "humanitarian" interventions and their
consequences. What makes this omission even more striking is that Walzer was a public
opponent of the Libyan war when it happened. Walzer opened his article written at
the start of the intervention with this statement:
There are so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where
to begin.
Walzer was absolutely right to oppose the Libyan war, and his early arguments against it
were very similar to some my own objections. That makes his decision not to mention the Libyan
war or his opposition to it that much more difficult to understand. He could have cited his
opposition as an example of good judgment and proof that he could distinguish between necessary
and unnecessary wars, but for whatever reason he didn't do that. Libya is one of the chief
examples most people today would think of when discussing the merits and flaws of
"humanitarian" intervention, but apparently Walzer doesn't think it is worth talking about. It
is even odder that Walzer would make defending "humanitarian" interventionism the focus of his
book when he saw very clearly then how easily the rhetoric of protecting civilians could be
abused to launch an unjustified war.
America's brave troopers today fight for freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, all the
while yearning, as FDR said, "for the end of battle" when they can return home. They are not
there to seize natural resources or to pump up a president's approval ratings–nor, for
all of my differences with President Obama, do I believe he has ordered troops into harm's
way for such nefarious purposes.
If that isn't the exact opposite of truth, I don't know what is.
As a matter of fact, RPI recently ran a
fantastic editorial by Jessica Pavoni, who was a member of the military, but sought to
leave the Air Force as a conscientious objector after learning that the Max Boots of the world
were spinning false tales.
Not only has the Empire managed to bring the exact opposite of freedom to "Afghanistan, Iraq
and beyond," but it has also accomplished the snuffing out of freedom here at home as well.
Groping at the airports, the monitoring of all our communications and finances, as well as the
militarized local police (See: Boston & Ferguson) are just a few potent examples.
Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel is
now trying to scare the pants off Americans once again:
ISIL poses a threat greater than 9/11. ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group
we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group This is way beyond anything we have seen.
The Empire wants more!
Max Boot, the fantasy storyteller, is helping to grease the wheels.
"... The evidence is clear, Biden and Obama got the Magnitsky Act passed, and one of those two is not 'white', which is not the issue, anyway -- the issue is money, power and control. ..."
If Russia were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, it wouldn't
be attempting to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change Russia's,
argues Diana Johnstone.
Sojourner Truth , August 28, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Some perspective on Khordokovsky, et al can be found here:
A rather vague statement, Dick Vain, but it appears you support the 'unipolar hegemony'?
Hard to tell what you intend by use of 'privilege'. Diana Johnstone's article documents the
activities of Khodorkovsky, Browder, Gessen, who continue to agitate against Putin. There are
others. So what's your point, and what's the b.s.?
The evidence is clear, Biden and Obama got
the Magnitsky Act passed, and one of those two is not 'white', which is not the issue, anyway
-- the issue is money, power and control.
Diana Johnstone's immeasurably important, timely, extraordinary exposition of true facts
– truth rarely, if ever, acknowledged in the United States Congress and/or Western
media – represents what can most certainly be described as "historic gamechanger".
How much privilege does it take to write these words:
"Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn
public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S.
interests, including the military industries, helps break down national borders (except those
of the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of
Congress."
By estimate it doesn't matter as long as it's white
Trading in one devil for another
People who support this bullshit upside down line of thinking are welcome to jump off a
cliff really.
The Power Elite are facing an abyss, of real war and defeat, or simply defeat as "assets"
are prepared in Syria for a showdown, with dozens of warships and so forth Meantime they
drivel about trivial stuff in "news" from the fascist press, and the Germans prepare to make
nice with Ivan (the satrapies are switching sides, alas!)
" The Western powers are moving inexorably towards Internet censorship, thereby
facilitating the dissemination of propaganda and war indoctrination in their countries. In
this context, an extremely violent tension is tearing apart the international scene. Aware of
the increasing risk of general confrontation, Moscow is attempting to find credible
interlocutors in the UNO and the United States. What is happening at the moment has seen no
equivalent since 1938, and could degenerate in the same way.,,,"
and (darkly) : "From Moscow's point of view, the war of aggression – by the
intervention of jihadist proxies – against Syria must cease, and the unilateral
sanctions by the US, Canada and the European Union against Russia must be lifted. The problem
that we must all now face is not the defence [sic] of democracy, but the danger of war.
Void of any legitimacy, a parallel hierarchy in New York and Washington intends to plunge
the world into a generalised [sic] conflict."
robjira , August 28, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Outstanding article by Meyssan; thanks for linking.
Really good elucidation of the double standard in American politics as it concerns Russian
interference.
modern99angel , August 28, 2018 at 11:46 am
"The greatest tool at the disposal of globalists is the use of false paradigms to
manipulate public perception and thus public action. The masses are led to believe that at
the highest levels of geopolitical and financial power there is such a thing as "sides." This
is utter nonsense when we examine the facts at hand.
We are told the-powers-that-be are divided by "Left" and "Right" politics, yet both sides
actually support the same exact policy actions when it comes to the most important issues of
the day and only seem to differ in terms of rhetoric, which is meaningless and cosmetic
anyway. That is to say, it's nothing but Kabuki theater.
The abuses of one "side" are being used to push us into the arms of the other side, which
is just as abusive.
In terms of geopolitics, we are told that national powers stand "at cross-purposes;" that
they have different interests and different goals, which has led to things like "trade wars"
and sometimes shooting wars. Yet, when we look at the people actually pulling the strings in
most of these countries, we find the same names and institutions. Whether you are in America,
Russia China, the EU, etc., globalist think tanks and international banks are everywhere, and
the leaders in all of these countries call for MORE power for such institutions, not
less.
These wars, no matter what form they take, are a circus for the public. They are
engineered to create controlled chaos and manageable fear. They are a means to influence us
towards a particular end, and that end, in most cases, is more social and economic influence
in the hands of a select few. In each instance, people are being convinced to believe that
the world is being divided when it is actually being centralized."
Angel, you are on point. What you describe about the two sides is the Hegelian Dialectic
in action. This is why the shadow rulers are desperate to maintain two-party duopoly.
Very enlightening article, by the way. Well done.
Walter , August 28, 2018 at 11:37 am
Russia does have an evident Policy to demonstrate and illuminate the "fissures in our
tapestry [of lies]".
This tapestry itself is US Policy, as incoming CIA boss Casey said: ""We'll Know Our
Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False."
(look it up). RT and other Russian source keep showing the Americans and the rest of the
world that the "tapestry" is infested. This is a iconoclastic Policy burning the false gods
of myth.
It would not work if American propaganda told the truth but it happens that they must lie
– it's Policy set by the secret state, the "power elite" as C. Wright Mills termed it.
And it is a signal of proximate disaster read MacBeth "Hang those who speak of fear" on the
cusp of Banquo's defeat of poor old Mac .
The Quakers say "Tell the truth and shame the devil" – that's about what the Ruskies
are doing shaming the devil by exposing his lies.
An overlooked meddler is George Soros, who was also a player in the takedown of Russia and
has been kicked out by Putin and the Duma, his NGOs are not allowed to operate in Russia.
Orban has had him banned in Hungary. There are constant neoliberal apologists for Soros, but
his hidden hand working behind the scenes has been well documented. Russia, especially Putin,
is Soros' "white whale", as Alex Christoforou states in "Leaked Memo Exposes George Soros'
plan to overthrow Putin", 7/19/18: . "how the billionaire uses his vast wealth to create
global chaos in a neverending push to deliver his neoliberal euphoria to the peasant
classes". Alex Christoforou, sovereignnations.com, originally published on The Duran.
Larry Gates , August 28, 2018 at 10:45 am
Brilliant, insightful, lucid, full of interesting details. It is articles like this that
keep me coming back to Consortioum News.
"Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied hard to get Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" goes
unnoticed while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls."
America has the gall to accuse Russia of doing something we do openly and to a far greater
extent.
Great article. Not sure about the mechanics of how a select few stole Russia's wealth.
Somewhere I read the thieves did not have to put up their own money, but performed the
conversion through Russian loans. The purchase prices were so low compared to the real value
of the assets that they became overnight billionaires. Don't now if they repaid the
loans.
Someone may have a different understanding of how it was done.
Great article.
Bob Van Noy , August 28, 2018 at 9:12 am
Thanks to all. It is crucial at this point to keep the so called Russiagate story in
context beyond the pages and discussion here at CN. To that extent I will offer an excellent
article from off Guardian by Eric Zuesse including some excellent links especially one
leading to an interview of Anne Williamson about her book on the subject. I will link the off
Guardian piece but I encourage those inclined to carefully follow all the links and video's
so that we can offer a clear counter to what happened in Russia and why
The political theater dubbed "Russiagate" (aren't we getting "gated" to death?) is looking
more and more like cover for the dirty deeds of Clinton, throwing more and more pooh at the
already-fatigued American public, trying to make Trump look like the bad guy so nobody
notices what really went on in Clinton world.
Tobey , August 28, 2018 at 8:28 am
Hermitage Capital Management can you correct that typo ?
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 8:07 am
Trying to predict what the crazy greedy power hungry bastards leading the human world to
it's extinction will do next, is the maddening game we are forced to play by their suicidal
games. No one can guess exactly how they will blunder into destroying us all, but their moves
in this direction are apparent,
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 6:31 am
This is a really good article entitled "Fixers":
"If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides
Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make
substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers and figure
out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a
bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a
lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any thinking
person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand
thrown in here and there. [ ]
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which
makes it kind of curious that Michael Cohen would pick him to become his legal
representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. [ ]
And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer.
So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign
where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is
$500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. [ ]
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming
in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and
depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and
Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You
can't drain half a swamp."
Lanny Davis proceeds to go on a whole bunch of talk shows, claiming the sky is falling,
and then in the next couple of days walks all of it back.
Another tactic of a psychopath: lie, lie and lie. Get the lie(s) out there any way you
can, create lots of damage. Then when you're called on what you've said, you just say
something like, "Yeah, I guess I had that wrong." The "walking back" is never covered as much
as the original lie.
Michael , August 28, 2018 at 8:20 am
The number of Establishment politicians and their lawyers protecting their turf (Ukraine
and Russia) seems to be multiplying. When Mueller did not arrest the Podesta Group and Greg
Craig, it was clear that his investigation was a partisan "get Trump" witch hunt; Mueller
destroyed his own credibility by not removing all the bad apples, just the Trump-brand
ones.
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 5:57 am
You can't even keep up with the actors and players in Russiagate's Theatre of the Absurd.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC hire Perkins Coie, a law firm, in order to hide the
fact that they're doing opposition research with campaign funds. Perkins Coie hires Fusion
GPS, a research firm, and Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele, a former MI6 British agent to
come up with some dirt on Trump. Then there's all of the DOJ, FBI and CIA actors who were in
on setting up Trump. Add the media into the mix and you've got quite a story of lies and
corruption.
Tomorrow Bruce Ohr (a lawyer and former number four official at the DOJ) gives testimony
before the House Intelligence Committee to explain his 70+ interactions with Christopher
Steele. His wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Glen Simpson at Fusion GPS, and apparently Bruce Ohr
accidentally failed to mention that his wife was working for Fusion GPS on his DOJ disclosure
form.
Nellie Ohr, Harvard graduate in Russian history/literature and fluent in Russian, suddenly
decides to get her HAM radio licence in May of 2016. Could she have gotten this to get around
being tracked? Who knows.
This article makes the precipitous decline of America's middle class a bit clearer in
retrospect. The lawless free-for-all that was unleashed on America's economy after all the
rules and regulations were stricken from the books during the Clinton years was already being
put into effect in Russia–which theretofore had no need for laws to regulate rampant
capitalism which had completely disappeared from the country 70 years earlier. The elite
insiders in America saw how quickly and effectively a country could be picked clean in the
absence of restraints. By the time our own safeguards were erased during the 90's whilst
Russia was being pillaged, the transnational oligarchs were all set to pick America clean
during the Bush years, which they did using the MIC and the Wall Street financial
institutions against a background of deliberate war, fear and societal confusion.
By the time Candyman Obama took office, Main Street America was on the verge of economic
collapse, just like Russia. People were losing their jobs, their homes, their health, their
families, their self-respect and their hope. Obviously, the job the Obama administration was
chosen to do was to stabilise, but not cure the patient. Money stolen from future generations
of taxpayers through government borrowing was used to prop up the financial institutions on
the verge of collapse just as surely as Yeltsin's Russia stole from the collective to create
its oligarchs. But little to nothing was done to help the middle class so their economic
death spiral continues (any help for them would represent that demonic force called
"socialism!"), as it will until the vampire capitalists have extracted whatever life force
remains, whereupon they shall simply move on to their next targets–one of the
"developing countries" or "emerging economies" they are struggling mightily to control by
whatever means necessary, as if it is totally natural and permissible to preclude trade
between all of Central Asia and its neighbors in China or Russia, to say nothing of
monopolizing all relations with the America's, Europe, Africa, India and probably Mars.
Nothing is to be permitted unless Jeff Bezos says so.
This business of collecting NATO allies across the globe is simply setting them up for
future economic exploitation. And when sometime past mid-century after the resources have all
played out and ruined economies litter the landscape, I suppose the "masters of the universe"
orchestrating all of this will ultimately have to unleash their final solution for
"down-sizing" the population to fit the economic realities, be it a war, a plague, or simply
mass starvation. I don't think psychopaths will be burdened too much by guilt, besides there
won't be too many people left to cast blame on them. With all the computational resources of
the world at their disposal, I'm sure a million scenarios have been run on the supercomputers
in some bunker under a mountain near Davos looking for the tidiest fix. Not that WE would
know, but they may already be implementing some scheme drawn up by HAL9000, who by now
probably walks around in a flawless fembot body. (Ooops. Didn't realise I was plagiarizing
Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" with that last bit.)
Dave P. , August 28, 2018 at 7:48 pm
What an accurate sketch! Along with the future scenario planned for the humanity on the
planet. As always, your comments are closest to reality as one can get. Your comments are
valued very much.
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 12:03 am
"In 2016, Winer received the highest award granted by the Secretary of State, for
'extraordinary service to the U.S. government' in avoiding the massacre of over 3,000 members
of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq, and for leading U.S. policy in Libya 'from a major
foreign policy embarrassment to a fragile but democratic, internationally recognized
government.'"
OMG, high-fives and booyahs! Just look at what you get for failing!
Eduardo Cohen , August 27, 2018 at 11:54 pm
Excellent article. Very informative. I'm just surprised that in the listing of nations
from which people are welcome to seek
the interference of U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow their government (Iraq,
Libya, Iran, Russian, Cuba) the very current examples of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Syria are
not mentioned. But still a great article.
Joe Tedesky , August 27, 2018 at 10:44 pm
At the rate the U.S. Hegemony Project is going America will be a leader with no
followers.
CJ wrote:
"Manipulators particularly use projection as a tactic to hide what they're doing to you in
plain sight. A manipulator can have you chasing your tail by simply suggesting that you or
others are doing what you are seeing them doing with your own eyes. DNC caught rigging the
election? Oh no, it was actually Russia who rigged the election by catching the DNC rigging
the election. See what I did there? It's so dumb, but it works."
Here DJ clues us in on another of the same sort of con, or more precisely, another aspect
of the same big con.
David G , August 27, 2018 at 9:46 pm
"One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for international law
enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international law by bombing defenseless
countries."
or catching international fugitives like Marc Rich.
Tom Kath , August 27, 2018 at 8:52 pm
We cannot jump to conclusions regarding Putin's MULTIpolar vision. At this stage BIpolar
would seem a more accurate description. – Still, a step in the right direction from
UNIpolar hegemony.
Tom Kath – and your reason for describing Russia as supporting a "Bipolar" rather
than multi-polar world would be the some 21 Russian military bases versus the U.S. having
almost 900 such bases? Perhaps you're referring to Russia's recent invasions and/or attempted
destabilizations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran
– oh, wait, that's the U.S. list. Help me out here – what am I missing Tom? Do I
need to tune into to Rachel for a few days to get up to snuff?
Excellent post. The anti-Russian absurdist psycho-carnival taking place for two years now
in U.S. mainstream media should be enough (in a sane society) to topple this house of cards
– along with its fantasy goal of "full spectrum dominance" – yet it soldiers on.
Perhaps only a self-inflicted nuclear winter can stop this mad machine and the assorted array
of absolute dolts at the helm. Oddly they would seem to vastly prefer this option to
accepting a multi-polar world – which of course speaks volumes regarding what passes
for "sanity" in U.S. ruling circles these days.
Jeff Harrison , August 27, 2018 at 8:13 pm
I vote for Vladimir Putin's multipolar vision of the world and against the US's vision of
a new Roman Empire.
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris
Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep
sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A
place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation
don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where
the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious,
empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with
making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.
Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's
shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene
in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding
a cinder block."
Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he
was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into
my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much
as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.
For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial
profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that
captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison,
probation, and dismal job prospects...."
"... There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel, going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters. ..."
"... Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." ..."
"... Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the neo-liberal trickle-down baloney. ..."
SA is cursed with neo-liberal trickle-down baloney stifling radical economicchangeKevin Humphrey, The New Age, Johannesburg, 1 December 2016
South Africa's massive inequalities are abundantly obvious to even the most casual observer. When the ANC won the elections in
1994, it came armed with a left-wing pedigree second to none, having fought a protracted liberation war in alliance with progressive
forces which drew in organised labour and civic groupings.
At the dawn of democracy the tight knit tripartite alliance also carried in its wake a patchwork of disparate groupings who, while
clearly supportive of efforts to rid the country of apartheid, could best be described as liberal. It was these groupings that first
began the clamour of opposition to all left-wing, radical or revolutionary ideas that has by now become the constant backdrop to
all conversations about the state of our country, the economy, the education system, the health services, everything. Thus was the
new South Africa introduced to its own version of a curse that had befallen all countries that gained independence from oppressors,
neo-colonialism.
By the time South Africa was liberated, neo-colonialism, which as always sought to buy off the libera-tors with the political
kingdom while keep-ing control of the economic kingdom, had perfected itself into what has become an era where neo-liberalism reigns
supreme. But what exactly is neo-liberalism? George Monbiot says: "Neo-liberalism sees competi-tion as the defining characteristic
of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process
that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that 'the market' delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."
Never improving
There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and
is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel,
going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters.
Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is
recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a
more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
Nelson Mandela
South Africa's sad slide into neo-liberalism was given impetus at Davos in 1992 where Nelson Mandela had this to say to the assembled
super rich: "We visualise a mixed economy, in which the private sector would play a central and critical role to ensure the creation
of wealth and jobs. Future economic policy will also have to address such questions as security of investments and the right to repatriate
earnings, realistic exchange rates, the rate of inflation and the fiscus."
Further insight into this pivotal moment was provided by Anthony Sampson, Mandela's official biographer who wrote: "It was not
until February 1992, when Mandela went to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he finally turned against nationalisation.
He was lionised by the world's bankers and industrialists at lunches and dinners."
This is not to cast any aspersions on Mandela, he had to make these decisions at the time to protect our democratic transition.
But these utterances should have been accom-panied by a behind the scenes interrogation of all the ANC's thoughts on how to proceed
in terms of the economy delivering socialist orientated solutions without falling into the minefield of neo-liberal traps that lay
in wait for our emerging country.
Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen
to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the
table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the
neo-liberal trickle-down baloney.
Now no one dares to express any type of radical approach to our economic woes unless it is some loony populist. Debate around
these important issues is largely missing and the level of commentary on all important national questions is shockingly shallow.
Anti-labour, anti-socialist, anti-poor, anti-black The status quo as set by the largely white-owned media revolves
around key neo-liberal slogans mas-querading as commentary that is anti-labour, anti-socialist and anti-poor, which sadly translates
within our own context as anti-black and therefore repugnantly racist.
We live in a country where the black, over-whelmingly poor majority of our citizens have voted for a much revered liberation movement
that is constantly under attack from within and without by people who do not have their best interests at heart and are brilliant
at manipulating outcomes to suit themselves on a global scale.
Kevin Humphrey is associate executive editor of The New Age
I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their
"Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda -- also about the time the Ukraine civil
war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of US/NATO/Atlantic
Council bullshit.
I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as the Off-guardian.org bloggers
who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising Guardian journos, 'comment is
free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?
With so many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The
Guardian is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read
pro-Israeli/pro-US government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.
And if authoritarian governments happen to relatively low IQ societies (like Germany
in 1933?), we might ponder this:
A truly authoritarian leader would have the sole power to :
– declare war unilaterally and frequently;
– issue 300,000 national security letters, administrative subpoenas with gag orders that
enjoin recipients from ever divulging they've been served;
– control information at all times than any monarch in history under the National
Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.
–torture, kidnap and assassinate anyone anywhere at will.
Personal freedom in an authoritarian state would be limited by
– secretly banning 50,000 people from flying and refusing requests for an explanation
– imprisoning 2,000,000 people without trial
– executing 2,000 people each year prior to arrest.
In a real an authoritarian state there would be
– warrantless surveillance of private phone and email conversations by the NSA;
– SWAT team raiding homes;
– shootings of unarmed citizens by police;
– harsh punishment of schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance;
– endless wars;
– out-of-control spending;
– militarized police;
–roadside strip searches;
– roving TSA sweeps;
– privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans;
– fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on citizens' private transactions;
– militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition
"... Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war. ..."
"... Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats. ..."
"... These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited Federal funds at their fingertips. ..."
Ron Unz has linked to WSWS.org several times in the past as WSWS was targeted by the Deep
State/Google etc. cabal to make it disappear into the "memory hole."
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do
with economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality.
The cultural-Marxist troika.
Just one of many good point you make. The only thing I'd add is in relation to:
Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil
war.
As Reg mentions: conflict among the masses is very much the plan. Divide et
impera.
And my stupid [neo]liberal friends still think the democrats are going to save them, and then
on to super – duper – special stupid, they think their vote for a democrat is
going to have an impact. On to ludicrous stupid – it's all the republicans fault.
Identity politics at its finest.
Unfixable, and circling the drain.
The Alarmist, June 8, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT • 100 Words
"Center-right" and "business oriented?"
Try Oligarch-centric.
There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the fall of
Constantinople: Sultan Mehmed II rounded up the surviving oligarchs of
the Empire and asked them why they had withheld their riches and
resources from supporting the Empire's final defense against his
conquest, to which the oligarchs replied that they were saving their
riches for his most excellent majesty. He had them brutally executed.
Jake, June 8, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil
machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts
the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats.
At the upper levels there is no difference between the Demonrats and the
Republicons as all are controlled by the Zionists and congress would by
more accurately called the lower house of the Knesset..
prusmc, June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
@anon
These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There
previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited
Federal funds at their fingertips.
It is a mistake to think they will be any different than Maxine
Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerold Nadler or Luis Guitirez. Senator Joe
Manchin of West Virginia is about a unconventional as we can expect the
new congressional majority members to be.
jacques sheete, June 8, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Anon
The ultra rich use the poor to attack the middle so they can
distract everyone else from uniting
That, in fact, is the practical aim of government in general.
Parties, schmarties it's all one huge extortion racket.
In the alt-right/far left scenario, we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of
Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)
as being simply irrelevant. Or, worse backed by shadowy Western forces.
Or how about we wish these East European countries well but we choose not to take their
side in whatever feud they have going with Russia? Maybe the people who "love the US" love
the worst aspects of America? Maybe a lot of them come across as greasy little hustlers on
the make? Ever think of that?
Anyone who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes, especially
in Western Ukraine.
And that's precisely why countries like Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland shouldn't be
in NATO. We should never have included countries with deep resentments against, and hazy
borders with Russia. The geniuses running the West should have encouraged the creation of a
lots of neutral states -- like Finland and Austria -- rather than expand NATO eastward.
who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes
I don't know where is Ukraine you spent your time and in what company, but this is
complete BS. The South-Eastern Ukraine hates the Western Ukrainian "banderovtsi" as much as
the Russians do if not more -- after all, the followers of Bandera operated mostly on the
Ukrainian soil. There are deranged individuals in every country, of course, and Ukraine has
been subjected lately to intense hate propaganda as well as repressions, but there is no
hatred of Russia. This is contradicted by both sociology and everyday behavior of Ukrainian,
which move to Russia in droves, spend time in Russia, support Russian sport teams, etc.
we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians
and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)
Nobody is asking about what the real Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians or even Poles
actually think, least of all the US. There are almost as many Georgians living in Russia as
there are in Georgia, and they show no desire to move back. In 2008 during the conflict,
their biggest fear was that they'd be deported.
The Ukraine's Maidan was a violent coup, where a few thousand militants armed and trained
abroad overthrew a government elected by the entire country. Protests that immediately
started all over the country were suppressed with force -- the one in Donbass still is.
How could anyone with an access to Internet remain unaware of these facts is beyond
me.
That's an interesting point. Even if true, doesn't matter. One could wonder ..who are the
people populating Ukrainian Armed Forces? Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces,
presently engaged against Donbass? All of them. Including those is logistics/maintenance
depots far away from the (current) line of separation?
The will to fight against "Russia" ranges from a deep hate to simply not wishing to go
against the (current) Ukrainian government. The former are in those "shock" battalions. The
later are manning the logistics train. And everything in between.
Now .if/when a real shooting starts, as soon as Russia, as expected (and desired) by the
most of readers here, starts delivering ordnance into operational depth of Donbass enemy, the
ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.
Why should anyone freaking care and put his ass in the line of fire because you bunch of
primitives hate Russia? Between having a nuclear cataclysm because you pathetic dwarfs of
nations are frustrated to have a neighbour you can't bully and Russia obliterating you, I say
let Russia obliterate you, thus we won't have to suffer the ear-hurting dissonnance of your
incessant whining any more. Though I doubt Russia would stomp on you. When you see shit, you
don't stomp on it, you don't want you don't want your shoes to stink, you just walk around
it.
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass?
Besides those in "volunteer battalions", which tend to be nationalistic with distinct Nazi
overtones, people in the regular Armed Forces are there for the money. There are very few
paying jobs in today's Ukraine, so men enlist and hope for the best.
the ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I
suspect.
That could've been the case in 2014. Today I very much doubt it. Even the Right Sector
people are fed up with the current power in Kiev, and even the dumbest nationalists are
beginning to realize what a deep hole the country is in. Normal people all over the
South-East are hoping and praying for the Russians to come. The problem is the Russians
aren't coming.
This is Ukrainian future, unless the government neoliberal policies
change...
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that Brussels euroclowns celebrated in triumph the exit of Greece from the memorandum agreement, should be taken only as a huge farce. ..."
"... Greece entered the bailout program with national debt at 120% of GDP. Now, the debt remains close to 180% of GDP! Unemployment remains at record levels. Public property has been sold-off for pennies to foreign 'investors'. Labor rights almost vanished, the situation resembles the Middle Ages. Social state and benefits severely damaged. This is the Troika 'success story'. ..."
"... This contradiction could be explained by the fact that the neoliberal regime apparatus wants to send a warning sign to Tsipras administration not to take any action without permission. It is more than certain that the tight scrutiny will be continued and Tsipras must prove to the Western neocolonialists that he will not even think to implement any anti-austerity policies. ..."
"... Without a bailout program, Greece will be left alone now to swim with the bloodthirsty sharks of the global financial mafia in the wild sea of the supposedly 'free markets'. ..."
"... Either way, the debt colony will deliver to the predators every single asset that has been left untouched. ..."
The fact that Brussels euroclowns celebrated in triumph the exit of Greece
from the memorandum agreement, should be taken only as a huge farce.
The Troika (ECB, European Commission, IMF) bailout program has officially
ended and the result is a scenery of disaster. If you still believe that this
program has been implemented to save the Greek economy and not the
Franco-German banks , take a look at the situation today.
Greece entered the bailout program with national debt at 120% of GDP. Now,
the debt remains close to 180% of GDP! Unemployment remains at record levels.
Public property has been sold-off for pennies to foreign 'investors'. Labor
rights almost vanished, the situation resembles the Middle Ages. Social state
and benefits severely damaged. This is the Troika 'success story'.
So, in reality, the experiment was indeed successful for the goals of the
international capitalist predators who transformed the country into a debt colony.
For more than eight years, they boiled the frog slowly with the help of Troika,
and now it's impossible to escape from the hot water.
While the clowns in Brussels had to present a 'success story' to cover their
huge failure and slow down the centrifugal forces against eurozone's existence
and unity, the mainstream media didn't exactly celebrate. Most of the headlines
were quite moderate and even alarming for the future of the Greek economy.
This contradiction could be explained by the fact that the neoliberal regime
apparatus wants to send a warning sign to Tsipras administration not to take
any action without permission. It is more than certain that the tight scrutiny
will be continued and Tsipras must prove to the Western neocolonialists that
he will not even think to implement any anti-austerity policies.
It is worth to mention that most of the neutral/pessimistic headlines came
from the Anglo-American mainstream media. This could be also considered another
indication about the level of deterioration in the relations between the Anglo-American
axis and the Brussels-Berlin axis, inside the Western camp.
Greece will have to give much more to the Western neoliberal predators. Otherwise,
the rating agencies will be ordered to attack again and force the ruined Greek
economy into another round of disastrous bailouts.
Either way, the debt colony will deliver to the predators every single asset
that has been left untouched.
"... This financial dynamic has hijacked industrial capitalism. It is leading economies to polarize and ultimately collapse under the weight of their debt burden. That is the inherent dynamic of finance capitalism. The debt overhead leads to a financial crisis that becomes an opportunity to impose emergency rule to replace democratic lawmaking. So contrary to Hayek's anti-government "free enterprise" warnings, "slippery slope" to totalitarianism is not by socialist reforms limiting the rentier class's extraction of economic rent and interest, but just the opposite: the failure of society to check the rentier extraction of income vesting a hereditary autocracy whose financial and rent-seeking business plan impoverishes the economy at large. ..."
Text of Michael Hudson's speech on debt and the world economy, presented at Peking
University's School of Marxist Studies, May 5-6, 2018.
Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital describe how debt grows exponentially, burdening the
economy with carrying charges. This overhead is subjecting today's Western finance-capitalist
economies to austerity, shrinking living standards and capital investment while increasing
their cost of living and doing business. That is the main reason why they are losing their
export markets and becoming de-industrialized.
What policies are best suited for China to avoid this neo-rentier disease while raising
living standards in a fair and efficient low-cost economy? The most pressing policy challenge
is to keep down the cost of housing. Rising housing prices mean larger and larger debts
extracting interest out of the economy. The strongest way to prevent this is to tax away the
rise in land prices, collecting the rental value for the government instead of letting it be
pledged to the banks as mortgage interest.
The same logic applies to public collection of natural resource and monopoly rents. Failure
to tax them away will enable banks to create debt against these rents, building financial and
other rentier charges into the pricing of basic needs.
U.S. and European business schools are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They
teach the tactics of asset stripping and how to replace industrial engineering with financial
engineering, as if financialization creates wealth faster than the debt burden. Having rapidly
pulled ahead over the past three decades, China must remain free of rentier ideology that
imagines wealth to be created by debt-leveraged inflation of real-estate and financial asset
prices.
Western capitalism has not turned out the way that Marx expected. He was optimistic in
forecasting that industrial capitalists would gain control of government to free economies from
unnecessary costs of production in the form of rent and interest that increase the cost of
living (and hence, the break-even wage level). Along with most other economists of his day, he
expected rentier income and the ownership of land, natural resources and banking to be taken
out of the hands of the hereditary aristocracies that had held them since Europe's feudal
epoch. Socialism was seen as the logical extension of classical political economy, whose main
policy was to abolish rent paid to landlords and interest paid to banks and bondholders.
A century ago there was an almost universal belief in mixed economies. Governments were
expected to tax away land rent and natural resource rent, regulate monopolies to bring prices
in line with actual cost value, and create basic infrastructure with money created by their own
treasury or central bank. Socializing land rent was the core of Physiocracy and the economics
of Adam Smith, whose logic was refined by Alfred Marshall, Simon Patten and other bourgeois
economists of the late 19th century. That was the path that European and American capitalism
seemed to be following in the decades leading up to World War I. That logic sought to use the
government to support industry instead of the landlord and financial classes.
China is progressing along this "mixed economy" road to socialism, but Western economies are
suffering from a resurgence of the pre-capitalist rentier classes. Their slogan of "small
government" means a shift in planning to finance, real estate and monopolies. This economic
philosophy is reversing the logic of industrial capitalism, replacing public investment and
subsidy with privatization and rent extraction. The Western economies' tax shift favoring
finance and real estate is a case in point. It reverses John Stuart Mill's "Ricardian
socialism" based on public collection of the land's rental value and the "unearned increment"
of rising land prices.
Defining economic rent as the unnecessary margin of prices over intrinsic cost value,
classical economists through Marx described rentiers as being economically parasitic, not
productive. Rentiers do not "earn" their land rent, interest or monopoly rent, because it has
no basis in real cost-value (ultimately reducible to labor costs). The political, fiscal and
regulatory reforms that followed from this value and rent theory were an important factor
leading to Marx's value theory and historical materialism. The political thrust of this theory
explains why it is no longer being taught.
By the late 19th century the rentiers fought back, sponsoring reaction against the socialist
implications of classical value and rent theory. In America, John Bates Clark denied that
economic rent was unearned. He redefined it as payment for the landlords' labor and enterprise,
not as accruing "in their sleep," as J. S. Mill had characterized it. Interest was depicted as
payment for the "service" of lending productively, not as exploitation. Everyone's income and
wealth was held to represent payment for their contribution to production. The thrust of this
approach was epitomized by Milton Friedman's Chicago School claim that "there is no such thing
as a free lunch" – in contrast to classical economics saying that feudalism's legacy of
privatized land ownership, bank credit and monopolies was all about how to get a free lunch, by
exploitation.
The other major reaction against classical and Marxist theory was English and Austrian
"utility" theory. Focusing on consumer psychology instead of production costs, it claimed that
there is no difference between value and price. A price is whatever consumers "choose" to pay
for commodities, based on the "utility" that these provide – defined by circular
reasoning as being equal to the price they pay. Producers are assumed to invest and produce
goods to "satisfy consumer demand," as if consumers are the driving force of economies, not
capitalists, property owners or financial managers.
Using junk-psychology, interest was portrayed as what bankers or bondholders "abstain" from
consuming, lending their self-denial of spending to "impatient" consumers and "credit-worthy"
entrepreneurs. This view opposed the idea of interest as a predatory charge levied by
hereditary wealth and the privatized monopoly right to create bank credit. Marx quipped that in
this view, the Rothschilds must be Europe's most self-depriving and abstaining family, not as
suffering from wealth-addiction.
These theories that all income is earned and that consumers (the bourgeois term for
wage-earners) instead of capitalists determine economic policy were a reaction against the
classical value and rent theory that paved the way for Marx's analysis. After analyzing
industrial business cycles in terms of under-consumption or over-production in Volume I of
Capital, Volume III dealt with the precapitalist financial problem inherited from feudalism and
the earlier "ancient" mode of production: the tendency of an economy's debts to grow by the
"purely mathematical law" of compound interest.
Any rate of interest may be thought of as a doubling time. What doubles is not real growth,
but the parasitic financial burden on this growth. The more the debt burden grows, the less
income is left for spending on goods and services. More than any of his contemporaries, Marx
emphasized the tendency for debt to grow exponentially, at compound interest, extracting more
and more income from the economy at large as debts double and redouble, beyond the ability of
debtors to pay. This slows investment in new means of production, because it shrinks domestic
markets for output.
Marx explained that the credit system is external to the means of production. It existed in
ancient times, feudal Europe, and has survived industrial capitalism to exist even in socialist
economies. At issue in all these economic systems is how to prevent the growth of debt and its
interest charge from shrinking economies. Marx believed that the natural thrust of industrial
capitalism was to replace private banking and money creation with public money and credit. He
distinguished interest-bearing debt under industrial capitalism as, for the first time, a means
of financing capital investment. It thus was potentially productive by funding capital to
produce a profit that was sufficient to pay off the debt.
Industrial banking was expected to finance industrial capital formation, as was occurring in
Germany in Marx's day. Marx's examples of industrial balance sheets accordingly assumed debt.
In contrast to Ricardo's analysis of capitalism's Armageddon resulting from rising land-rent,
Marx expected capitalism to free itself from political dominance by the landlord class, as well
as from the precapitalist legacy of usury.
This kind of classical free market viewed capitalism's historical role as being to free the
economy from the overhead of unproductive "usury" debt, along with the problem of absentee
landownership and private ownership of monopolies – what Lenin called the economy's
"commanding heights" in the form of basic infrastructure. Governments would make industries
competitive by providing basic needs freely or at least at much lower public prices than
privatized economies could match.
This reform program of industrial capitalism was beginning to occur in Germany and the
United States, but Marx recognized that such evolution would not be smooth and automatic.
Managing economies in the interest of the wage earners who formed the majority of the
population would require revolution where reactionary interests fought to prevent society from
going beyond the "bourgeois socialism" that stopped short of nationalizing the land, monopolies
and banking.
World War I untracked even this path of "bourgeois socialism." Rentier forces fought to
prevent reform, and banks focused on lending against collateral already in place, not on
financing new means of production. The result of this return to pre-industrial bank credit is
that some 80 percent of bank lending in the United States and Britain now takes the form of
real estate mortgages. The effect is to turn the land's rental yield into interest.
That rent-into-interest transformation gives bankers a strong motive to oppose taxing land
rent, knowing that they will end up with whatever the tax collector relinquishes. Most of the
remaining bank lending is concentrated in loans for corporate takeovers, mergers and
acquisitions, and consumer loans. Corporate capital investment in today's West is not financed
by bank credit, but almost entirely out of retained corporate earnings, and secondarily out of
stock issues.
The stock market itself has become extractive. Corporate earnings are used for stock
buybacks and higher dividend payouts, not for new tangible investment. This financial strategy
was made explicit by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Jensen, who advocated that
salaries and bonuses for corporate managers should be based on how much they can increase the
price of their companies' stock, not on how much they increased or production and/or business
size. Some 92 percent of corporate profits in recent years have been spent on stock buyback
programs and dividend payouts. That leaves only about 8 percent available to be re-invested in
new means of production and hiring. Corporate America's financial managers are turning
financialized companies into debt-ridden corporate shells.
A major advantage of a government as chief banker and credit creator is that when debts come
to outstrip the means to pay, the government can write down the debt. That is how China's banks
have operated. It is a prerequisite for saving companies from bankruptcy and preventing their
ownership from being transferred to foreigners, raiders or vultures.
Classical tax and banking policies were expected to streamline industrial economies,
lowering their cost structures as governments replaced landlords as owner of the land and
natural resources (as in China today) and creating their own money and credit. But despite
Marx's understanding that this would have been the most logical way for industrial capitalism
to evolve, finance capitalism has failed to fund capital formation. Finance capitalism has
hijacked industrial capitalism, and neoliberalism is its anti-classical ideology.
The result of today's alliance of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector with
natural resource and infrastructure monopolies has been to reverse that the 20th century's
reforms promoting progressive taxation of wealth and income. Industrial capitalism in the West
has been detoured along the road to rent-extracting privatization, austerity and debt
serfdom.
The result is a double-crisis: austerity stemming from debt deflation, while public health,
communications, information technology, transportation and other basic infrastructure are
privatized by corporate monopolies that raise prices charged to labor and industry. The debt
crisis spans government debt (state and local as well as national), corporate debt, real estate
mortgage debt and personal debt, causing austerity that shrinks the "real" economy as its
assets and income are stripped away to service the exponentially growing debt overhead. The
economy polarizes as income and wealth ownership are shifted to the neo-rentier alliance headed
by the financial sector.
This veritable counter-revolution has inverted the classical concept of free markets.
Instead of advocating a public role to lower the cost structure of business and labor, the
neoliberal ideal excludes public infrastructure and government ownership of natural monopolies,
not to speak of industrial production. Led by bank lobbyists, neoliberalism even opposes public
regulation of finance and monopolies to keep their prices in line with socially necessary cost
of production.
To defend this economic counter-revolution, the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA)
and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures now used throughout the world were inspired by
opposition to progressive taxation and public ownership of land and banks. These statistical
measures depicting finance, insurance and real estate as the leaders of wealth creation, not
the creators merely of debt and rentier overhead.
What is China's "Real" GDP and "real wealth creation"?
Rejection of classical value theory's focus on economic rent – the excess of market
price over intrinsic labor cost – underlies the post-classical concept of GDP. Classical
rent theory warned against the FIRE sector siphoning off nominal growth in wealth and income.
The economics of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill and Marx share in common the view that
this rentier revenue should be treated as an overhead charge and, as such, subtracted from
national income and product because it is not production-related. Being extraneous to the
production process, this rentier overhead is responsible for today's debt deflation and
economically extractive privatization that is imposing austerity and shrinking markets from
North America to Europe.
The West's debt crisis is aggravated by privatizing monopolies (on credit) that historically
have belonged to the public sector. Instead of recognizing the virtues of a mixed economy,
Frederick Hayek and his followers from Ayn Rand to Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the
Chicago School and libertarian Republicans have claimed that any public ownership or regulation
is, ipso facto, a step toward totalitarian politics.
Following this ideology, Alan Greenspan aborted economic regulation and decriminalized
financial fraud. He believed that in principle, the massive bank fraud, junk-mortgage lending
and corporate raiding that led up to the 2008 crisis was more efficient than regulating such
activities or prosecuting fraudsters.
This is the neoliberal ideology taught in U.S. and European business schools. It assumes
that whatever increases financial wealth most quickly is the most efficient for society as a
whole. It also assumes that bankers will find honest dealing to be more in their economic
self-interest than fraud, because customers would shun fraudulent bankers. But along with the
mathematics of compound interest, the inherent dynamic of finance capitalism is to establish a
monopoly and capture government regulatory agencies, the justice system, central bank and
Treasury to prevent any alternative policy and the prosecution of fraud.
The aim is to get rich by purely financial means – by increasing stock-market prices,
not by tangible capital formation. That is the opposite of the industrial logic of expanding
the economy and its markets. Instead of creating a more productive economy and raising living
standards, finance capitalism is imposing austerity by diverting wage income and also corporate
income to pay rising debt service, health insurance and payments to privatized monopolies.
Progressive income and wealth taxation has been reversed, siphoning off wages to subsidize
privatization by the rentier class.
This combination of debt overgrowth and regressive fiscal policy has produced two results.
First, combining debt deflation with fiscal deflation leaves only about a third of wage income
available to be spent on the products of labor. Paying interest, rents and taxes – and
monopoly prices – shrinks the domestic market for goods and services.
Second, adding debt service, monopoly prices and a tax shift to the cost of living and doing
business renders neo-rentier economies high-cost. That is why the U.S. economy has been
deindustrialized and its Midwest turned into a Rust Belt.
How Marx's economic schema explains the West's neo-rentier problem
In Volume I of Capital, Marx described the dynamics and "law of motion" of industrial
capitalism and its periodic crises. The basic internal contradiction that capitalism has to
solve is the inability of wage earners to be paid enough to buy the commodities they produce.
This has been called overproduction or underconsumption, but Marx believed that the problem was
in principle only temporary, not permanent.
Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital described a pre-capitalist form of crisis, independent
of the industrial economy: Debt grows exponentially, burdening the economy and finally bringing
its expansion to an end with a financial crash. That descent into bankruptcy, foreclosure and
the transfer of property from debtors to creditors is the dynamic of Western finance
capitalism. Subjecting economies to austerity, economic shrinkage, emigration, shorter life
spans and hence depopulation, it is at the root of the 2008 debt legacy and the fate of the
Baltic states, Ireland, Greece and the rest of southern Europe, as it was earlier the financial
dynamic of Third World countries in the 1960s through 1990s under IMF austerity programs. When
public policy is turned over to creditors, they use their power for is asset stripping,
insisting that all debts must be paid without regard for how this destroys the economy at
large.
China has managed to avoid this dynamic. But to the extent that it sends its students to
study in U.S. and European business schools, they are taught the tactics of asset stripping
instead of capital formation – how to be extractive, not productive. They are taught that
privatization is more desirable than public ownership, and that financialization creates wealth
faster than it creates a debt burden. The product of such education therefore is not knowledge
but ignorance and a distortion of good policy analysis. Baltic austerity is applauded as the
"Baltic Miracle," not as demographic collapse and economic shrinkage.
The experience of post-Soviet economies when neoliberals were given a free hand after 1991
provides an object lesson. Much the same fate has befallen Greece, along with the rising
indebtedness of other economies to foreign bondholders and to their own rentier class operating
out of capital-flight centers. Economies are obliged to suspend democratic government policy in
favor of emergency creditor control.
The slow economic crash and debt deflation of these economies is depicted as a result of
"market choice." It turns out to be a "choice" for economic stagnation. All this is
rationalized by the economic theory taught in Western economics departments and business
schools. Such education is an indoctrination in stupidity – the kind of tunnel vision
that Thorstein Veblen called the "trained incapacity" to understand how economies really
work.
Most private fortunes in the West have stemmed from housing and other real estate financed
by debt. Until the 2008 crisis the magnitude of this property wealth was expanded largely by
asset-price inflation, aggravated by the reluctance of governments to do what Adams Smith, John
Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall and nearly all 19th-century classical economists recommended: to
keep land rent out of private hands, and to make the rise in land's rental value serve as the
tax base.
Failure to tax the land leaves its rental value "free" to be pledged as interest to banks
– which make larger and larger loans by lending against rising debt ratios. This "easy
credit" raises the price of obtaining home ownership. Sellers celebrate the result as "wealth
creation," and the mainstream media depict the middle class as growing richer by higher prices
for the homes its members have bought. But the debt-financed rise in housing prices ultimately
creates wealth mainly for banks and their bondholders.
Americans now have to pay up to 43 percent of their income for mortgage debt service,
federally guaranteed. This imposes such high costs for home ownership that it is pricing the
products of U.S. labor out of world markets. The pretense is that using bank credit (that is,
homebuyers' mortgage debt) to inflate the price of housing makes U.S. workers and the middle
class prosperous by enabling them to sell their homes to a new generation of buyers at higher
and higher prices each generation. This certainly does not make the buyers more prosperous. It
diverts their income away from buying the products of labor to pay interest to banks for
housing prices inflated on bank credit.
Consumer spending throughout most of the world aims above all at achieving status. In the
West this status rests largely on one's home and neighborhood, its schools, transportation and
other public investment. Land-price gains resulting from public investment in transportation,
parks and schools, other urban amenities and infrastructure, and from re-zoning land use. In
the West this rising rental value is turned into a cost, falling on homebuyers, who must borrow
more from the banks. The result is that public spending ultimately enriches the banks –
at the tax collector's expense.
Debt is the great threat to modern China's development. Burdening economies with a rentier
overhead imposes the quasi-feudal charges from which classical 19th-century economists hoped to
free industrial capitalism. The best protection against this rentier burden is simple: first,
tax away the land's rising rental valuation to prevent it from being paid out for bank loans;
and second, keep control of banks in public hands. Credit is necessary, but should be directed
productively and debts written down when paying them threatens to create financial
Armageddon.
Marx's views on the broad dynamics of economic history
Plato and Aristotle described a grand pattern of history. In their minds, this pattern was
eternally recurrent. Looking over three centuries of Greek experience, Aristotle found a
perpetual triangular sequence of democracy turning into oligarchy, whose members made
themselves into a hereditary aristocracy – and then some families sought to take the
demos into their own camp by sponsoring democracy, which in turn led to wealthy families
replacing it with an oligarchy, and so on.
The medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun saw history as a rise and fall. Societies rose
to prosperity and power when leaders mobilized the ethic of mutual aid to gain broad support as
a communal spirit raised all members. But prosperity tended to breed selfishness, especially in
ruling dynasties, which Ibn Khaldun thought had a life cycle of only about 120 years. By the
19th century, Scottish Enlightenment philosophers elaborated this rise-and-fall theory,
applying it to regimes whose success bred arrogance and oligarchy.
Marx saw the long sweep of history as following a steady upward secular trend, from the
ancient slavery-and-usury mode of production through feudalism to industrial capitalism. And
not only Marx but nearly all 19th-century classical economists assumed that socialism in one
form or another would be the stage following industrial capitalism in this upward technological
and economic trajectory.
Instead, Western industrial capitalism turned into finance capitalism. In Aristotelian terms
the shift was from proto-democracy to oligarchy. Instead of freeing industrial capitalism from
landlords, natural resource owners and monopolists, Western banks and bondholders joined forces
with them, seeing them as major customers for as much interest-bearing credit as would absorb
the economic rent that governments would refrain from taxing. Their success has enabled banks
and bondholders to replace landlords as the major rentier class. Antithetical to socialism,
this retrogression towards feudal rentier privilege let real estate, financial interests and
monopolists exploit the economy by creating an expanding debt wedge.
Marx's Theories of Surplus Value (German Mehrwert), his history of classical political
economy, poked fun at David Ricardo's warning of economic Armageddon if economies let landlords
siphon off of all industrial profits to pay land rent. Profits and hence capital investment
would grind to a halt. But as matters have turned out, Ricardo's rentier Armageddon is being
created by his own banking class. Corporate profits are being devoured by interest payments for
corporate takeover debts and related financial charges to reward bondholders and raiders, and
by financial engineering using stock buybacks and higher dividend payouts to create "capital"
gains at the expense of tangible capital formation. Profits also are reduced by firms having to
pay higher wages to cover the cost of debt-financed housing, education and other basic expenses
for workers.
This financial dynamic has hijacked industrial capitalism. It is leading economies to
polarize and ultimately collapse under the weight of their debt burden. That is the inherent
dynamic of finance capitalism. The debt overhead leads to a financial crisis that becomes an
opportunity to impose emergency rule to replace democratic lawmaking. So contrary to Hayek's
anti-government "free enterprise" warnings, "slippery slope" to totalitarianism is not by
socialist reforms limiting the rentier class's extraction of economic rent and interest, but
just the opposite: the failure of society to check the rentier extraction of income vesting a
hereditary autocracy whose financial and rent-seeking business plan impoverishes the economy at
large.
Greece's debt crisis has all but abolished its democracy as foreign creditors have taken
control, superseding the authority of elected officials. From New York City's bankruptcy to
Puerto Rico's insolvency and Third World debtors subjected to IMF "austerity programs,"
national bankruptcies shift control to centralized financial planners in what Naomi Klein has
called Crisis Capitalism. Planning ends up centralized not in the hands of elected government
but in financial centers, which become the de facto government.
England and America set their economic path on this road under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan by 1980. They were followed by even more pro-financial privatization leaders in Tony
Blair's New Labour Party and Bill Clinton's New Democrats seeking to roll back a century of
classical reforms and policies that gradually were moving capitalism toward socialism. Instead,
these countries are suffering a rollback to neofeudalism, whose neo-rentiereconomic and
political ideology has become mainstream throughout the West. Despite seeing that this policy
has led to North America and Europe losing their former economic lead, the financial power
elite is simply taking its money and running.
So we are brought back to the question of what this means for China's educational policy and
also how it depicts economic statistics to distinguish between wealth and overhead. The great
advantage of such a distinction is to help steer economic growth along productive lines
favoring tangible capital formation instead of policies to get rich by taking on more and more
debt and by prying property away from the public domain.
If China's main social objective is to increase real output to raise living standards for
its population – while minimizing unproductive overhead and economic inequality –
then it is time to consider developing its own accounting format to trace its progress (or
shortcomings) along these lines. Measuring how its income and wealth are being obtained would
track how the economy is moving closer toward what Marx called socialism.
Of special importance, such an accounting format would revive Marx's classical distinction
between earned and unearned income. Its statistics would show how much of the rise in wealth
(and expenditure) in China – or any other nation – is a result of new tangible
capital formation as compared to higher rents, lending and interest, or the stock market.
These statistics would isolate income and fortunes obtained by zero-sum transfer payments
such as the rising rental value of land sites, natural resources and basic infrastructure
monopolies. National accounts also would trace overhead charges for interest and related
financial charges, as well as the economy's evolving credit and debt structure. That would
enable China to measure the economic effects of the banking privileges and other property
rights given to some people.
That is not the aim of Western national income statistics. In fact, applying the accounting
structure described above would track how Western economies are polarizing as a result of their
higher economic rent and interest payments crowding out spending on actual goods and services.
This kind of contrast would help explain global trends in pricing and competitiveness.
Distinguishing the FIRE sector from the rest of the economy would enable China to compare its
economic cost trends and overhead relative to those of other nations. I believe that these
statistics would show that its progress toward socialism also will explain the remarkable
economic advantage it has obtained. If China does indeed make this change, it will help people
both in and out of China see even more clearly what your government is doing on behalf of the
majority of its people. This may help other governments – including my own – learn
from your example and praise it instead of fearing it.
The Union of Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats
d by
gjohnsit
on
Fri, 08/24/2018 - 4:42pm
It began in 2016, when neconservative war
criminals formed an
alliance
with
warmongering Democrats.
Illustrative of their emerging alliance, as
Glenn Greenwald reports, is yet another Beltway
foreign policy initiative: the Alliance for
Securing Democracy....The Alliance's advisory
council includes Jake Sullivan, Clinton's
foreign policy adviser, and Mike Morell, acting
CIA director under Obama. They sit comfortably
with Kristol, Mike Chertoff, homeland security
secretary under Bush, and hawkish former
Republican congressman Mike Rogers. With a
record of catastrophic foreign policy fiascoes,
the establishment comes together to strike back.
It turns out that this was only the beginning.
The common enemy here was Russia, and one method of
unity is the
Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI)
.
A group of neocon heartthrobs have banded
together with an eclectic array of Russiagaters
to form a visionary organization committed to
protecting Western democracy....
Celebrated war cheerleader Max Boot, who serves
on RDI's board of directors, announced the
creation of this highly original organization in
a Washington Post op-ed.
... Unlike the dozens of other well-financed
bastions of status-quo thinking, RDI aims to
"unite both the center-left and center-right" by
promoting "liberty, democracy and sanity in an
age of discord."
Also on RDI's board of directors is WaPost writer
Anne Applebaum who once wrote an op-ed entitled
"Should We Assassinate Saddam?"
The organization's president, Richard Hurowitz, is a
member of the warmongering Council on Foreign
Relations.
For several months, an alliance has been forming
between the neoconservative American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) and the neoliberal Center for
American Progress (CAP). It's the sort of
kumbaya not witnessed since wartime Washington a
decade ago.
A press release from CAP on May 10 blares: "CAP
and AEI Team up to Defend Democracy and
Transatlantic Partnership." The same joyous
tidings accompanied a public statement issued by
AEI on July 31, which stressed that the alliance
was meant to resist "the populist assault on the
transatlantic community" for the purpose of
"defending democracy."
It's hard to tell what they mean when they say
"democracy", but it's virtually certain that it
isn't in the dictionary.
There's something pathetic and ironic about
neconservatives and neoliberals joining forces to
defend "democracy" when they are the biggest threats
to democracy.
Now we have
mainstream
conservatives
openly cheering for the Democrats
in November.
Nor is Boot alone among neocon Never-Trumpers.
Syndicated columnist George Will, who left the
GOP after the election of Trump, is also
agitating for a Democratic congressional
takeover...
Another former Republican, MSNBC commentator and
onetime congressman Joe Scarborough (also a
current member of the Council on Foreign
Relations), has set the standard for anti-Trump
animus. His colleague at MSNBC, former GOP
congressman and McCain presidential campaign
chair Steve Schmidt, is yet another fiery Trump
detractor rooting for the Dems.
This union of evil and evil comes from the Dems as
well.
For instance, liberals new found love of
warmonger
John McCain
.
Forty-four percent of Republicans surveyed in
the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released
Wednesday hold a negative view of McCain, while
only 35 percent have a positive view of him.
Meanwhile, 52 percent of Democrats surveyed now
see him in a positive light.
The press and liberal groups gushed, and
hundreds of headlines approvingly quoted the
former president. "Why you should listen when
George W. Bush defends the media," declared a
headline at the Washington Post. "George W Bush:
a welcome return," raved the Guardian, which
went so far as to call him a "paragon of
virtue." The leftist site ThinkProgress ran a
blog post titled "George W. Bush defends the
Constitution to rebuke Trump."
"Paragon of virtue"? Has everyone forgotten that
he's a war criminal?
The White House said that Brennan
used his security clearance to "sow
division and chaos," and lend a
sheen of credibility to his public
criticisms of the president. The
White House looked into revoking
Brennan's clearance after he accused
Trump of "treason" for meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin
last month.
Straight away, Democrats jumped in
to defend Brennan's character and to
blast Trump for pulling his
clearance. Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-California), ranking member of
the House Intelligence Committee,
said that "In adding John Brennan to
his enemies list, Trump demonstrates
again how deeply insecure and
vindictive he is."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Virginia) called
the revocation "the weak, paranoid,
authoritarian behavior of a
dictator."
...
Brennan's thesaurus-heavy Tweets and
self-righteous grandstanding have
made him a hero to the anti-Trump
#resistance. However, while
Democrats are falling over
themselves to pat the former career
spy on the back, there was a time
when Brennan spied on Democratic
lawmakers compiling a report into
his agency's use of torture tactics
– and got away with it.
In 2014, as the Senate Intelligence
Committee was compiling a lengthy
report into the CIA's use of
'enhanced interrogation techniques'
at its secret prisons, chair Dianne
Feinstein (D-California) accused
Brennan's agency of secretly
monitoring the committee's computers
and removing sensitive documents.
After initially denying any
wrongdoing and rejecting Feinstein's
"spurious allegations," Brennan
quietly apologized to lawmakers
after an internal review proved the
senator right.
Despite being caught red-handed
spying on his overseers, the Obama
administration Department of Justice
declined to press charges against
Brennan, and he remained in charge
of the CIA.
...if it bit them on their fat, hairy
asses. The Left starts with those three
little words that make my heart beat
faster ... "Nationalize the Banks". It
doesn't start with "microscopically left
of the extreme radical far right". The
rich old lady who says "impeachment is
off the table" and "we're capitalist and
that's that" isn't the freaking Left.
and they do it out in the open, and take
pride in it. They are protecting
democracy, from us. Like the economy,
education, health care, democracy is
reserved for the 1%. Too dangerous to
leave it to us.
tted by
Not
Henry Kissinger
on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 7:26pm
IMO, neoliberalism and neoconservatism
are dependent on each other. How can
neoliberal policies be spread around the
world without using neoconservative
policies? That is why Bush can be
popular with the "left". When I read
this essay, this song came to mind:
A guy on DKos, AntonBursch, once told me
he couldn't wait till they "purged all
the Greens (which I think meant us) out
of the Democratic party, so we can make
an alliance with the center-right."
Not really sure what anyone means by
"center," anymore; it appears to have
something to do with money.
As Alan Grayson once said, "So that's
what passes for centrist these days."
itted by
Cant
Stop the M...
on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 12:18pm
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
People were scrimping and saving
and skimping on essentials for
themselves and their loved ones
in order to come up with
multiples of $27 to donate to
Bernie's campaign, but he
couldn't be bothered to defend
his own supporters' right to be
registered correctly and vote in
a fair primary.
Instead he went with the very
cabal that had cheated him, and
them.
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times' ..."
"... I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian ..."
"... Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair. ..."
"... La Libre Belgique ..."
"... "Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people." ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that. ..."
"... Vremya Pokazhet ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news. ..."
"... When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases. ..."
"... By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . ..."
"... Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it. ..."
Reading the tea leaves of the Putin-Merkel meeting
During this past Saturday, 18 August, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brief visit to
Austria to attend the wedding of the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl. Per
the Kremlin, this stop of several hours in the Styrian wine country not far from the border
with Slovenia was a "purely private" side excursion "on the road to Germany" for the state
visit with Chancellor Angela Merkel starting later in the day at the Meseberg Palace, the
federal guest house 60 km north of Berlin.
Journalists were admitted to film the wedding party, including Putin's dance with the 53
year old bride. No questions were taken and no statements were issued by the President's Press
Secretary, who also was present. We know only that on the return journey to Graz airport, Putin
was accompanied by Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Presumably they had some issues to
discuss that may be characterized as official talks.
Prior to their meeting both Putin and Angela Merkel made statements to the press listing the
topics they intended to discuss. We may assume that these lists were not exhaustive. Comparing
their lists, we find that the respective priorities of the parties were in inverted order, with
economic cooperation at the head of Putin's list while regulating the Donbass crisis in Ukraine
was the top concern of Merkel. Moreover, the content of issues bearing the same heading was
very different. Both sides spoke of Syria, but whereas for Putin the issue for discussion is
the humanitarian crisis of refugees, ensuring their return to their homes from camps in
Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by raising funds to repair and replace fundamental infrastructure
destroyed in the war. For Merkel, the number one issue in Syria is to prevent the
Russian-backed Syrian armed forces from creating a new humanitarian disaster by their ongoing
campaign to retake Idlib province from the militants opposed to Bashar Assad.
Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at
all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new
sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both
countries support.
As was explained at the outset, there was to be no press conference or joint statement
issued at the conclusion of the talks. The only information we have is that Merkel and Putin
conferred for more than three hours, which is in itself quite extraordinary and suggests that
some understandings may have been achieved.
In a word, the potentially very important diplomatic developments of Saturday remain, for
once, a state secret of the parties, with no leaks for the press to parse. And yet there is
material here worthy of our consideration. I have in mind the interpretations of what might
transpire before, during and after the events of Saturday in the news and commentary reportage
of various countries having greater or lesser interest in Russian affairs. Indeed, my perusal
of French, Belgian, German, British, American and Russian news media shows great diversity of
opinion and some penetrating and highly pertinent remarks based on different information bases.
This material is all essential if we are to make sense of the behavior of the parties on the
international stage in the coming weeks.
In this essay, I will set out what I have found per country, starting with the least
attentive to detail - the United States - and ending with those who offered the best informed
and most interested reportage, Germany and Russia. I will conclude with my own reading of the
tea leaves.
* * * *
Let us take The Washington Post and The New York Times as our markers for
how US mainstream media reported on Putin's meetings this past Saturday.
On the 18th, The Washington Post carried in its online edition two articles dealing
with the Putin diplomatic doings. "At Austrian foreign minister's wedding, Putin brings the
music, the flowers and the controversy" was written by the newspaper's bureau chief in Berlin,
Griff Witte. It is accompanied by video clips of Vladimir Putin dancing with the bride and
speaking, in German, to the wedding party seated at their banquet table. The journalist touches
very briefly on the main political dimensions of Putin's visit to Austria, including the party
relations between United Russia and the far right Freedom Party in Austria's ruling coalition
which nominated Kneissl for her post, the criticism of Putin's participation in the wedding
coming from the Opposition parties in Austria who see it as a violation of the government's own
ambition to be a neutral bridge between East and West, and the issue of Putin's sowing division
on the continent. The only criticism one might offer is that the article is superficial, that
each of the issues raised deserves in-depth analysis separately.
The newspaper's second article online, which spread its net more broadly and covered the
meeting with Merkel in Germany as well as the visit in Austria, came from an Associated Press
reporter, not its own staff. Here again, the problem is that issues surrounding the meetings
are not more than bullet points, and the reader is given no basis for reaching an independent
finding on what has happened..
The New York Times' feature article "Merkel and Putin Sound Pragmatic Notes After
Years of Tension," also published on the 18th and datelined Berlin was cited by Russian
television news for a seemingly positive valuation of the talks in Meseberg Palace. However,
the content of the article by reporter Melissa Eddy is more cautious, highlighting the pattern
of "conflicts and reconciliations" that have marked German-Russian relations over the centuries
and seeing the present stage not as a warming of relations but instead as reaching for
compromises "on Syria, energy and other key issues while maintaining their differences over
Russia's role in the conflict in Ukraine." She sees the Syrian issue as one where German and
Russian interests may be closest given that refugees from the Middle East are now a German
preoccupation with political weight. The reporter cites several experts attached to well-known
institutes in Germany that are generally skeptical about Russia's intentions. But the end
result is better informed than most NYT reporting on Russia even if it leaves us
wondering what will result from the Saturday diplomacy.
In both mainstream papers there is no attempt to find a link between Putin's two visits on
Saturday.
I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing
to an article in
The Guardian from the 18th entitled "Putin urges Europe to help
rebuild Syria so refugees can return." This piece comes from the Agence France-Presse in Berlin. It is not much
more than a recitation of the lists of topics for discussion that Putin and Merkel issued
before their talks. But the reporter has made his choice for the most important of them, Syria
and refugees.
The French-language press does not seem to have been very interested in Putin's "private"
trip to the wedding of the Austrian foreign minister, but was definitely keen to discuss
Putin's trip to Berlin. On the day preceding the Putin-Merkel meeting, the French press offered
a clear concept of where things were headed. We read in Figaro , "Merkel receives
Putin Saturday to renew a difficult dialogue." A caption in bold just below is more
eye-catching: "While the German Chancellor has become the main opponent to the Russian
President within the EU, the policy of sanctions conducted by Washington has led to a
rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow with regard to numerous issues."
The reporter notes that following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, relations
between the two heads of state had become quite bad and in four years they met only when
obliged to do so during international summits.
"But starting three months ago, their diplomatic exchanges have intensified: in May Angela
Merkel met the chief of the Kremlin in Sochi, Russia. In July, she met the head of the Russian
diplomatic corps, Sergei Lavrov, in Berlin. By inviting Vladimir Putin this time, the German
Chancellor has promised 'in-depth discussions.' "She is pursuing a pragmatic attempt at
normalization of German-Russian relations, because the international realities have changed,'
explains Stefan Meister, director of the Robert Bosch Center for Russia."
And how has the calculus of international relations changed? Both Merkel and Putin are now
facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and
for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir
Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on
Russia relating to the Skripal affair.
"The American policy represents a danger for the Russian economy and a threat to German
interests."
A spokesperson from Merkel's CDU party responsible for foreign policy is quoted on the
possible dangers of secondary sanctions being directed at Germany through the application of US
extraterritoriality against those failing to respect the new sanctions on Russia.
The article explains the issues surrounding the Nord Steam 2 pipeline, and in particular
Trump's hostility to the project for its locking in German dependence on Russian
hydrocarbons.
And the author points to the common interests of Germany and Russia over maintenance of the
Iranian nuclear deal as a factor powering the rapprochement of the two countries. Here again
the common threat is Donald Trump and American sanctions against those companies which continue
to trade with Iran.
The article concludes that divergent views of Russia and Germany over Ukraine and Syria
exclude any breakthrough at the meeting on Saturday. But nonetheless the dialogue that was
lacking these several past years is being recreated.
In its weekend edition issued on 18 August, the Belgian mainstream daily La Libre
Belgique was even more insistent on interpreting the Merkel-Putin meeting as a consequence
of the policies of Donald Trump. Their editorial captures the sense very nicely in its
tongue-in-cheek headline: "Trump is the best 'ally' of Putin."
La Libre sees Vladimir Putin's latest diplomatic initiatives as directly resulting
from the way his host at the White House has annoyed everyone. Moreover, his outreach is
welcomed:
"Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full
advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering
away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for
confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism
will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt
did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people."
The editors point to Turkish President Erdogan's clear signal that he is now
looking for other allies. He has done his calculations and has said he has more to gain with
Moscow than with Washington.'
The editorial concludes that a summit on reconstruction of Syria might even take place at
the start of September between Moscow, Ankara, Paris and Berlin. The conclusion? "Putin has
taken center stage on the chessboard. Thank you, Mr. Trump."
The article filed by La Libre 's correspondent in Berlin, Sebastien Millard, bears
a heading that matches the editorial view of the newspaper: "Merkel and Putin - allies of
convenience facing Trump." The author credits Donald Trump with being the catalyst for the
resumption of dialogue between Germany and Russia; they are telling Washington that they do not
accept its blackmail. He notes that we should not expect any reversal of alliances. There are
too many differences of view between Berlin and Moscow on a variety of issues.
* * * *
The German press paid a good deal of attention to Vladimir Putin's visit to Austria for the
wedding of Foreign Minister Karin Kreissl.
In an article posted on the 16th entitled "Suspicion that Austria is a Trojan horse,"
Die Welt highlighted the negatives of Putin's presence. Quoting an "expert from the
University of Innsbruck" this does not cast a good light on the country. They anticipate
political fall-out. This will impair Austria's ability as chair of the European Council to play
a role of intermediary in the Ukraine conflict. The only beneficiary of the visit will be the
the Russia-friendly be the Russia-friendly Freedom Party. For Putin, being a guest provides him
with the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not isolated but is instead highly welcome in
society of an EU country.
As for the coming meeting with Merkel on Saturday evening, Die Welt in a related
article of the same day lists the issues for discussion. Without taking a position, it cites
experts for and against the Nord Stream II pipeline and other issues on the list.
Welt's report from the wedding party on the 18th was gossipy and unfriendly, comparing it to
a wedding of some European royal family because of the extraordinary guest list that included
the country's chancellor, vice chancellor, and defense minister as well as the head of OPEC
and...Vladimir Putin. With typical German petty financial accounting, they reckon that the 500
police and other security measures needed for the safety of the highly placed guests cost the
Austrian tax payers 250,000 euros.
A separate article in Die Welt deals with Putin's meeting with Merkel at the
Meseberg Palace. The emphasis here is on Merkel's remarks during the Statement prior to the
talks that cooperation with Russia is "vital" to deal with many conflicts globally and that
both sides bear responsibility to find solutions.
The article quotes from the opening statements of the leaders on all the issues in their
list for discussion - Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream II. We are given bare facts without any
analysis to speak of.
The other major mainstream daily Frankfurter Allgemeine in its Saturday, 18 August
edition offered separate articles on Putin's visits to Austria and Germany.
The article on Karin Kneissl's wedding heads off in a very different direction from the
reporting in other media that I have summarized above. FAZ notes that Kneissl is
rarely in the headlines and it asks: who is she? They answer the question with some curious
details. We learn that Kneissl was once active in competitive sports and even now swims a
kilometer every day. For many years she has lived on a small farmstead with a couple of boxers,
two ponies, hens and cats. Each morning her chauffeur takes her and the dogs to her office in
Vienna, to return in the evening. Regrettably, FAZ does not take this curious
biographical sketch further. No connection is drawn between her personality and the Russian
President's acceptance of her invitation to her wedding.
FAZ similarly has chosen to amuse rather than inform in its coverage of the meeting
in Berlin entitled "Sparkling wine in Austria, sparkling water in Meseberg." They comment on
how Putin arrived half an hour late, on how it is hard to see how the meeting could be
characterized as a success. They stress that we know nothing about the content of the
consultations. Then they tick off the opening positions of the sides as set out in their
statements before the talks.
Spiegel online risks more by giving more interpretation and less bare facts. Its
article entitled "Something of a new start" suggests that a rapprochement is underway and that
both Merkel and Putin have a lot in play. Unlike the other German press we have mentioned,
Spiegel sees a direct link between Putin's attending the wedding in Styria and his visit to
Merkel.
Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now
chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right
populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of
Merkel and Putin knows that.
Meanwhile, says Spiegel , Germany also is interested in improving relations with
Russia despite all the controversy, namely due to the growing conflicts with US President
Donald Trump. We don't know the exact content of the talks which were confidential, but there
is some movement now between Germany and Russia.
Spiegel remains cautious. Cordiality does not enter into the relationship. The
parties keep their distance. There is no laughter to lighten the atmosphere. Yet, it concludes:
"The talks have prospects and we can see the wish to make progress through common positions,
and without being silent about contradictions. Diplomatic normality, as it were. A step
forward."
* * * *
If the great bulk of commentary in the West about Putin's diplomatic weekend was reserved
and stayed by the bare facts without speculation, Russian television more than made up for
dryness. I point in particular to two political talk shows which invited a mixture of experts
from different backgrounds.
Let us begin with the show Vremya Pokazhet (Time will tell) on
state television's Pervy Kanal . Their Friday, 17 August program focused on Putin's
forthcoming visit to the wedding 'on the road to Berlin,' which several panelists saw as a
strong signal to Germany that Russ1+
ia had other channels to the EU if Germany refuses to be its intercessor.
The visit was said to be breaking new ground in diplomatic practice. According to panelist
Andrei Baklanov, deputy chair of the association of Russian diplomats, this kind of positive,
human diplomacy is Russia's answer to the negative behavior in international affairs that has
occupied center stage in the recent past - sanctions, fake news, etc. As another panelist
interjected, this is the first time that a Russian head of state attended a wedding abroad
since Tsar Nicholas did so in Germany in 1913.
Baklanov proceeded to provide details about the bride, however, bringing out aspects of her
career that are far more relevant to her attracting the attention of Putin than the
Frankfurter Allgemeine produced. We learn that she grew up in Amman, Jordan, that she
speaks 8 languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Magyar, French, Spanish, Italian, English as well as her
native German. She studied Near Eastern languages in Vienna University, in the Jewish
University of Jerusalem, in the University of Jordan and also graduated from the National
School of Administration in France. She holds a doctorate in law. She is a non-party minister,
which also attests to her generally recognized professionalism. For all of these reasons, she
is a good fit with Putin's determination to find supporters in Europe for investments to
restore Syrian infrastructure and enable the return of refugees.
Sergey Mironov, leader of the socialist party Fair Russia said that despite Merkel's warning
in advance not to expect breakthroughs it is likely progress was made in agreeing how to deal
with US sanctions. This would be tested in the coming days.
As for the link between the visits to Austria and Germany, the representative of a
pro-business party Sergey Stankevich reminded viewers that Germany and Austria are the market
makers in Europe for Russian gas. Nord Stream II gas may land in Germany but a large part of it
will be pumped further to Austria's hub for distribution elsewhere in Europe. Whatever may have
been said publicly, Stankevich believes that Merkel and Putin did agree on many if not all the
subjects named before the start: Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream.
Russian media coverage of the Saturday travels of their President continued on Russian news
programs into Monday, with video clips of Putin dancing at the wedding and speaking alongside
Merkel before entering into their talks at Meseberg Palace.
* * * *
Looking back at the media coverage of Putin's visits to Austria and Germany on 18 August,
and with all due respect to those who opinions are different from mine, I find that the most
helpful for our understanding of the present day international situation were the report and
editorial in Belgium's Libre Belgique and the unruly, risky but at times brilliant
insights on Russian television.
What comes out of this is the understanding that the visits to a wedding in Austria and to
the federal Chancellor outside Berlin were directly linked in Russian diplomatic strategy, that
Russia is playing the Austrian card during the country's six months at the helm of the European
Council in Brussels, that Russia is pushing for a multi-party relief effort for Syria to
facilitate the return of refugees to their home and pacification of the war-torn country. The
web of common interests that Russia is pursuing has at its core the fragility of the current
world order and generalized anxiety of leading countries due to America's aggressive pursuit of
narrow national interest under Donald Trump as seen in his tariff wars and sanctions directed
at friends and foes alike.
Where I differ from the interpretations set out in the foregoing press reports is in my
understanding of what Trump is doing and why.
The nearly universal assumption of commentators is that Trump's policies known as "Make
America Great" are ignorant and doomed to fail. They are assumed to be isolationist,
withdrawing America from the world community.
However, Trump did not invent bullying of US allies. That was going strong under George W.
Bush, with his challenge "you are either with us or against us" when he sought to align the
West behind his invasion of Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council. His
more urbane successor Barack Obama was no kinder to U.S. allies, who were slapped with crushing
fines for violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran, just to mention one way in which they were kept
in line. And the U.S. Congress today is no more reasonable and diplomatic than the President in
the brutal unilateral sanctions it has on its own initiative advocated against not just Russia
but also against Turkey and other states which are not snapping to attention with respect to
purchases of military materiel from Russia.
What made U.S. bullying tolerable before Trump was the ideological smokescreen of "shared
values," namely democracy promotion, human rights and rule of law, that all members of the
alliances could swear to and which set them apart from the still unenlightened parts of the
globe where autocrats hold sway.
In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally
different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He
invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in
principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before
the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a
360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the
small slices we see discussed in the news.
When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what
he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming
more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the
American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas
bases.
The first two presidencies of this millennium undid the country's greatest geopolitical
achievement of the second half of the 20th century: the informal alliance with China against
Russia that put Washington at the center of all global politics. Bush and Obama did that by
inattention and incomprehension of what was at stake. That inattention was an expression of
American hubris in the unipolar world which, it was assumed, was the new normal, not a
blip.
By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not
conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is
not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of
the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of
these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . We see this understanding when he speaks
about looking out for American interests while the heads of state whom he meets are looking out
for the interests of theirs.
In his tweets we find that our allies are ripping us off, that
they are unfair competitors. His most admiring remark about Russia is that it is a strong
competitor. The consistent element in Trump's thinking is ignored or willfully misunderstood in
the press.
Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line
with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it.
Good Optics · about 3 hours ago
This nuanced analysis rings true and speaks to the fact that -
though Trump may not exactly be playing 47D chess - he certainly
does have some good intentions that, left to follow their course,
would have a chance of making the world a better place. But that
will not be allowed to happen by those in the US with firm
commitments to pursue the world's subjugation through any means
possible.
The Cs did tell us that Trump's heart is in the right place, unlikely
though that does appear a lot of the time . . .
Why is Congress so obsessed with starting a new Cold War with Russia? Are they all gripped
by group-think? Who do sanctions hurt most? And how can people visit with Rep. Thomas Massie
and Ron Paul later this month? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report with a very special
guest!
You can always count on the neocons in Congress to ignore reality, ignore evidence, and
ignore common sense in their endless drive to get us involved in another war.
Last week, for example, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-NC), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ), and others joined up to introduce what Senator Graham called "the sanctions bill from
hell," aimed at applying "crushing" sanctions on Russia.
Senator Graham bragged that the bill would include "everything but the kitchen sink" in its
attempt to ratchet up tensions with Russia.
Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) bragged that the new sanctions bill "includes my language requiring
the State Department to determine whether Russia merits the designation of a State Sponsor of
Terror."
Does he even know what the word "terrorism" means?
Sen Ben Cardin (D-MD) warns that the bill must be passed to strengthen our resolve against
"Vladimir Putin's pattern of corroding democratic institutions and values around the world, a
direct and growing threat to US national security."
What has Russia done that warrants "kitchen sink" sanctions that will "crush" the country
and possibly designate it as a sponsor of terrorism? Sen. Menendez tells us:
"The Kremlin continues to attack our democracy, support a war criminal in Syria, and
violate Ukraine's sovereignty."
There is a big problem with these accusations on Russia : they're based on outright lies and
unproven accusations that continue to get more bizarre with each re-telling .
How strange that when US Senators like Menendez demand that we stand by our NATO allies even
if it means war, they attack Russia for doing the same in Syria. Is the Syrian president a "war
criminal," as he claims? We do know that his army is finally, with Russian and Iranian help,
about to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, which with US backing for seven years have turned Syria into
a smoking ruin. Does Menendez and his allies prefer ISIS in charge of Syria?
And how hypocritical for Menendez to talk about Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty. The
unrest in Ukraine was started by the 2014 US-backed coup against an elected leader. We have
that all on tape!
How is Russia "attacking our democracy"? We're still waiting for any real evidence that
Russia was involved in our 2016 elections and intends to become involved in our 2018 elections.
But that doesn't stop the propagandists, who claim with no proof that Russia was behind the
election of Donald Trump.
These Senators claim that sanctions will bring the Russians to heel, but they are wrong.
Sanctions are good at two things only: destroying the lives of innocent civilians and leading
to war.
As I mentioned in an episode of my Liberty Report last week, even our own history shows that
sanctions do lead to war and should not be taken lightly. In the run-up to US involvement in
the War of 1812, the US was doing business with both France and the UK, which were at war with
each other. When the UK decided that the US was favoring France in its commerce, it imposed
sanctions on the US. What did Washington do in response? Declared war. Hence the War of 1812,
which most Americans remember as that time when the British burned down the White House.
Recent polls show that the majority of Americans approve of President Trump's recent meeting
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among Republicans, a vast majority support the meeting.
Perhaps a good defeat in November will wake these neocon warmongers up. Let's hope so!
"... What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of anyone who doesn't toe the line. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence. ..."
"... So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it all. ..."
"... Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran. Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than this. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework. ..."
What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated
shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of
anyone who doesn't toe the line.
And Trump feeds off this by casting everyone as a leach who has been sucking off the US's
breast for decades. It doesn't matter the issue, to Trump US economic fragility is a hammer and
every trade and military partner a nail to be bashed over the head to pay their way.
What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten
the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and
weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence.
Trump is against that in principle, but not against the US maintaining as much of the empire
as possible.
So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business
with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it
all.
The latest major one was with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This meeting wasn't expected
to provide anything concrete, only vague assurances that projects like the Nordstream 2
pipeline goes through.
But, no breakthroughs on Crimea or Ukraine were expected nor delivered. It was, however, an
opportunity for both Putin and Merkel to be humanized in the European media. Between Putin's
attending Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl's wedding as well as the garden party photo
op background for their talk, this meeting between them was a bit of a 'charm tour' to assist
Merkel in the polls while expanding on Putin's humanity post World Cup and Helsinki.
That said, however, the statement by Merkel's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, about the need
for a new financial payment system which bypasses the US-dominated SWIFT system was the big
bombshell.
Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations
of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran.
Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than
this.
The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's
ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework.
While KYC and AML laws can at least have the appearance of validity in attempting to stop
illegal activity, targeted sanctioning is simply Orwellian.
It politicizes any and all economic activity the world over. Just look at the recent reasons
for these sanctions – unproven allegations of chemical weapons usage and electioneering.
Recent actions by the US have driven this point home to its 'allies' with stunning clarity.
Why do you think Putin brought up Bill Browder's name at the Helsinki press conference? He
knows that Browder's story is a lie and it's a lie that has been used as the foundation for the
type of political repression we're seeing today.
The US is blocking the simplest of transactions in the dollar now, claiming that any use of
the dollar is a global privilege which it can revoke at a whim. Aside from the immorality of
this, that somehow dollars you traded goods or services for on the open market are still
somehow the property of the U.S to claw back whenever it is politically convenient, this
undermines the validity of the dollar as a rational medium of exchange for trade.
This is why after the first round of sanctions over the reunification with Crimea Putin
ordered the development of a national electronic payment system. He rightly understood that
Russia needed a means by which to conduct business that was independent of US political
meddling.
So, to me, if Heiko Maas is serious about the threat posed by continued use of the dollar in
EU trade, he should look to Putin for guidance on building a system separate from SWIFT.
Moreover, Maas' statement didn't go out to the world without Merkel's approval. This tells
me that this was likely the major topic of conversation between her and Putin over the weekend.
Because a payment system that skirts the dollar is one the US can't control.
It took the Russians longer than they should have to develop MIR. Putin complained about how
slow things went because too many within the Bank of Russia and the financial community could
be thought of as fifth columnists for the West.
It's also why development of the crypto-ruble and Russia's policy on cryptocurrencies has
been so slow. It took Putin publicly ordering the work done by a certain time to get these
tasks completed. In the end, it shouldn't take the EU long to spin up a SWIFT-compliant
internal alternative. It is, after all, just code.
And that's why so many of the US's former satraps are now flexing their geopolitical muscle.
The incentives aren't there anymore to keep quiet and go along. Alternatives exist and will be
utilized.
I don't expect the EU brass to do much about this issue, the threat may be all that is
needed to call Trump's bluff. But, if in the near future you see an announcement of MIR being
accepted somewhere in the EU don't be surprised.
Because what used to be a node of political stability and investor comfort is now a tool of
chaos and abuse. And abusing your customers is never a winning business model in the long run.
Customers of the dollar will remind the US of that before this is over.
"... Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering. ..."
Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public face – the
MSM:
stopping the deplorable rebellion
cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery and international
leadership role
bitch slapping China
The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment of a feudal world
comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally
castrated peasants to serve as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.
Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the
deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding
the deep state elites and social engineering.
"... Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG ..."
"... Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them, not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out in legislation. ..."
"... Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their rescue in a New York minute. ..."
"... Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy, I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination of the major intel agencies. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning government in the bathtub" all too literally. ..."
Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation
of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel
under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG
He could easily be brought up on rather serious charges.
Abby , August 18, 2018 at 11:23 pm
He also leaked classified information to the press as did others and
they could have been prosecuted under the espionage act. They will be losing
their security clearances soon too. The information that they leaked was
the NSA information on Flynn to the Washington post. But of course the Obama
justice department only prosecuted people who exposed Washington's dirty
secrets.
Realist , August 17, 2018 at 1:21 am
Yes, what Kenneth might like to see happen may be admirable but not going
to happen in 2018 or 19, which is practically a different universe from
1975 and for exactly the reasons you specify. This country and its self-appointed
minders have changed massively in 45 years. Besides, 1975 was a year after
Watergate was finally resolved with Nixon and Agnew's resignations and Congress
may have been feeling its oats, going so far as to defund the Vietnam war!
Imagine defunding ANY of the multiple wars ongoing!
Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them,
not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out
in legislation. Schumer let that feline out of the sack when he warned
the president not to mess with them.
Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top
officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down
their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their
rescue in a New York minute.
We saw how the CIA worked around congressionally-imposed budgetary restraints
in Iran-Contra: by secretly running drugs from Columbia to LA, selling arms
to Iran and using the proceeds to fund death squads in Central America.
Congress didn't have the guts to take that investigation to it logical conclusion
of impeachments and/or indictments. Why?
Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon
before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed
for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy,
I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination
of the major intel agencies.
Unfettered Fire , August 17, 2018 at 12:11 pm
The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning
government in the bathtub" all too literally.
Rosa Brooks' book How War Became Everything and Everything Became
the Military exposes the vast expansion and added responsibilities of
the MIC, as governmental departments continue to be dismantled and privatized.
She even said in a book circuit lecture that she thought the idea of
Congress "declaring war" was antiquated and cute. Well, how long will it
be when the very hollowed out structures of Capitol Hill and the White House
are considered antiquated and cute?
What if the plan all along has been to fold up this whole democratic
experiment and move HQ into some new multi-billion dollar Pentagon digs?
Remember the words of Strobe Talbott:
"Within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete;
all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty
wasn't such a great idea after all."
This nation had better wake up fast if it wants to salvage the currency
authorizing power of government and restore its role in the economy, before
it's no longer an option and the private bankers, today's money lenders
in the temple, govern for good.
"The bank strategy continues: "If we can privatize the economy, we
can turn the whole public sector into a monopoly. We can treat what
used to be the government sector as a financial monopoly. Instead of
providing free or subsidized schooling, we can make people pay $50,000
to get a college education, or $50,000 just to get a grade school education
if families choose to go to New York private schools. We can turn the
roads into toll roads. We can charge people for water, and we can charge
for what used to be given for free under the old style of Roosevelt
capitalism and social democracy."
This idea that governments should not create money implies that they
shouldn't act like governments. Instead, the de facto government should
be Wall Street. Instead of governments allocating resources to help the
economy grow, Wall Street should be the allocator of resources – and should
starve the government to "save taxpayers" (or at least the wealthy). Tea
Party promoters want to starve the government to a point where it can be
"drowned in the bathtub."
But if you don't have a government that can fund itself, then who is
going to govern, and on whose terms? The obvious answer is, the class with
the money: Wall Street and the corporate sector. They clamor for a balanced
budget, saying, "We don't want the government to fund public infrastructure.
We want it to be privatized in a way that will generate profits for the
new owners, along with interest for the bondholders and the banks that fund
it; and also, management fees. Most of all, the privatized enterprises should
generate capital gains for the stockholders as they jack up prices for hitherto
public services.
You can see how to demoralize a country if you can stop the government
from spending money into the economy. That will cause austerity, lower living
standards and really put the class war in business. So what Trump is suggesting
is to put the class war in business, financially, with an exclamation point."
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend. ..."
"... In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman"). ..."
"... The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs ..."
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a
conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.
All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly,
but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged
in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem
to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological
conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia
and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists,
between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined
to the two main nuclear powers.
The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain "capitalist manifesto"
dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: "Our guiding light is Profit, acquired
in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who
can lead us to wealth as the norm in life."
The
authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become
the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and
his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably
to Israel.
Loans For Shares
Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration
was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts
of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using
the "loans for shares" trick.
In a 2012 Vanity Fair
article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist
Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:
The new oligarchs -- a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that
money brought -- concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money,
which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral
blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned
companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the
government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver
the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises
without parliamentary approval.
This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization,
Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia's petroleum company
Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of
which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest
made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends,
especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos
to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily
convinced his American partners that he was Russia's number one champion of
democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic
capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian
resources.
Vladimir Putin didn't see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed
Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from
the "open society" model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry.
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all
the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted
and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined US plans, already
underway, to "balkanize" Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing
Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.
The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the
conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate
unanimously adopted
resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky
and Lebedev as politically motivated.
Who Influences Whom?
Now let's take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States.
It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in
his favor has a certain influence. But when the "deep state" growls about Russian
influence, it isn't talking about Khodorkovsky. It's talking about a joking
response Trump made to a reporter's snide question during the presidential campaign.
In a variation of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" the reporter
asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stay out" of
the election.
Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he
had "nothing to do with Putin" before adding, "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome
in American politics as honesty.
When President Trump
revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John
Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the
New York Times.
Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually
took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement,"
Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect
intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his
followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
The Russians, Brennan declared, "troll political, business, and cultural
waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in
the hands of their Russian puppet masters."
Which Russians do that? And who are those "individuals"?
'The Fixer in Chief'
To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than
to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that
in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him
as "the Fixer in Chief". Winer has long been unknown to the general public,
but this may soon change.
Let's see what the fixer has fixed.
Under the presidency of fellow Yalie Bill Clinton, Winer served as the State
Department's first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement,
from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for
international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international
law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded
for "virtually unprecedented achievements". Later we shall examine one of those
important achievements.
At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in
Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world's most powerful PR and
lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions:
after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into
highly paid "consultancy" to sell this insider information and influential contacts
to private clients.
APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago
lobbying
for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.
In 2002, APCO launched something called the "Friends of Science" to promote
skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign
described its goals and objectives "encouraging the public to question – from
the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies."
While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton
Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton
Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy
was there to "help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are
addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements
of CGI as a whole." Considering that only five percent of Clinton Foundation
turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.
Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since
Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the
Observer : "Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling
the organization's clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather
than its philanthropic work."
This helps explain Hillary Clinton's panic when she lost in 2016. How in
the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors
they expected?
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works
for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest
of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered
in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch
got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both
for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for
the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is
a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition
to Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given
a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded
members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to
overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist
organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in US and
Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally
brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight
of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named
him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused
Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's
own account , he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled
Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence
agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts.
These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old
friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton –
gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer,
repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media
before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate
the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited
but the investigation goes on and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from
"Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with
so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure
that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington
and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November
16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told
to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head
of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei
Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was
neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an
accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural
causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as
a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges
against himself.
In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky's alleged persecutors,
the US Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during
the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since
Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he
had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other
financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose
economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand
corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky.
He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act.
Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In
his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin
suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller
indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals
involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow
Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back
in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote:
"Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the US attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a
criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general
can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case ." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there.
Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the
senior State Department official managing US-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem.
All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then
they can't touch you."
Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to
a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically
motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage
Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky
Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938
with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely
identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing
foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the
attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However,
by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was
"clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing
requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress
to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself.
This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even
noticed, while US authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar
Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech
at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national
sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is
against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally
prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other
countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic"
system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country
should have and how it should run its affairs .
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in US domestic politics, they would
not be trying to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change
their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that
historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's
computer.
US policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly
willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those
Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely
the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed,
the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians,
Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get US power to
settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from.
All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it
helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy,
serves US interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down
national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money
in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.
"... Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers. ..."
"... The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal. ..."
ZURICH (Reuters) – One of Switzerland's largest banks, Credit Suisse, has frozen
roughly 5 billion Swiss francs ($5 billion) of money linked to Russia to avoid falling foul
of U.S. sanctions, according to its accounts, further increasing pressure on Moscow .
Credit Suisse is being cautious in part because of earlier bad experiences. In 2009, it
reached a $500 million settlement with U.S. authorities over dealings with sanctions-hit
Iran.
There have been other instances where European banks have been punished. In 2014,
France's BNP Paribas ( BNPP.PA ) agreed to pay a record $8.9 billion for violating U.S.
sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran.
Switzerland's banking watchdog FINMA does not require Swiss banks to enforce foreign
sanctions, but has said they have a responsibility to minimize legal and reputational
risks.
I hope the present Russian administration and those yet to come remember this.
Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated
in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers.
I doubt very many ordinary Russians lost anything, but they got a pretty useful lesson for
free. The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no
amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not
throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal.
I wonder whose money this was. Russian offshoring is rather sneaky and uses all sorts of
places like Cyprus and the Cayman Islands through various instruments. As of 2014, simply
keeping money in a western bank was no longer an option.
So this is either illegal money or Credit Suisse is simply lying.
That's a good point; some time ago (you're probably correct that it was 2014, or around
there) the Russian government did somewhat formalize its advice to not keep money in western
banks. As I best remember, it was only mandatory for members of government. But it seems
unlikely the government would order all its ministers and senators to move all monies held in
western banks out of those banks, and then leave government funds there itself. So perhaps
some oligarch/s got burned.
Possibly, but I doubt it. Saint Mikhail's money, what there is left of it, is transparent to
western investigations, and if they could think of a good reason they would give him a lot
more, especially if he were even remotely popular in Russia and they thought he might be a
candidate for insertion into Putin's role.
Now Credite Suisse says that Russian accounts have not been frozen, that the Bank had
reclassified certain assets placed under sanctions. By these actions no Russian customers
have been affected, reports TASS .
Meanwhile, in the world's greatest dirty money laundry, it has been revealed that the
London branch of Deutsche Bank has issued threats to the Russian government.
Deutsche Bank AG threatened to end business with Russia's government earlier this year
in a letter sent to the state demanding that it provide more information related to
know-your-customer records.
The lender's London branch sent the correspondence in June saying the business
relationship could be terminated if Russia failed to submit the documents within 30 days.
While that deadline has long since elapsed, Russia never answered the letter and the German
bank hasn't followed up on the initial request, according to two people with knowledge of the
matter.
Arschlöcher!
I was working only yesterday and last week as well in the main office of Deutsche Bank
here in Moscow.
Never saw no Fritzes there, only Ivans. Seemed to be business as usual to me..
Skripal (most probably false flag) poisoning now has distinct Washington connections. Cue
Bono?
Nobody can still explain why Skripals lost conscience simultaneously. That kills UK version
of door knob. Another strange issue is why all but one victims survived. That can be explained
only if this was a false flag and novichok was injected in bio samples.
Plans to impose the latest sanctions were announced by the Trump administration on Aug. 8, a
response to what the State Department said was Moscow's use of a nerve agent against a former
Russian agent and his daughter in Britain in March.
Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's GRU military intelligence service, and his
33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of
Salisbury after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to the front door
of his home. Both survived the attack.
Moscow has denied involvement in the attack. It has also denied meddling in the 2016 U.S.
elections.
'CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR'
Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, said on Friday Moscow must change its ways
before the United States will lift its already long list of sanctions.
"The sanctions remain in force and will remain in force until the required change in Russian
behaviour," he told a news conference in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.
The new measures will be published and come into effect on Aug. 27 and remain in place for
at least one year, according to the notice in the Federal Register, a daily catalogue of
government agency actions. They are authorized by the 1991 Chemical and Biological Weapons and
Warfare Elimination Act.
Space flight activities, government space cooperation, areas concerning commercial aviation
safety and urgent humanitarian assistance will be exempt.
A second batch of penalties will be imposed after 90 days unless Russia gives "reliable
assurance" that it would no longer use chemical weapons and allow on-site inspections by the
United Nations or another international observer group.
Soon after the attack on the Skripals, Washington also showed solidarity with Britain and
announced it would expel 60 Russian diplomats, joining governments across Europe in punishing
the Kremlin.
I agree that Brennan should have his clearance revoked, and frankly so
should anyone after they leave government. The thing is, I just got done
reading "The Devil's Chessboard", and it is quite clear that Allen Dulles
still ran things after he was fired by JFK, and was most likely the coordinator
of the assassination.
I doubt that Trump has any more control of the CIA than JFK had.
Until people like Brennan are capable of being prosecuted in a court
of law, our so-called "Intelligence" agencies don't give a rat's ass what
the president orders. In fact, they probably give "suggestions" that are
in fact orders.
Right now I think they are trying to figure out a way to get him
out of office without having to actually kill him.
backwardsevolution , August 18, 2018 at 8:22 am
Hi, Skip. The Devil's Chessboard sounds like a good book; I'll have to
read it. Yes, I think whoever gets to the top of the CIA is probably one
mean, bad monster of a human being.
I too think they'd love to assassinate Trump, but I don't think they
dare. There are too many people who just don't believe the government
anymore, and Trump's supporters would blow the roof off if anything happened
to him. They've got to be worried about that because they're the ones with
all the guns. Ha!
I think they're desperately racing against time, trying to nail Trump
before he nails them. The evidence is slowly trickling out (because the
FBI and DOJ are stalling) re the Steele dossier/Russiagate/spying, etc.
From the evidence gathered so far, it's pretty evident that the upper
layer of the DOJ, FBI and CIA are rotten to the core and should be dismantled
ASAP. If all Trump does while being in office is bring these guys down,
then he will have done a great service.
"... The 78 day all-out NATO bombing of Serbia was the act that, I believe, shocked/energized Russia's patriotic elements into action. The fact that little Serbia, after years of severe sanctions and every dirty trick imaginable would not buckle to the empire showed Russia that the Empire was not invincible. ..."
For me, I would say that the ' few days of bombing Serbia ' in 1999 ripped any last
vestiges of belief that the West was here to help mega violently (deliberate bombing
of the Chinese embassy) away from everyone. Of course plenty happened in the years running up
to that event The other is when China joined the WTO on 11/12/2001 and hit the ground running
– they were expected to behave meekly and ask the great white men for their advice and
follow it.
The 78 day all-out NATO bombing of Serbia was the act that, I
believe, shocked/energized Russia's patriotic elements into action. The
fact that little Serbia, after years of severe sanctions and every dirty
trick imaginable would not buckle to the empire showed Russia that the
Empire was not invincible.
The deliberate attack on the Chinese embassy IIRC triggered waves of spontaneous
demonstrations in China of such intensity that the Chinese government had to take means to
dampen. But, the message was not lost on the leadership.
Those acts of hubris and cruelty by the Empire may have been the beginning of its end.
"... Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in removing uncooperative heads of state? ..."
"... I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo Ufkotte. ..."
From the WaPo op-ed "God Bless the Deep State," by Eugene Robinson:
Democrats in Congress are powerless; the Republican leadership, spineless. Experienced
government officials know that their job is to serve the president. But what if the
president does not serve the best interests of the nation?
In this emergency [emphasis mine], the loyal and honorable deep state has a
higher duty. It's called patriotism.
Is Robinson really suggesting a military coup? That would take a lot of planning and
organization and would be almost impossible to keep secret. Some honest military officer
might find out and put the kibosh on it, like Kirk Douglas did in Frankenheimers's classic
political thriller, Seven Days in May .
Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and
spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup,
something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained
in removing uncooperative heads of state?
Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian
agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson
on the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working
for the CIA, right?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo
Ufkotte.
Ltichfield
, August 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm
Re "Thank god for the Deep State."
Amazing, absolutely amazing, statement.
This is, obviously, an admission of the existence of the Deep State -- otherwise generally
written off as a "conspiracy theory."
Simultaneously it is a statement that the Deep State "knows better than voters" and also
"knows what to do."
This is, actually, a treasonous statement. Why doesn't anyone notice this???
There is only one article that is translated into English: "The world upside down"
2006, http://www.ulfkotte.de/18.html
Journalists for Hire is available in German only. (I was able to buy a copy last year.)
I've always avoided Eugene Robinson's columns because he seemed like the quintessential,
no-think, Borg-assimilated, groupie to me. His column of July 19 entitled "God Bless the Deep
State" proves it.
I started highlighting the patent falsehoods in Robinson's column. It didn't take me long
to realize that it would be much quicker to highlight the truthful comments. Much, much
quicker. I've read the column twice and my copy remains unmarked.
It's a tough call, but probably the most bizarre of Gene's assertions was the
following:
"God bless them. With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the
Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss."
Seriously? The deep state stands between us and the abyss? In the real world, where the
rest of us live, the deep state is the abyss!
Seems like Washington has been overrun by pod people from an alternate universe, where
everything is an inverted, mirror image of reality. Up is down, left is right, etc. Their
moral compasses aren't exactly broken, they just point south instead of north.
As for Brennan, he and the president are both zealous advocates of torture. That tells us
much about the condition of their moral compasses. A plague on both their houses, with
the following reservation: as a certified neocon and Clinton dead-ender, Brennan is even more
dangerous to us real-worlders than Trump. He called Trump a traitor for trying to do
the right thing. In Brennan's alternate-universe Washington, to do evil is the summum
bonum of patriotism.
"... [The difference between] what the average American knows about Russia and reality is frightening.] ..."
"... Bushworld didn't just deregulate mining and resource extraction in Russia, it deregulated everything, the abuse of labor, the destruction of education, the corruption of everything previously socialist and plunged Russia into an organized crime free fire zone. ..."
"... The standard of living fell to pieces and huge fortunes were made by U.S., British, and other western speculators. ..."
"... Putin has apparently moved to the left of that nightmare, and for that we are supposed to fear him, for insisting speculators pay their taxes and pay living wages and support social systems like education and healthcare as well as public infrastructure. ..."
[The difference between] what the average American knows about Russia and reality is
frightening.]
What happened with Putin is that he went to the left of Yeltsin, our boy, our Bushworld
plaything, poster boy of "unfettered" capitalism, the raping of Russia.
Bushworld didn't just deregulate mining and resource extraction in Russia, it
deregulated everything, the abuse of labor, the destruction of education, the corruption of
everything previously socialist and plunged Russia into an organized crime free fire
zone.
The standard of living fell to pieces and huge fortunes were made by U.S., British,
and other western speculators.
Putin has apparently moved to the left of that nightmare, and for that we are supposed
to fear him, for insisting speculators pay their taxes and pay living wages and support
social systems like education and healthcare as well as public infrastructure.
For that we are supposed to go to war and contribute the destruction of huge parts of the
United States in a nuclear war so Assholes like Albright and her followers can live the lives
of potentates.
"My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising
from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over
a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out
of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people
like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort
to desperate measures to cover their backsides."
Brennan exposed "intelligence community" as a forth branch of government.
The branch more powerful that then the other three combined.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the
intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency,
unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable
practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations
that could arguably land some people in prison.
The main suspicion is that Steele's involvement may
have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal
its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could
also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions
had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with
Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... It's a misnomer to term these people representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War. ..."
Brennan's allegation was unprecedented. No such high-level intelligence official
had ever before accused a sitting president of treason, still more in collusion
with the Kremlin. (Impeachment discussions of Presidents Nixon and Clinton,
to take recent examples, did not include allegations involving Russia.)
Brennan clarified his charge : "Treasonous, which is to betray one's trust
and to aid and abet the enemy." Coming from Brennan, a man presumed to be in
possession of related dark secrets,
as he strongly hinted , the charge was fraught with alarming implications.
Brennan made clear he hoped for Trump's impeachment, but in another time, and
in many other countries, his charge would suggest that Trump should be removed
from the presidency urgently by any means, even a coup. No one, it seems, has
even noted this extraordinary implication with its tacit threat to American
democracy. (Perhaps because the disloyalty allegation against Trump has been
customary ever since mid-2016, even before he became president, when an array
of influential publications and writers -- among them a former acting CIA director
-- began branding him Putin's "puppet," "agent," "client," and "Manchurian candidate."
The
Los Angeles Times even saw fit to print an article suggesting that
the military might have to remove Trump if he were to be elected, thereby having
the very dubious distinction of predating Brennan.)
Why did Brennan, a calculating man, risk leveling such a charge, which might
reasonably be characterized as sedition? The most plausible explanation is that
he sought to deflect growing attention to his role as the "Godfather" of the
entire Russiagate narrative, as Cohen argued back in February. If so, we need
to know Brennan's unvarnished views on Russia.
They are set out with astonishing (perhaps unknowing) candor in
a New York Times op-ed of August 17. They are those of Joseph McCarthy
and J. Edgar Hoover in their prime. Western "politicians, political parties,
media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly
and unwittingly, or even bought outright, by Russian operatives not only to
collect sensitive information but also to distribute propaganda and disinformation.
I was well aware of Russia's ability to work surreptitiously within the United
States, cultivating relationships with individuals who wield actual or potential
power. These Russian agents are well trained in the art of deception. They troll
political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled
individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters.
Too often, those puppets are found." All this, Brennan assures readers, is based
on his "deep insight." All the rest of us, it seems, are constantly susceptible
to "Russian puppet masters" under our beds, at work, on our computers. Clearly,
there must be no "cooperation" with the Kremlin's grand "Puppet Master," as
Trump said he wanted early on. (People who wonder what and when Obama knew about
the unfolding Russiagate saga need to ask why he would keep such a person so
close for so long.)
And yet, scores of former intelligence and military officials rallied around
this unvarnished John Brennan, even though, they said, they did not entirely
share his opinions. This too is revealing. They did so, it seems clear enough,
out of their professional corporate identity, which Brennan represented and
Trump was degrading by challenging the intelligences agencies' (implicitly including
his own) Russiagate allegations against him. It's a misnomer to term these people
representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply
visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present
themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government.
This too has gone largely undiscussed while nightingales of the fourth branch
-- such as
David Ignatius and
Joe Scarborough in the pages of the The Washington Post -- have
been in full voice.
The result is, of course -- and no less ominous -- to criminalize any advocacy
of "cooperating with Russia," or détente, as Trump sought to do in Helsinki
with Putin. Still more, a full-fledged Russophobic hysteria is sweeping through
the American political-media establishment, from Brennan and -- pending actual
evidence against her -- those who engineered the arrest of Maria Butina (imagine
how this endangers young Americans networking in Russia) to the senators now
preparing new "crippling sanctions" against Moscow and the editors and producers
at the Times , Post , CNN, and MSNBC. (However powerful, how
representative are these elites when surveys indicate that a majority of the
American people still prefer good relations with Moscow?)
As the dangers grow
of actual war with Russia -- again, from Ukraine and the Baltic region to Syria
-- the capacity of US policy-makers, above all the president, are increasingly
diminished. To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American
crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War.
Finally, there was a time when many Democrats, certainly liberal Democrats,
could be counted on to resist this kind of hysteria and, yes, spreading neo-McCarthyism.
(Brennan's defenders accuse Trump of McCarthyism, but Brennan's charge of treason
without presenting any actual evidence was quintessential McCarthy.) After all,
civil liberties, including freedom of speech, are directly involved -- and not
only Brennan's and Trump's. But Democratic members of Congress and pro-Democratic
media outlets are in the forefront of the new anti-Russian hysteria, with only
a few exceptions. Thus a generally liberal historian
tells CNN viewers that "Brennan is an American hero. His tenure at the CIA
was impeccable. We owe him so much." Elsewhere the same historian
assures readers , "There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support
since the CIA was created in the Cold War." In the same vein, two Post
reporters write of the FBI's "
once venerated reputation ."
Note from the author : As friends have quickly pointed out, the situation
is even worse than described here. Quarterly reviews by the troika will continue.
The German Bundestag will still vote on any debt deferrals, and -- as I do stress
-- the crushing austerity will continue indefinitely. A nightmare.
2010 to 2018 will go down in Greek history as an epic period of colonization;
of asset stripping and privatization; of unfunded health and education; of bankruptcies,
foreclosures, homelessness, and impoverishment; of unemployment, emigration,
and suicide. These were the years of the three memoranda, or "financial-assistance
programs" accompanied by "structural reforms," enacted supposedly to promote
Greek "recovery" from the slump and credit crunch of 2010. They were, in fact,
a fraud perpetrated on Greece and Europe, a jumble of bad policies based on
crude morality tales that catered to right-wing politics to cover up unpayable
debts.
This was a bailout? The word reeks of indulgence and implied disapproval. As
it was often said, "The Greeks had their party and now they must pay." Yes,
there was a party -- for oligarchs with ships and London homes and Swiss bank
accounts, for the military, for engineering and construction and armaments companies
from Germany and France and the United States. And yes, there was a bailout.
It came from Europe's taxpayers, and went to the troubled banks of France and
Germany. Greece was merely the pass-through, and the Greeks who paid dearly
with their livelihoods were just the patsies in the deal. The third "memorandum
of understanding" expires today. With Greece's
completion
of a three-year, 61.9-billion-euro eurozone emergency-loan package, it can once
again borrow at market rates. The expiration of the memorandum also ends, for
now, the direct control by Europe's "troika" -- the International Monetary Fund,
the European Commission, and the European Central Bank -- over the Greek government.
But its conditions, constraints, and consequences will endure.
Read also: Conference of the modern Left in Iceland: learning from each other
Back in 2010, Greece, along with Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy, was
definitely in trouble. The Great Financial Crisis crashed into all of Europe,
but it hit the weaker countries hardest -- and Greece was the
weakest of them all. Its economy shrunk by a quarter, and youth unemployment
rose to roughly 50 percent. The memorandum was, for all concerned, the easy
way out. It started a game of "extend and pretend" on the Greek debt, based
on optimistic forecasts and on policies of reform that had no basis in the reality
of Greek economic conditions.
The policies came from the IMF -- its standard repertory of austerity and
"reform." But its staff and directors knew from the beginning that these measures
would not suffice. IMF executive directors from Australia, Switzerland, Brazil,
and China voiced objections. Channels were therefore bypassed, objections ignored.
The Fund was nearly out of work and money because of the failures of its programs
-- and the relative success of countries that ignored them -- all over the world.
And its managing director at the time wished to be the next president of France.
So Greece, which is to say its creditors -- especially French and German banks
-- received the largest loan in IMF history (relative to its ownership share).
And that 289-billion-euro loan came largely from U.S. taxpayers.
In Athens, teams of functionaries from the Fund, the European Central Bank,
and the European Commission came to Greece, where they stayed in fancy hotels
at Greek expense and were escorted by uniformed police from ministry to ministry
to dictate policy in detail. (Such a nice gig, in a warm and sunny place, so
close to the sea.) In 2015, they were lodged for a time in a four-star hotel,
deprived of their convoys, and given protection by elite forces dressed in plain
clothes. They didn't like that at all, and their bosses, Mario Draghi and Christine
Lagarde, complained loudly on their behalf.
And what of the policies? Public assets were to be dumped en masse at fire-sale
prices, but only if they were already profitable. (Regional airports making
losses, for example, stayed with the state.) Dutch dairies and German drug companies
were taken care of. Labor markets were deregulated while collective bargaining
was wiped out -- an unethical experiment on an untenable premise. Neither German
nor Chinese industry was moving to Greece even if the Greeks worked for free.
The value-added tax was raised, pensions were cut, and hundreds of thousands
of civil servants were sacked. Ministries lost cleaning ladies, who set up camp,
bless them, in front of the Ministry of Finance. The Greeks rebelled in 2015,
as they were right to do. But the European Central Bank held the high card:
It could shut the banks and confiscate deposits, forcing Greece out of the euro
and perhaps out of the European Union. The government, undermined from within,
capitulated. The third memorandum was signed, and Syriza, the left-wing coalition
that had swept into power in January, by that July had become the model prisoner
of the European elites.
The irony is that in 2012 Greece's debts were already postponed, so that
from late 2015 to 2022 there would be a grace period with relatively few major
payments due. Now there is a primary-budget surplus and the markets need not
be tested. So the memorandum can end, but austerity will not; the debt still
looms in the long term, so the commitment to surplus extends for more than 40
years. In any event, the Greeks' will to resistance appears to have been broken,
so it seems safe enough to leave them alone. For now.
But the damage done extends far beyond Greece. The cynicism and brutality
of what happened there is for everyone to see. The fact that Europe imposed
a policy of privation on one of its weakest members -- not for its own sake,
and not with any expectation of economic success, but to intimidate the Italians
and the French, as the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble conceded to
the Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis privately in 2015 -- was not lost
on British voters who chose Brexit in 2016. The Greek debacle helped to turn
the French left against Europe, and fueled the inchoate coalition now in power
in Italy. The German and east European far right is surely not motivated by
sympathy -- on the contrary, they despise the Greeks. But they do resent the
supposed "solidarity" -- a fiction if ever there was one -- that Germany's Chancellor
Angela Merkel and her allies invoked to sell their parliaments and voters on
the idea of the Greek loans.
Europe is therefore rotting Hat both ends. Its economy must remain unified,
but it is coming apart at its political seams. It needs institutions and policies
of social stabilization, financial reform, and full employment -- a dramatic
change in ideas and action at the continental level to thwart the rising tide
of nationalist reaction. There is therefore a growing sense, among those who
are watching closely, that a major democratic reform -- a New Deal for Europe
-- is the only way to hold it together in the long run.
* James K. Galbraith is author of Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction
of Greece and the Future of Europe . In 2015 he served as an informal assistant
to the finance minister of Greece.
"... Here, for instance, is what I wrote about our Afghan War in 2008, almost seven years after it began, when the U.S. Air Force took out a bridal party, including the bride herself and at least 26 other women and children en route to an Afghan wedding. And that would be just one of eight U.S. wedding strikes I toted up by the end of 2013 in three countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, that killed almost 300 potential revelers. "We have become a nation of wedding crashers," I wrote, "the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses, tore up the place, offered nary an apology, and refused to go home." ..."
"... Thought of another way, the U.S. military is now heading into record territory in Afghanistan. In the mid-1970s, the rare American who had heard of that country knew it only as a stop on the hippie trail . If you had then told anyone here that, by 2018, the U.S. would have been at war there for 27 years ( 1979-1989 and 2001-2018), he or she would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are, approaching the mark for one of Europe's longest, most brutal struggles, the Thirty Years' War of the seventeenth century. Imagine that. ..."
"... raison d'être ..."
"... Afganistan is the graveyard of poor empires. It's the playground of the rich American empire, a place to test weapons, test men, gain battle experience, get promotions, and generally keep the military-industrial complex in top health. If it didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. ..."
"... As shown in this article there is a very interesting connection between growing wealth inequality in the United States and American wars: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-american-wars-lead-to-increased.html ..."
"... it's not a war; it's an occupation. More cops get killed/wounded in USA proper then military personnel in that "war". 2017, 46 U.S. police officers were killed by felons in the line of duty; 17 military personnel in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Yes , the US military industrial complex is rich and in top health as you say , but what I see is that the health of the US as a whole , physical and mental , is going down in the last 50 years . Maybe the metastasis of the " healthy " military cancer are killing the American host . ..."
Fair warning. Stop reading right now if you want, because I'm going to repeat
myself. What choice do I have, since my subject is the Afghan War (America's
second Afghan War, no less)? I
began writing about that war in October 2001, almost 17 years ago, just
after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. That was how I inadvertently launched
the unnamed listserv that would, a year later, become TomDispatch .
Given the website's continuing focus on America's forever wars (a phrase I first
used in
2010 ), what choice have I had but to write about Afghanistan ever since?
So think of this as the war piece to end all war pieces. And let the repetition
begin!
Here, for instance, is what I
wrote about our Afghan War in 2008, almost seven years after it began, when
the U.S. Air Force took out a bridal party, including the bride herself and
at least 26 other women and children en route to an Afghan wedding. And that
would be just one of eight U.S. wedding strikes I
toted up by the end of 2013 in three countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen,
that killed almost 300 potential revelers. "We have become a nation of wedding
crashers," I wrote, "the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses,
tore up the place, offered nary an apology, and refused to go home."
Here's what I
wrote about Afghanistan in 2009, while considering the metrics of "a war
gone to hell": "While Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind
of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other
key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised
a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last
three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how,
and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant
part, of our own creation."
Here's what I
wrote in 2010, thinking about how "forever war" had entered the bloodstream
of the twenty-first-century U.S. military (in a passage in which you'll notice
a name that became more familiar in the Trump era): "And let's not leave out
the Army's incessant planning for the distant future embodied in a recently
published report, 'Operating Concept, 2016-2028,' overseen by Brigadier General
H.R. McMaster, a senior adviser to Gen. David Petraeus. It opts to ditch 'Buck
Rogers' visions of futuristic war, and instead to imagine counterinsurgency
operations, grimly referred to as 'wars of exhaustion,' in one, two, many Afghanistans
to the distant horizon."
Here's what I
wrote in 2012, when Afghanistan had superseded Vietnam as the longest war
in American history: "Washington has gotten itself into a situation on the Eurasian
mainland so vexing and perplexing that Vietnam has finally been left in the
dust. In fact, if you hadn't noticed -- and weirdly enough no one has -- that
former war finally seems to have all but vanished."
Here's what I
wrote in 2015, thinking about the American taxpayer dollars that had, in
the preceding years, gone into Afghan "roads to nowhere, ghost soldiers, and
a $43 million gas station" built in the middle of nowhere, rather than into
this country: "Clearly, Washington had gone to war like a drunk on a bender,
while the domestic infrastructure began to fray. At $109 billion by 2014, the
American reconstruction program in Afghanistan was already, in today's dollars,
larger than the Marshall Plan (which helped put all of devastated Western Europe
back on its feet after World War II) and still the country was a shambles."
And here's what I
wrote last year thinking about the nature of our never-ending war there:
"Right now, Washington is whistling past the graveyard. In Afghanistan and Pakistan
the question is no longer whether the U.S. is in command, but whether it can
get out in time. If not, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Indians,
who exactly will ride to our rescue? Perhaps it would be more prudent to stop
hanging out in graveyards. They are, after all, meant for burials, not resurrections."
And that's just to dip a toe into my writings on America's all-time most
never-ending war.
What Happened After History Ended
... ... ...
In reality, when it comes to America's
spreading wars , especially the one in Afghanistan, history didn't end at
all. It just stumbled onto some graveyard version of a Möbius strip. In contrast
to the past empires that found they ultimately couldn't defeat Afghanistan's
insurgent tribal warriors, the U.S. has -- as Bush administration officials
suspected at the time -- proven unique. Just not in the way they imagined.
Their dreams couldn't have been more ambitious. As they launched the invasion
of Afghanistan, they were already looking past the triumph to come to Saddam
Hussein's Iraq and the glories that would follow once his regime had been "decapitated,"
once U.S. forces, the most technologically advanced ever, were
stationed for an eternity in the heart of the oil heartlands of the Greater
Middle East. Not that anyone remembers anymore, but Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and the rest of that crew of geopolitical dreamers
wanted it all.
What they got was no less unique in history: a great power at the seeming
height of its strength and glory, with destructive capabilities beyond imagining
and a military unmatched on the planet, unable to score a single decisive victory
across an increasingly large swath of the planet or impose its will, however
brutally, on seemingly far weaker, less well-armed opponents. They could not
conquer, subdue, control, pacify, or win the hearts and minds or anything else
of enemies who often fought their
trillion-dollar foe using weaponry valued at the
price
of a pizza . Talk about bleeding wounds!
A War of Abysmal Repetition
Thought of another way, the U.S. military is now heading into record
territory in Afghanistan. In the mid-1970s, the rare American who had heard
of that country knew it only as a stop on the
hippie trail . If you had then told anyone here that, by 2018, the U.S.
would have been at war there for 27 years (
1979-1989 and 2001-2018), he or she would have laughed in your face. And
yet here we are, approaching the mark for one of Europe's longest, most brutal
struggles, the Thirty Years' War of the seventeenth century. Imagine that.
... ... ...
Almost 17 years and, coincidentally enough,
17 U.S. commanders later, think of it as a war of abysmal repetition. Just
about everything in the U.S. manual of military tactics has evidently been tried
(including dropping "the mother of all bombs," the
largest non-nuclear munition in that military's arsenal), often time and
again, and nothing has even faintly done the trick -- to which the Pentagon's
response is invariably a version of the classic
misquoted
movie line, "Play it again, Sam."
And yet, amid all that repetition,
people are
still dying ; Afghans and others are being
uprooted and
displaced across Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and deep into Africa;
wars and terror outfits are spreading. And here's a simple enough fact that's
worth repeating: the endless, painfully ignored failure of the U.S. military
(and civilian) effort in Afghanistan is where it all began and where it seems
never to end.
A Victory for Whom?
Every now and then, there's the odd bit of news that reminds you we don't
have to be in a world of repetition. Every now and then, you see something and
wonder whether it might not represent a new development, one that possibly could
lead out of (or far deeper into) the graveyard of empires.
As a start, though it's been easy to forget in these years, other countries
are affected by the ongoing disaster of a war in Afghanistan. Think, for instance,
of Pakistan (with a newly elected, somewhat
Trumpian president who has been a
critic of America's Afghan War and of U.S. drone strikes in his country),
Iran, China, and Russia. So here's something I can't remember seeing in the
news before: the military intelligence chiefs of those four countries all
met recently in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, officially to discuss
the growth of Islamic State-branded insurgents in Afghanistan. But who knows
what was really being discussed? And the same applies to the
visit of Iran's armed forces chief of staff to Pakistan in July and the
return visit of that country's chief of staff to Iran in early August. I
can't tell you what's going on, only that these are not the typically repetitive
stories of the last 17 years.
And hard as it might be to believe, even when it comes to U.S. policy, there's
been the odd headline that might pass for new. Take the recent private, direct
talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital, Doha,
initiated by the Trump administration and seemingly ongoing. They might
-- or
might not -- represent
something new , as might President Trump himself, who, as far as anyone
can tell, doesn't think that Afghanistan is "
the right war ." He has, from time to time, even indicated that he might
be in favor of ending the American role, of "
getting the hell out of there," as he reportedly told Senator Rand Paul,
and that's unique in itself (though he and his advisers seem to be raring to
go when it comes to what could be the next Afghanistan:
Iran ).
But should the man who would never want to be known as the president who
lost the longest war in American history try to follow through on a withdrawal
plan, he's likely to have a few problems on his hands. Above all, the Pentagon
and the country's field commanders seem to be hooked on America's "
infinite " wars. They exhibit not the slightest urge to stop them. The Afghan
War and the others that have flowed from it represent both their raison
d'être and their meal ticket. They represent the only thing the U.S. military
knows how to do in this century. And one thing is guaranteed: if they don't
agree with the president on a withdrawal strategy, they have the power and ability
to make a man who would do anything to avoid marring his own image as a winnner
look worse than you could possibly imagine. Despite that military's supposedly
apolitical role in this country's affairs, its leaders are uniquely capable
of blocking any attempt to end the Afghan War.
And with that in mind, almost 17 years later, don't think that victory is
out of the question either. Every day that the U.S. military stays in Afghanistan
is indeed a victory for well, not George W. Bush, or Barack Obama, and certainly
not Donald Trump, but the now long-dead Osama bin Laden. The calculation couldn't
be simpler. Thanks to his "
precision" weaponry -- those 19 suicidal hijackers in commercial jets --
the nearly 17 years of wars he's sparked across much of the Muslim world cost
a man from one of Saudi Arabia's
wealthiest families a mere
$400,000 to $500,000 . They've cost American taxpayers, minimally,
$5.6 trillion dollars with no end in sight. And every day the Afghan War
and the others that have followed from it continue is but another triumphant
day for him and his followers.
A sad footnote to this history of extreme repetition: I wish this essay,
as its title suggests, were indeed the war piece to end all war pieces. Unfortunately,
it's a reasonable bet that, in August 2019, or August 2020, not to speak of
August 2021, I'll be repeating all of this yet again.
Afganistan is the graveyard of poor empires. It's the playground
of the rich American empire, a place to test weapons, test men, gain
battle experience, get promotions, and generally keep the military-industrial
complex in top health. If it didn't exist, we'd have to invent it.
All very human. If America wasn't doing it, somebody else would.
Its all about pipelines, rare-earth elements and drug money for CIA black
ops.
15 years of American efforts to suppress opium growing and the heroin
trade in that country (at historic lows, by the way, when the U.S. invaded
in 2001).
And many record harvests after the US invasion.
' In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can
bet it was planned that way ' Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Unless Washington shifts from a program of funding wars by deficit financing
to funding wars through direct taxation, wars being fought by the United
States will continue to contribute to America's growing income inequality.
About the only thing I take away from this insufferably droll, repetitive
piece on America at war forever, is how powerless the both the writer and
the reader are. All we can do is read these depressing articles which remind
us of a war we can do absolutely nothing about. Very shitty and depressing,
just like USA!
Pretty much. Besides, it's not a war; it's an occupation. More cops
get killed/wounded in USA proper then military personnel in that "war".
2017, 46 U.S. police officers were killed by felons in the line of duty;
17 military personnel in Afghanistan.
The article's point/issue is simply overblown. That's why people don't
pay attention to it.
BS; it's an alien invasion = Nuremberg-class war crime.
More cops get killed/wounded in USA proper
This looks very much like the "tu quoque" or the appeal to hypocrisy
fallacy plus 'oranges vs. apples.' What the good US-burghers do in their
own country is entirely their business, and IF it looks like they act like
antediluvian neanderthal savages [a direct result of their risible 'education'
+ night & day TV, perhaps] THEN tough luck for the cops. It probably doesn't
help that the US-cops are just as much free with the lead as their oppressed
subjects. And don't think that the same sort of savagery won't impact someone
near you; a quick glance into abc.net.au/news/justin reveals horrendous
'social situations,' like bodies in barrels, say, or aggravated home invasions,
etc., also caused by defective education plus importing 'cheap' labour.
That's why people don't pay attention to it
More BS; the sheeple ignore US/Z aggression everywhere it occurs because
the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [= publicly financed broadcasters, like the
AusBC] sell the powerless population pups = the sheeple get actively, deliberately
brainwashed [cf. Lügenpresse ]. Apologists for [here terrorist] criminals
make themselves accessories = assign themselves guilt and should be punished
after being tried & found so guilty.
" The U.S. has spent 25 trillion since the Vietnam War, what do they
have to show for it? " Jack Ma Ali Baba
" The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept the majority of people
from ever questioning the inequity of a private for profit fraudulent banking
system where most people drudge along, paying heavey taxes for which they
get nothing in return." Gore Vidal
(War) "It's something we do all the time because we're good at it. And
we're good at it because we're used to it. And we're used to it because
we do it all the time." Sergeant Michael Dunne played by Paul Gross in Passchendaele
the Movie
I'm not sure, but I don't think we are good at it anymore. But it appears
to me that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Houthi's are and that really
scares us. But it does make a lot of money for some people, careers for
others and the MSM loves it for the ratings and avoiding telling the truth.
Your opening photo is of two of the dumbest son-of-a-bitches to ever
hold the office of President of The United States. Indicative of the shit
slide this country is on.
"Afghans and others are being uprooted and displaced across Asia,
South Asia, the Middle East, and deep into Africa ."
So the strategy is to depopulate the country of its indigenous peoples
until "we" outnumber them? Never mind the damage these re-settled folks
are doing to Western Europe, not to mention other places.
.generally keep the military-industrial complex in top health
Yes , the US military industrial complex is rich and in top health
as you say , but what I see is that the health of the US as a whole , physical
and mental , is going down in the last 50 years . Maybe the metastasis of
the " healthy " military cancer are killing the American host .
The same happened to most of the empires , got drunk on blood and fell
.
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with
Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes
across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the
Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard
Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too
many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China.
Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union
and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and
decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in
far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the
Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA
used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon
inherited and did not want.
The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his
conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always
wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid
of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to
accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing
his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and
so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war
management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.
Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a
CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is
to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties
are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told
The Anti-Empire Report # 159 Willian Blum
The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post
foreign policy reporter: July 18, 2018
Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin
nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure.
Therefore ?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in
Mexico? William Blum
Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last
time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and
run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who
did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014,
according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern
Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts. Best, Michael Birnbaum
To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high
State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to
encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who
were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next
president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch
Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a
while. William Blum
To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months
and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a
credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to
the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she
clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with
potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for
overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to
shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat
the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych
in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible
falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't
stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the
Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will
find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US
foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific.
Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides. Best, Michael Birnbaum
======================= end of exchange =======================
Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments;
never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new
president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr
Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports
fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make
it easy to give some examples.
For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And,
yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem –
Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full
century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is
there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast?
Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that
when they do it can seem rather weird.
To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the
Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in
proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed
objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and
conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So
we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at
determining the winner.
The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm
looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something
logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from
influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK.
But I do not find such evidence.
Each day brings headlines like these:
"U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England
forces White House to act"
"Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?"
"Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat"
These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article,
but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in
America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY.
Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing
sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump
over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any
of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were
a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.
There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this
story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many
are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've
read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which
earn money simply by attracting visitors.
As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians
look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would
Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely
proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal
time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.
However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day
believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact
that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at
all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is
alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.
But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?
For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more
than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That
was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the
wall.
After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to
register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to
require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new
Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America,
CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments
accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek
to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."
And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights
and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S.
government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that
Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski,
"apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would
interfere in the other's elections."
"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's
interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what
the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."
How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?
We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft
the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today
was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's
wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of
political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."
"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and
government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda
outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a
U.S. retreat from global leadership."
"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they
can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in
anything abroad.
And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and
government-overthrows.
"... Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept. ..."
"... When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary. ..."
"... Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA. ..."
From the web the other side of the rabbit hole, key items in the utterly
corruption-tainted profile of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton etc team jabbing at
Trump
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour
speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal
then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag
order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes
regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey,
Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA.
Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed
Robert Mueller to his current job.
Great insight: "Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia"
Notable quotes:
"... Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried up. ..."
"... Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a favorite investment for money launderers ..."
"... Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as possible and keep it from Russia ..."
Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia
in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and
US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current
bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried
up.
Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf
companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a
favorite investment for money launderers
During the Ukrainian conflict Putin began an amnesty program asking oligarchs to repatriate
these assets by waiving penalties and taxes. He restarted it at the end of last year, hence the
need to expand the list of assets to be seized before they fly the coop.
Trump may know where a lot of these assets are parked. Perhaps he had been a good informant
of the FBI/CIA like his partner Felix Sater
Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia
"... Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons. Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason to cooperate. ..."
"... Now Trump has not only gone back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well. ..."
"... Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of time before many more states look for ways to get around them. ..."
"... Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage ..."
"... If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal, Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT. In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions, the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's North Korea blunder ..."
"... In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah, proxies in Iraq. ..."
"... Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to deterrence ..."
"... I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract – for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning ..."
"... Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss? ..."
"... the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex are not in perfect alignment ..."
"... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory delight. ..."
"... The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences. China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... BTW, Trump is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current circumstances. ..."
Iran's Foreign Minister recently
criticized the U.S. for its "addiction" to sanctions:
"I believe there is a disease in the United States and that is the addiction
to sanctions," he told CNN, adding that, "Even during the Obama administration
the United States put more emphasis on keeping the sanctions it had not
lifted rather than implementing its obligation on the sanctions it lifted."
Zarif has his own reasons for saying this, but the addiction he describes
is all too real. Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely
reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one
issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons.
Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason
to cooperate. In Iran's case, they made significant concessions on the
nuclear issue in the expectation of receiving sanctions relief. Contrary to
the lies of nuclear deal opponents, Iran made the bulk of its concessions up
front in exchange for the promise of relief later. That relief was very slow
in coming to the extent that it came at all. Now Trump has not only gone
back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use
U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well.
Iran is still in compliance with the deal even after the U.S. broke its promises,
and now the U.S. is piling on sanctions simply for the sake of inflicting economic
harm. Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions
on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of
time before many more states
look for ways to get around them. The more that our government
abuses sanctions , the more likely it is that other states will create mechanisms
to shield themselves and their companies from them.
U.S. abuse of sanctions reminds me of another part of Bloomberg's recent
editorial on the nuclear deal. The editors write:
But a deepening economic crisis could yet force a change of heart in
Tehran. A second round of U.S. sanctions, targeting oil exports and due
in November, could also concentrate minds. For his part, Trump has said
he's open to meeting with Iran's leaders "whenever they want to." He might
welcome a second act to his summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un. The Iranians
might reflect on the fact that Kim lost nothing from that encounter.
All this is, admittedly, slim hope on which to base a long, tortured
process of negotiation. But it's better than the false hope that Europe's
leaders are currently clinging to.
If additional sanctions "concentrate minds" in Tehran, what is likely to
happen? Prior to the nuclear deal, increasing sanctions spurred Iran to build
tens of thousands of centrifuges and advance their nuclear program significantly.
Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force
the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes
them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage
. In order for sanctions to have any chance of being effective, the other government
has to believe that there is way to get the sanctions lifted permanently. Iran's
leaders no longer believe that because Trump shredded our government's credibility
by reneging on the deal. Now that the U.S. has shown that its promises of sanctions
relief are meaningless, it can impose any number of sanctions for as long as
it wants and all it will do is provoke Iran into doing exactly what our government
opposes.
If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal,
Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario,
the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT.
In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions,
the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's
North Korea blunder . Sanctions addicts don't think that abusing sanctions
can have adverse and undesirable consequences, but in this case they could end
up producing a much worse outcome to the detriment of all concerned. Posted
in
foreign policy ,
politics . Tagged
Iran ,
North Korea ,
Bloomberg ,
NPT ,
Mohammad Javad Zarif ,
Donald Trump ,
JCPOA .
"In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could
convince Iran's government to leave the NPT."
For the Bolt-On et.al. this would be a best case outcome. There are good
arguments that Iran will refrain from anything that would deliver a pretext
for "non-proliferation at gunpoint" until at least 2020 – US election –
and 2021 – Iranian elections.
In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for
the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a
nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into
those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah,
proxies in Iraq.
When the Trump administration and Congress defined that "malignancy",
which so mirrors our own, they signaled clearly that Iran's actions were
exposing weaknesses and serve as constraints on US impunitive action.
Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually
assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to
deterrence .
I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant
cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract
– for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning
. For administrations such as Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, that all hail
from different toxic brews of corporate and oligarch interests, there has
to be a reason to force these costs on one segment of their true "constituencies".
On first glance, it would imply that the interests of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial
complex – that is, the profit and business interests of the industrial segment,
or the ancillary benefits for the other war profiteers – trump (for lack
of a more appropriate word) the concerns and interests of the non-defense
and non-electioneering business.
Bloomberg, of all publications, should be sensitive to this, unless they,
too, place a premium on "national securities".
Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade
it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the
follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss?
Our foreign policy might be decided and defined by this trade-off.
Do our war profiteering business elites consider regime change a requirement
for deferred return on investment, or would they prefer sanctions in perpetuity?
Certainly, the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial
complex are not in perfect alignment . For example, a trillion dollar
budget for mutually assured nuclear suicide might offer significant short
term profits to a narrow "market segment" while increasing the "business
risks" to all beneficiaries of inbred wealth across the world, for generations.
But it would appear that these trade-offs are not well understood. I
guess I cannot complain about that, given my choice of "inbred wealth" as
a description for the multi-generational estrangement of the rich, connected
and powerful from existential realities.
Given the Neocon constitution of Trump's inner circle, it is not surprising
that the Karl Rove delusion is again in play:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will
be left to just study what we do."
How did that work out last time?
U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or
the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and
Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel
and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory
delight.
How did that work out in Libya, Ukraine and Syria? And Mattis successfully
fear-mongers out the wazoo for even more hyper-expensive "lethality".
The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way
ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences.
China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from
the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off
Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy.
And incredulously, Trump merely stands back and watches as his minions run
his albeit mal-formed foreign policy vision into the ground. BTW, Trump
is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current
circumstances.
Stick a fork in this harebrained administration – because it's cooked
"... Indeed, Brennan's retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an "expert" on television and in the newspapers ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Even John Brennan's supporters are shy about defending the former CIA Director's more extravagant claims. James Clapper, the ex-Director of National Intelligence, has described Brennan's comments as "overheated." ..."
"... The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama's CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest. After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued to prove to be unrelenting. ..."
"... there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. ..."
"... it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began. ..."
"... Since that time, Brennan has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." He has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "wholly in the pocket of Putin," definitely "afraid of the president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear." And he then administered what might be considered the coup de main ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he became Director. ..."
"... John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station (COS) in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed , killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt to do the same to Syria. ..."
"... After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in. ..."
"... Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama characterizes him as " always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest." ..."
"... Indeed, he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hanged for such behavior. One has to hope that Brennan's day of judgment will eventually come and he will have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity. ..."
"... Brennan should be in prison for the lies and accusations he has made. He is as corrupt as they come. Brennan is at the center of an Obama/Clinton directed scam to discredit Trump. Trump, love him or hate him, was elected by the American people. Brennan and his ilk may not like it but that does not mean they have the right to bend the country to their collective wills. Time to throw the book at these malcontents. ..."
"... What does it say about Obama that he favored a character like Brennan? ..."
"... Paranoids project a lot and accuse others of everything dark they ( paranoids ) have inside , blaming others for their own`s paranoid violent drives ..."
"... Brennan is part of Obama's swamp that Trump promised to drain. I hope others like Susan Rice and Clapper will follow. ..."
"... Unhinged and dumb. IMHO, they're easier to manipulate by the Puppet Masters. You can't have Groton & Yale-educated types like in Allen Dulles' day because they might go off the Puppet Master playbook and start calling audibles out in the field. ..."
"... Brennan is such a small part of a massively corrupt behind the scene picture. There are probably 2000 or 3000 more who need the same treatment immediately. ..."
"... I hope the issue of whether or not the POTUS has the authority to Trump all security clearance goes to court, because if its outcome is positive for Trump, maybe Trump will Trump Bush's and Clinton clearances. That would make the job of the AG quite a bit easier. ..."
"... Brennan is an idiot. Just listen to him and watch him. And having missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, why does the press suddenly hold the intelligence community in such high regard? The truth is the MSM will do anything to nail Trump not that I particularly like him although compared to HC ..."
"... On the contrary, Brennan is just the kind of person who rises up the ranks in government. And look at Gina, his successor, should she even be where she is ? ..."
"... Oh sure, we can pick on Brennan, he's a funny-looking asskisser, thick as mince, but making it all his fault obscures the blindingly obvious fact that Hillary was the institutional choice of CIA. The other CIA talking heads are distancing themselves from Brennan simply because he bends over backwards to please his Project Mockingbird producers. He's hamming it up and embarrassing them, that's all. ..."
"... CIA installed four presidents: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Hillary was supposed to be next but she couldn't even beat her handpicked loser asshole in a rigged election. So CIA is going berserk. Trump's war is with CIA, not Brennan. ..."
"... I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. . ..."
"... On the brighter side, in Dante's Inferno , the hottest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors. Hope Mr. Brennan likes warm weather. ..."
"... In a contemporary newspaper account of the creation of the OSS (forerunner of CIA) the OSS was described as "five Jews working in a converted vault in Washington DC". Described in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". The CIA has always been Israel's club. Even before it was called CIA ..."
"... Brennan voted for the communist party as a youth. Perhaps youthful flightiness could be taken in stride but a tendency to flip-flop from one form of utopianism to another is often a lifetime trait of unstable people, much like some switch religions constantly. ..."
"... There really is a swamp to drain. There really is a lot of fake news. There really are people within our government, intelligence agencies, and media who, whether through malicious intent or just stupidity, are "enemies of the people." ..."
"... After a major air disaster with large loss of life, the standard TV reporting template is to send a news crew to the arrival airport to get coverage of the distraught relatives. On 9/11 there were 4 simultaneous air disasters with approx 500 dead. How many extended TV reports at the 4 arrival airports, with hundreds of 'grieving relatives/friends' did you see? I saw zero. ..."
"... Brennan sounds like a hog that doesn't wash itself of his own sins while he is carrying out his paymasters' wish. He thinks that he is indispensable to the powers that be he may want to remember the late Alphonse D'Amato of New York, who was chucked aside once he had used up his senatorial cudgel to extract gelt out of the Swiss banks ..."
"... It is absolutely terrifying to recognize that very many in those "elites" never became real adults in their lives and psychologically (mentally?) are still at the high school maturity level. All political tops are messy, soaked in palace intrigues and clash of egos larger than cathedrals, but this particular case is something else entirely and it has a lot to do with overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American party and government so called "elites". ..."
"... The talking head types typically heard in US mass media are overly suspect and coddled. From the FBI, there's Frank Figluizzi and Josh Campbell. A rare exception to that spin is Tucker Carlson hosting former NSA official William Binney. ..."
"... I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect but he must be doing something right because the entire establishment is out to get him. I've never seen anything like it in my life. ..."
"... CIA Democrat Party Hack John Brennan says: "Sometimes my IRISH comes out in my Tweets." ..."
"... What Giraldi calls a "failure of intelligence" is probably about as far as most ex-CIA officer would go on 9/11, at least in public. Whether or not some part the intelligence community was actually complicit in the execution of 9/11 is another matter, though discussing it here only distracts from the main thrust of the article. ..."
"... I think we used to all think that the spooks were at least guided by some moral principles, in their goals, if not in their operations, but bozos like Brennan, Morell, Tenet, Heyden, etc, clearly show that this is not the case. ..."
"... Brennan is not the first to use hyperbole to monetize a scandal. Not the first to take advantage of his proximity to the President. And I agree with Sen Burr's statement. But that's not the point. I'm concerned by what he did as CIA director as the Trump/Russia relationship developed. ..."
"... I totally agree with you about Brennan requesting an FBI investigation. But rather than looking into non-existent Russian operations, if he were truly doing his job he should be calling for an investigation into Zion-gate ..."
The battle between many former intelligence chiefs and the White House is
becoming a gift that keeps on giving to the mass media, which is characteristically
deeply immersed in Trump derangement syndrome in attacking the president for
his having
stripped former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. One
of the
most ludicrous claims , cited in the Washington Post on Sunday,
was that the Trump move was intended to "stifle free speech." While I am quite
prepared to believe a lot of things about the serial maladroit moves and explanations
coming out of the White House, how one equates removing Brennan's security clearance
to compromising his ability to speak freely escapes me. Indeed, Brennan has
been speaking out with his usual vitriol nearly everywhere in the media ever
since he lost the clearance, rather suggesting that his loss has given him a
platform which has actually served to enhance his ability to speak his mind.
He should thank Donald Trump for that.
Indeed, Brennan's retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing
to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value
for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an "expert" on television
and in the newspapers. Are you listening New York Times and
NBC ? Brennan's clearance did not mean that he had any real insight
into current intelligence on anything, having lost that access when he left
his job with the government. It only meant that he could sound authoritative
and well informed by relying on his former status, enabling him to con you media
folks out of your money on a recurrent basis.
It has sometimes been suggested that free speech is best exercised when it
is somehow connected to the brain's prefrontal lobes, enabling some thought
process before the words come out of the mouth. It might be argued that Brennan
has been remarkably deficient in that area, which is possibly why he looks so
angry in all his photographs. Even John Brennan's supporters are shy about
defending the former CIA Director's more extravagant claims. James Clapper,
the ex-Director of National Intelligence,
has described Brennan's comments as "overheated."
The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama's
CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton
become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest.
After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played
a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January
just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information
and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law
enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued
to prove to be unrelenting.
In May 2017, Brennan
testified before Congress that during the 2016 campaign
he had " encountered and [was] aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons
involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian
efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." Politico
was also in on the chase and picked up on Brennan's bombshell in an article
entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
What Brennan did not describe, because it was "classified," was how he developed
the information regarding the Trump campaign in the first place. We know
from Politico and other sources that it derived from foreign intelligence
services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be
a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information
might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into
a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump
were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at
the time. That is how Russiagate began.
Since that time, Brennan
has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that "When the full extent
of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you
will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history."
He
has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over
his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is
"wholly in the pocket of Putin," definitely "afraid of the president of Russia"
and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that he
has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he
does have something to fear and something very serious to fear." And he then
administered what might be considered the coup de main , saying that
the president should be impeached for "treasonous" behavior after Trump
stood next to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a news conference
in Finland and cast doubt on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies that
Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Trump's decision to pull Brennan's clearance attracted an immediate tweeted
response from the ex-CIA Director: "This action is part of a broader effort
by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely
worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of
speaking out." He also added, in a New York Times
op-ed , that "Mr. Trump's claims of no collusion [with Russia] are, in a
word, hogwash," though he provided no evidence to support his claim and failed
to explain how exactly one washes a hog. There has subsequently been an avalanche
of suitably angry Brennan appearances all over the Sunday talk shows, a development
that will undoubtedly continue for the immediate future.
The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one, having also been
made repeatedly by Brennan CIA associate the grim and inscrutable Michael Morell,
who flaunts his
insider expertise both at The Times and on CBS. Regarding both
gentlemen, one might note that it is an easy mark to allege something sensational
that you don't have to prove, but the claim nevertheless constitutes a very
serious assertion of criminal behavior that might well meet the Constitutional
standard for treason, which comes with a death penalty. It is notable that in
spite of the gravity of the charge, Brennan and Morell have been either unable
or unwilling to substantiate it in any detail. Even a usually tone-deaf Congress
has noted that there is a problem with Brennan's credibility on the issue, not
to mention his integrity. Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, has
observed that
"Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the
Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement
is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn't
he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017?
If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office,
it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge
of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel,
not The New York Times ."
This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have
worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly
disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint
and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out
of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so
he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he
became Director.
John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even
as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station
(COS) in Saudi Arabia
when
the Khobar Towers were bombed , killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he
incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11
and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA
chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition
programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt
to do the same to Syria.
Barack Obama wanted Brennan to be his CIA Director but his record with the
Agency torture and rendition programs made approval by the Senate problematical.
Instead, he became the president's homeland security advisor and deputy national
security advisor for counterterrorism, where he did even more damage, expanding
the parameters of the death by drone operations and sitting down with the POTUS
for the
Tuesday morning counterterrorism sessions spent refining the kill list of
American citizens.
After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections
and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the
Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged
in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in.
Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying
had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama
characterizes him as " always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest."
So the real John Brennan emerges as an unlikely standard bearer for the First
Amendment. He has an awful lot of baggage and is far from the innocent victim
of a madman Trump that is being portrayed in much of the media. Indeed,
he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners
and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in
the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hanged for such behavior.
One has to hope that Brennan's day of judgment will eventually come and he will
have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity.
The question seems stark to me as to how in the hell did brennan ever
get accepted by the cia in the first place. Was he vetted all? With his
psychological makeup, his past political affiliations (or inclinations),
he seems from the outside as a candidate mostly likely to be rejected out
of hand beyond the first step.
And then we have his rise through the ranks to Director-one could ask
WTF? Who were his handlers?
Perhaps Mr. Brennan is guilty of using the psychological tactic of "projection"
against President Trump? All the things he accuses President Trump of ("treason"
perhaps), he is actually guilty of himself.
How an admitted supporter of CPUSA and Gus Hall voter even got past the
SBI investigation is enough to mystify one. He must have had strong supporters
and the top of the house in his young days.
"He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in
that intelligence failure."
Shame on you Philip. Years of research has convinced me that it was not
a failure at all but rather one of their greatest hits. I usually like your
commentary but salting your rhetoric with lies to promote the false CIA
narrative is not acceptable.
AMF
The PBS NewsHour segment with CIA Director John Brennan, included
this quote from him:
" We see what he has done in places like Crimea and Ukraine
and in Syria. he tends to flex muscles, not just on himself, but
also in terms of Russia's military capabilities. He plays by his
own rules in terms of what it is that he does in some of these theaters
of conflict.
So I don't think we underestimated him. He has sought to advance
Russia's interests in areas where there have been political vacuums
and conflicts. But he doesn't ascribe to the same types of rules
that we do, for example, in law of armed conflict. What the Russians
have done in Syria in terms of some of the scorched-earth policy
that they have pursued that have led to devastation and thousands
upon thousands of innocent deaths, that's not something that the
United States would ever do in any of these military conflicts."
Own rules as in what Turkey has done in northern Cyprus and the Clinton
led NATO in Kosovo? It was a shameful example of journalism on the part
of PBS to let Brennan's comments go unchallenged. PBS had earlier run
a pro-CrowdStrike feature. It's not as if there aren't any expert cyber
security/ intelligence sources offering a different perspective.
As for the devastation of thousands of civilians during war (raised
by Brennan), consider some past US actions like what happened in Japan
during WW II, the Cold War activity in Southeast Asia, as well as post-Cold
War actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The collateral damage emphasis
has been hypocritically applied. Along with the subjectively dubious
comments of Hayden and Nance, the above excerpted comments from Brennan
are indicative of a (past and present) politicized element within US
Intel.
Not very outstanding personality, He had his moment on the sun when Libyan
and Syrian war crimes by Hillary and Obama were prepared. He is now in the
shade and his brain is feed for mold and mildew.
Brennan should be in prison for the lies and accusations he has made.
He is as corrupt as they come. Brennan is at the center of an Obama/Clinton
directed scam to discredit Trump. Trump, love him or hate him, was elected
by the American people. Brennan and his ilk may not like it but that does
not mean they have the right to bend the country to their collective wills.
Time to throw the book at these malcontents.
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political
corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced
demagogue in the dustbin of history."
Methinks Brennan was looking in the mirror when he first mouthed that
truth, which is actually about the former CIA Director. Why these
intelligence people maintain that Top Secret(TS) clearance after they retire,
resign or get tossed during a change in the WH is beyond me. It's great
for them, as they can burnish that TS as credentials when getting hired
by CNN or FOX to blather on about something, usually enhancing some lie
or propaganda those pseudo-news outlets are promoting.
But the bigger problem is that some or maybe many are Israel-Firsters,
who have loyalty to that Apartheid nightmare and most likely pass on info
to their Israeli buddies that they should not have gotten.
That is called treason and is one more reason why their TS clearance
should be revoked when they leave government work.
A powerful, pointed essay to be shared widely. That Mr. Brennan's shameful
acts listed here go back to the last Bush presidency can also help to enlighten
those still gulled by the Red/Blue puppet show.
The notion that anyone high up in the CIA might ever be convicted of
war crimes under the rule of Imperial Washington, though, is sadly laughable.
Notice that Senator Burr still refers to Mr. Brennan as "Director Brennan."
The way these people think of themselves is not only annoying, but maintains
a system in which they're above the law.
One suggested edit: " Japanese and German officers were [hanged] for
such behavior."
Obama favored the Muslim Brotherhood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood. The Nobel Prize of
" peace " winner bombed a few arab countries from Libia to Afganistan ,
and organized " color revolutions " ( coups d` Etat ) in many other arab
and non arab countries . Obama provoked millions of arabs refugees escaping
from wars and invading Europe . Obama provoked the coup d`Etat and war in
Ukraina
Great article Philip, as usual. I am your biggest fan ..roasting here
in the south of Turkey watching the unfolding debacle on par with the suns
relentlessness.
" He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in
that intelligence failure. "
Is meant here that for some reason that I still do not understand the
plotters failed to make use of the hijacked planes to fly into the towers,
the Pentagon and into Camp David ? In my usual immodest opinion Sept 11
was blundering along, so that two other planes than the 'hijacked' ones
flew into the towers, the first had some bulge under the plane, the second
had no windows, what flew into the Pentagon was something small, and the
Pennsylvania plane 'atomised' in mid air, according to the coroner.
But, with a complete failure, I must admit that the improvisation was
not bad, and had success, with help of the USA's media. BTW, on a German
site is explained what profit the Jewish owners of the Towers made, $ five
billion, seen in Germany by the insurer, Allianz, as insurance fraud. In
order to be able to pay Allianz fired 3000 employees. Alas, the article
has disappeared, too shocking, maybe.
You are assuming a level of competence on the CIA. No one there predicted
the collapse of the Soviet Union, they said Iraq had WMDs, and now made
up this nonsense about Trump. They are the same folks who brought us the
Bay of Pigs more than half a century ago. Too bad Kennedy didn't get to
break them up into a million pieces and scatter them in the wind like he
wanted to do.
Why does the CIA hire unhinged people like Brennan and Philip Mudd?
Unhinged and dumb. IMHO, they're easier to manipulate by the Puppet
Masters. You can't have Groton & Yale-educated types like in Allen Dulles'
day because they might go off the Puppet Master playbook and start calling
audibles out in the field.
Saying as Giraldi did that 911 was a failure of intelligence is a coverup
for the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and
Giraldi and every thinking America knows that Israel and the deep state
did it and got away with it.
Brennan and the majority of the deep state are under Zionist control
and the fact that they let Israel and the Zionists get away with 911 means
that Brennan and every one of the 17 intel agencies that had knowledge of
911 is a traitor to America and the fact that Israel got away with killing
3000 Americans proves that Zionists and Israel have total control of every
facet of the U.S. government.
May God help America as we are a captive nation of zionists.
Already posted under the current Buchanan column, but more likely to
learn something here:
OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column
on this topic state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what
is had enabled Mr. Brennan, once he left government employ, to access? Is
it like a password or something? What is the practical effect of its revocation?
"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances [Buchanan],"
this sounds like the Battle of Molehill Mountain.
Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.
Brennan is such a small part of a massively corrupt behind the scene
picture. There are probably 2000 or 3000 more who need the same treatment
immediately.
Trumping security clearance at termination from any job that requires
them; in government, military or in the private sector, should be automatic,
without exception. Trump all non active or non essential clearances would
reduce the power of and the number of corporate lobbyist, private mercenaries,
global gun slingers and creators of the privately owned 24/7 promoted, highly
spied on fake news stories and many corrupt crossboard activities..
I hope the issue of whether or not the POTUS has the authority to
Trump all security clearance goes to court, because if its outcome is positive
for Trump, maybe Trump will Trump Bush's and Clinton clearances. That would
make the job of the AG quite a bit easier.
This idea of trumping security clearances has some real promise as a
way to restore some modicum of democracy in the USA. But Trumping Security
Clearance should be rule based. Trump needs to issue a presidential order..
worded something like this. All security clearances in the USA are issued
on a as needed basis, and shall terminate as soon as the need is resolved,
or the person holding the clearance is terminated from the job for which
the clearance was issued.
Brennan is an idiot. Just listen to him and watch him. And having
missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, why does the press suddenly
hold the intelligence community in such high regard? The truth is the MSM
will do anything to nail Trump not that I particularly like him although
compared to HC .
On the contrary, Brennan is just the kind of person who rises up
the ranks in government. And look at Gina, his successor, should she even
be where she is ?
Oh sure, we can pick on Brennan, he's a funny-looking asskisser,
thick as mince, but making it all his fault obscures the blindingly obvious
fact that Hillary was the institutional choice of CIA. The other CIA talking
heads are distancing themselves from Brennan simply because he bends over
backwards to please his Project Mockingbird producers. He's hamming it up
and embarrassing them, that's all.
You don't get near the White House without doing lots of favors for CIA.
Trump laundered money for the CIA agents who looted Russia. Hillary was
of course senior Nomenklatura and next in line. Cord Meyer recruited her
husband at Oxford, and she helped frame Nixon with CIA's Watergate burlesque
(read Russ Baker.) She's the Queen of Mena.
CIA installed four presidents: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Hillary
was supposed to be next but she couldn't even beat her handpicked loser
asshole in a rigged election. So CIA is going berserk. Trump's war is with
CIA, not Brennan.
I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC
is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than
life in prison at our expense. .
Maybe we should start constructing skyscrapers out of the bodies of birds,
like the ones that crashed this Swedish jet?
'Russia hacked the birds': Social media mocks Swedish paranoia after birds
take down fighter jet
He'd have a lot of company there: pretty much every American federal
official in the last few decades, as well as most Russian officials who
were in power from ~1989 to ~2000. That circle must be really crowded, like
Washington, DC.
In a contemporary newspaper account of the creation of the OSS (forerunner
of CIA) the OSS was described as "five Jews working in a converted vault
in Washington DC". Described in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". The CIA
has always been Israel's club. Even before it was called CIA.
Brennan voted for the communist party as a youth. Perhaps youthful
flightiness could be taken in stride but a tendency to flip-flop from one
form of utopianism to another is often a lifetime trait of unstable people,
much like some switch religions constantly. Why promote someone like
this to such a high position? This Russian Manchurian Candidate business
is bizarre and casts doubt about his mental health. In addition there were
rumors about him having converted to Islam while posted in Saudi Arabia.
Just some of the usual rumor-mongering that goes on, I thought. Then I looked
at him in testimony on YouTube. I was struck by his weirdly rhapsodic way
of describing Islam that seemed to go beyond merely playing up to them.
In addition he calls Jerusalem by the Arabic name of Al-Quds, something
no one here does and seems strange for a CIA head to do that. People like
this are the cream of the crop, guardians of our security and well-being?
Brennen is one of the Most untrustworth political gangsters among the
totally corrupted Amerian political class. That the fawning Media does Not
dismiss this crook as an so-called expert speaks for itself. President Trump
should revoke all Security clearances from the Obama crooks.
John Brennan is a traitor to America. At this point, this is basically
undeniable to any rational observer who has assessed the verifiable details
of his career. It is mind-boggling that he was ever accepted to any position
within our government and the CIA. The level of incompetence within the
US government and intelligence agencies is terrifying. The only good thing
about this idiot's irrational blabbering in the media is that it has the
potential to cause even many liberals to finally grasp how stupid, petty,
and dangerous the actions of the socialist-leaning left in our government,
intelligence agencies, and media are. There really is a swamp to drain.
There really is a lot of fake news. There really are people within our government,
intelligence agencies, and media who, whether through malicious intent or
just stupidity, are "enemies of the people."
In a more just world, John Brennan would be hanged and all of America
would cheer.
Is meant here that for some reason that I still do not understand
the plotters failed to make use of the hijacked planes to fly into the
towers, the Pentagon and into Camp David?
There were no 'hijacked planes'. The hijack ruse was a sleight of hand
distraction. It's like the old movie plane crash trick: Set up your camera
to frame a hill in extreme long shot. A plane dives into the frame from
the right and disappears behind the hill. The moment it goes behind the
hill, special effects set off a large pyro charge and there's a huge fireball.
Oh no, the plane crashed behind the hill!
Scheduled flights must have taken off with the requisite squawk codes,
but where they went & who was on them if any, is anyone's guess. What's
clear (in the same way it's clear Oswald wasn't sniping on Nov 22 '63) is
the scheduled jets didn't fly into towers/buildings. UAV aircraft did.
After a major air disaster with large loss of life, the standard
TV reporting template is to send a news crew to the arrival airport to get
coverage of the distraught relatives. On 9/11 there were 4 simultaneous
air disasters with approx 500 dead. How many extended TV reports at the
4 arrival airports, with hundreds of 'grieving relatives/friends' did you
see? I saw zero.
A security clearance is granted on a strict need-to-know basis.
I fail to see how these former ranking intelligence officials like John
Brennan maintain the need-to-know after they have left public service.
When the Central Intelligence Agency was established by President Truman
on September 18, 1947, one justification was that the United States had
been caught off-guard by the surprise Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor,
and therefore it was necessary to coordinate all intelligence activities
under a single head, or director, who would have direct access to the president,
and there would be no more such surprises.
Of course, all that about Pearl Harbor is a cock 'n' bull story from
top to bottom, just like 9/11 is. FDR knew exactly what was going on. In
fact, no one had worked harder to bring it about than the President himself.
Just as Stalin had been successful in tricking Hitler into attacking the
Soviet Union, so too was Roosevelt successful in goading the Japanese to
attack Pearl Harbor. It was the plan all along: Let the enemy strike the
first blow, then seize the moral high ground, from which lofty summit the
enemy can be vilified and demonized with propaganda including the most astonishingly
poisonous accusations, like an industrialized program in Nazi Germany to
exterminate the Jews.
But Truman wasn't done yet. In 1952, he established the National Security
Agency, ostensibly because the CIA was doing a poor job with communications
intelligence.
Now, in the wake of 9/11–where the initial story was that we were "blindsided"–
we've got 17 different intelligence agencies, with a new position created
to coordinate them all. Whatever it is all these guys are doing, about the
only thing we can be sure of is that they will have few problems getting
the budget to do it, and instead of intelligence, we get propaganda and
chaos.
Brennan sounds like a hog that doesn't wash itself of his own sins
while he is carrying out his paymasters' wish. He thinks that he is indispensable
to the powers that be he may want to remember the late Alphonse D'Amato
of New York, who was chucked aside once he had used up his senatorial cudgel
to extract gelt out of the Swiss banks. Trump isn't going to be either
impeached or gotten rid off, simply because he works for the same crowd
and the only difference between him and lowly spook is that the former is
part of the ruling class, while the latter is just a peon used to distract
the dumbed down public!
It is absolutely terrifying to recognize that very many in those
"elites" never became real adults in their lives and psychologically (mentally?)
are still at the high school maturity level. All political tops are messy,
soaked in palace intrigues and clash of egos larger than cathedrals, but
this particular case is something else entirely and it has a lot to do with
overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American party
and government so called "elites".
I didn't quite get that about Baer as well. The only basis perhaps is
that Baer might be less of a propagandist when compared to Mudd and Brennan.
The talking head types typically heard in US mass media are overly
suspect and coddled. From the FBI, there's Frank Figluizzi and Josh Campbell.
A rare exception to that spin is Tucker Carlson hosting former NSA official
William Binney.
I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan?
DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather
than life in prison at our expense.
I don't believe he's being singled out. Much attention is focused on
him, on account of the absurd things he spews in high profile settings.
He deserves to get severely rebuked, long with a good number in mass media
and body politic who handle him with kid gloves.
The NSA, military intelligence outfits and other groups can provide information
gathering services to the United States government and the President of
the United States.
John Brennan... is completely and totally representative of the kind
of CIA government worker human filth that steals money from the US government
while damaging the best interests of the United States.
If General George Washington and General Andrew Jackson were alive, John
Brennan would be forcefully exiled from the United States for his actions
against the United States of America.
So if Trump is a CIA asset, why are they doing everything in their power
to get rid of him, short of killing him (so far..)? The fact of the
matter is that both Hillary and Jeb Bush were the Deep State candidates,
either was supposed to win, didn't matter which as both would be puppets
anyway.
Neither Bernie Sanders nor Trump were supposed to win, the Democrats
did their part in getting rid of Sanders, the Republicans tried, and failed,
to get rid of Trump (again, so far..)
Trump is imperfect but he must be doing something right because the
entire establishment is out to get him. I've never seen anything like it
in my life.
Hardly anything memorable has been written about the botched CIA operation
in Laos during the Vietnam War. Under the guise Air America , the CIA spent
millions if not billions of dollars in a futile attempt to stop the Pathet
Lao. Lots of innocent lives lost but no one held accountable at the highest
levels of our government. But then again that seems to be the same story
involving inept leadership and corruption in all the conflicts the US has
been engaged in since WWII.
What Giraldi calls a "failure of intelligence" is probably about
as far as most ex-CIA officer would go on 9/11, at least in public. Whether
or not some part the intelligence community was actually complicit in the
execution of 9/11 is another matter, though discussing it here only distracts
from the main thrust of the article.
I think we used to all think that the spooks were at least guided
by some moral principles, in their goals, if not in their operations, but
bozos like Brennan, Morell, Tenet, Heyden, etc, clearly show that this is
not the case.
Obviously, it's only about power and being in the game; whichever way
the wind blows they have to be in on it in order to apply pressure on whoever
turns up on top. At no level do they even care whether the general direction
is moral or criminal. They simply play all sides of the table for best agency,
deep state, or personal interest – no other consideration comes even in
play. The image they portray on television is as realistic as the depiction
of Ozzie and Harriet was to a real marriage.
Trump revoking Brennan's security clearance doesn't move me. His freedom
of speech is not stifled; it gives him a larger platform.
Brennan is not the first to use hyperbole to monetize a scandal.
Not the first to take advantage of his proximity to the President. And I
agree with Sen Burr's statement. But that's not the point. I'm concerned
by what he did as CIA director as the Trump/Russia relationship developed.
It's abundantly clear to me that Director Brennan acted appropriately
and the Mueller investigation is legitimate and necessary.
Abundantly clear, eh, PintOrTwo? Perhaps it was so clear to you after
having a pint or two?
I expect he would "(use) that information to request an FBI investigation
into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers
(to) Trump". To do otherwise would be egregious.
I totally agree with you about Brennan requesting an FBI investigation.
But rather than looking into non-existent Russian operations, if he were
truly doing his job he should be calling for an investigation into Zion-gate
– i.e., the massive interference into US politics wielded by the Zionists
through their network of organizations, aka The Lobby . Why concentrate
on the ant when the elephant is standing right in front of you? You wouldn't
be engaging in deflection, would you, PintOrTwoOrThree?
When the state keeps a secret it subordinates the human right to know.
There are very few things that reach that standard. When the state enables
an abuse of a secret, it endangers everyone's freedoms and liberties.
There can be no greater abuse of free speech than state secrets, and
therefore no greater duty of the state to both prove the need to keep the
knowledge secret and to prevent anyone from wrongfully using or abusing
the knowledge kept secret.
When someone on the inside, committed to preserving the secret in trust
realizes that the trust has been abused and that the trust is regularly
abused, and decides as a matter of conscious to endure the consequences,
by stepping forward to disclose failures of the state with regard to the
knowledge kept secret, that brave person becomes known as a whistle blower.
In effect that whistle blower is speaking for all of us, he or she becomes
the protector of human rights because only he or she knows, outside of the
state, that the state is infringing a human right.
Human rights always trump state rights. Unless the whistle blower exposed
the wrong doings or abuse, the state is left to continue its wrongdoing.
Exposed, the state must explain its behavior, suffer the consequences, and
protect the whistle blowers. Its unfortunate that the whistle blower is
treated much like the woman abused, in court, the victim is made to look
to be the criminal.
overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American
"elites".
I'm not sure whether, on balance, that bodes well or ill. For Americans,
probably ill, but from the RoW's perspective it may simply mean that the
Empire dies that much more quickly. Barring somebody doing something really
stupid. EG: "Assessing" in their ignorance that they can win a nuclear exchange
when they inevitably find themselves at their wit's end, of course.
That you don't care is evidenced by your trust in The Guardian and AP
as reliable sources for news and information, I mean, fool me once and all
that but dozens of times should be more than enough for anyone who does
care.
In the long run it may even be a bitter but life-saving medicine. BTW,
OT–can you, please, get me to your excellent economic post about GDP "growing"
while in reality shrinking. I hope you recall which one, I lost the link
to it, sadly.
Anon (76) below is the interpretive guidance for US human rights law
relating to the right to seek and obtain information – Article 18 – supreme
law of the land.
"... In this version of 21st century slavery, all these disadvantages have been eliminated! Slaves stay in their homecountry: there is no need to bring them from there, no need to live amongst them and to feed them! Slaves are forced to work hard in the hope of paying off their debt, so they are motivated and hardworking. And most importantly, no civil war in the USA! ..."
This year, the Ukraine Prime Minister Groisman said that the external debt is 83% of the GDP. And by the end of the year, having
been pressurized by the IMF, it will reach 90%. In order to service its external debts, the Ukraine spends $4.8 billion a year.
This is real slavery - only a new, improved version of it. From the 17th to the 19 centuries, slavery in [the North American
British colonies and then - ME] the United States had a number of serious deficiencies: slaves had to be brought all the way from
Africa; slaves were not extremely industrious; Americans themselves had to live amongst the slaves; and, most unpleasantly, all
this led to civil war in the United States.
In this version of 21st century slavery, all these disadvantages have been eliminated! Slaves stay in their homecountry: there
is no need to bring them from there, no need to live amongst them and to feed them! Slaves are forced to work hard in the hope
of paying off their debt, so they are motivated and hardworking. And most importantly, no civil war in the USA!
"... The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals. ..."
"... The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries to enchant the other side by mere promises. ..."
"... And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises. ..."
The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain
the Iranian position:
This is the U.S. formula for negotiation:
Because U.S. officials depend on power and money, they consider
negotiations as a business deal.
The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does
not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals.
They demand the other side to give them immediate benefits and if
the other party refrains from giving in, the U.S. officials will create
an uproar so that their partner would give up.
The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for
what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries
to enchant the other side by mere promises.
And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received
the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises.
This is the U.S.'s method of negotiation. Now, should one
negotiate with such a duplicitous government?
"... Turkey fell into the same deep state bankers financial trap, that Spain Greece Italy fell for. Bail out a vunrable country then pull the rug out ! You own them ! So I would slightly disagree with it being entirely of there own making. I blame the Rothchild family. ..."
At the beginning of the year one U.S. dollar cost 3.5 lira. At the beginning of August it
cost 4.80 lira. It then went up to 7.00 lira/$ and at Friday's closing it was down again at
6.00 TL/$. But Monday morning lira will again
lose more of its value:
Turkey's credit rating was cut further into junk Friday by S&P Global Ratings and Moody's
Investors Service, which said the volatile lira and wide current-account deficit may
undermine the Middle East's largest economy.
S&P reduced Turkey's foreign-currency rating to four notches below investment grade at
B+ from BB-, on par with Argentina, Greece and Fiji. Moody's lowered its grade to Ba3 from
Ba2, three notches below investment grade. The ratings companies said the weak currency,
runaway inflation and current-account deficit are Turkey's key vulnerabilities .
Turkey's crisis is
homemade . The current spat with the United States only exaggerates it. For years Turkey
borrowed large amounts of money from abroad and invested it into local infrastructure instead
of producing exportable products. Its current account deficit this year will again be some $50
to $60 billion. International banks and other foreign lenders now demand interests rates above
20% from Turkish lenders because the chance of losing the lent money is high.
After the 17% crash on August 13 down to 7 TL/$ the Turkish Central Bank used some one-time
measures to support the currency without raising its interest rate. The Turkish president
Erdogan is ideologically adverse to interests and keeps the bank from doing what it must do to
cool the Turkish economy and to stabilize the currency.
Erdogan asked Russia for help but received nothing but good advice. He also called in
favors. When in June 2017 Saudi Arabia's clown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) tried to take
over Qatar and to steal its juicy $350 billion sovereign wealth fund, the emir of Qatar called
on Turkey for help. Erdogan sent the Turkish army and air force. His troops protected Qatar
from a Saudi invasion.
With the lira in trouble the emir flew to Ankara and promised a new $15 billion investment
into Turkey. Additionally some mysterious cargo was unloaded from his plane. That
saved the lira for a few days. But Turkey's structural problems are unsolved. Erdogan is no
longer trusted and his son in law, who he made finance minister, lacks the necessary
qualification for the job.
Thus :
"We forecast a recession next year," S&P said. "Inflation will peak at 22 percent over
the next four months, before subsiding to below 20 percent by mid-2019."
The Qatari move came a few days before its arch enemy Saudi Arabia also moved into the area.
On Friday the U.S. announced that Saudi Arabia would support the U.S. occupied north-east Syria
with 100 million
dollar . The Wahhabi Saudis are now financing the secular Kurdish terror organization
PKK/YPG, the local U.S. proxy in north-east Syria.
If the Saudi clown prince MbS wants to take revenge on Turkey's Erdogan for messing up his
plans for Qatar, he now has his chance.
Posted by b on August 18, 2018 at 03:56 PM |
Permalink
One refinement to add to 'b's outstanding post (how the hell does he do it, miraculous !) as
far as I can see Turkey fell into the same deep state bankers financial trap, that Spain
Greece Italy fell for. Bail out a vunrable country then pull the rug out ! You own them ! So
I would slightly disagree with it being entirely of there own making. I blame the Rothchild
family.
Moody's and S&P ratings agencies are fraudulent institutions. For having AAA rated
billions worth of junk mortgages, they should have been indicted and prosecuted.
Excellent analysis again, b. You surpass yourself. There is something you talk about that has
always intrigued me
"For years Turkey borrowed large amounts of money from abroad and invested it into local
infrastructure instead of producing exportable products."
There is a parallel here with Spain. From entry into the Euro in 1999 the floodgates of
credit opened. Bankers, politicians and builders were involved in creating vast swathes of
speculative urbanization; two airports were built which now stand empty, a formula 1 track
hosted five races before closing, a phantom theme park; huge, almost empty accommodation
complexes, and the list goes on. The ghost airport in Ciudad Real, which cost £1.2
million euros, was sold off to Chinese buyers for a mere 10,000 euros. The "Cajas", the
regional banks, were all bailed out by the government.
Apart from local corruption, which is nothing new, I think there must have been a
deliberate strategy on the part of EU elites not to finance industrial projects that would
generate export currency, and hence compete with EU industrial powers such as Germany (I once
read Spanish academic paper arguing this but have not managed to track it down). When the
same happens in Turkey, obviously not an EU country, you have to wonder whether is it part of
a transatlantic banker strategy: corrupt national elites finance corrupt local elites to
build ghost infrastructures as cheap and shoddy as you can get, the banks that financed it
get bailed out if it all crashes. What's not to like?
Turks can't avoid Greek-style crisis now. The solution calls for a violent swing in trade
balance from huge deficit to sizable surplus, somewhere in a range of $100B. That can't
happen unless people of Turkey are warehoused in slave-labor-condition factories that can be
competitive enough to displace Asian players. That entails bone-crushing fall in living
standards.
All in all, 20 percent decline in GDP is now all but certainty. The longer Erdogan tries to
avoid the harsh medicine, the deeper this cancer goes. He should either bow to IMF, or to
exit NATO, join BRICS and ask for loans from that grouping.
Of course, Turkish military can say bye-bye to its present size. It's unsustainable.
Financial crunch will reduce Turkish armed forces to less than half of their present
size.
And if Erdogan wants to keep his soldiers well-equipped for half the price - which he should
- he'll have to switch to much more reasonably priced Russian weaponry. Once he does that,
even Russia may contribute $10B to his bailout kitty.
Otherwise, Erdogan is a dead man. The economic hurricane barreling his way is only gathering
strength with every passing day. And all he is doing is unfurling umbrellas and increasing
the volume of music.
That list of infrastructure @ Lochern mentions looks geared toward the holiday industry which
in the past has been a major income for Turkey ! Worth at the time perhaps investing in. Very
popular with Eurapians but very popular with Russians. My wild guess would be---- some dodgey
ploy by the west to drive a wedge between Russia and Turky, devideding and ruling both! By
meens of conflict and bank debt .The gains would be numerous long term and short term. But as
already mentioned may back fire and bring Russia and Turkey closer. I hope so.
Much of Turkeys external debt is private and not government . Their BIS controlled central
bank kept interest rates high. This forced Turkish banks to take out loans in USD or Euro
which had lower interest rates to meet loan demands in the private corporate sector , which
they made at higher interest rates after exchanging for Lira. More profitable. The assumption
was there would be a relatively stable exchange rate. So there was risk.
That risk made them vulnerable fx attack by the globalist banking cartel. When Erdogan
took over more control from the TCB last month to reduce interest rates and reduce demand for
foreign loans this was seen as an act of war. The independence of the central bank must be
defended. Trumps additional tarrif increases, mild as they were were simply a symbolic
barking of orders to take Turkey down
Looking at the broader picture. Since the 2008 financial blowout there has been "carry
trade" fueled by zero-cost liquidity pumped into the global system by quantitative easing,
which was then shipped to high-interest emerging markets such as Brazil, Turkey and other
countries.
With the beginning of the Fed's "tapering" of QE and rising interest rates since 2015, the
whole financial system has triggered a "reverse carry trade" where dollars flow out of
emerging markets back to safer havens. This is what you are seeing in Turkey, Argentina,
Russia, Brazil, etc.
The last 10 years are a replay of the decade running up to the 1997/1998 crisis. While the
1985 'Plaza Accord' dollar devaluation was not exactly QE, it had the same intent and results
– a flood of cheap money and dollar debt, and therefore growing global dependence on
the dollar and vulnerability to US monetary and economic policy
Some say countries like Turkey should know better, but countries have little control over
their monetary policy under the global and independent central banking system forced on them.
Go against this system and you will be hit with sanctions , subject to regime change or will
be invaded
So call it a homegrown crisis if thats the reality you choose to live in. Who am I to say
otherwise?
These rating agencies are the same ones that rated junk mortgage bonds AA. They are for sale
to highest bidder or since they haven't been prosecuted for their criminal behavior,
vulnerable to threats from the same political machine that turned a blind eye in 2008.
Turkey may have homegrown economic problems as you have pointed out but they certainly have
even more problems with a vindictive and extremely corrupt Uncle Sam who ruthlessly punish
any and all independent actions.
Another excellent blog B. I agree with many of the above commenters that the breadth and
depth of the analysis on MOA is truly amazing.
Pft@13. Good analysis as well.
However, I would expect that Turkey will not be another Greece. Rather I expect Turkey to
get help from its friends to stabilize its economic position, resist U.S. sanctions and avoid
an IMF bail-out.
With the support of Qatar, and I would expect China as well, I would expect Turkey to
protect its banks. However, it is also possible that they will let some private Turkish
companies, with dollar denominated debts, default. Such defaults, combined with the pressure
that declining dollar liquidity is already putting on other emerging markets and Italy, would
be destabilizing for the Western financial system. Sooner or later, and I suspect sooner, the
FED will be required to start printing money again, which will reverse the dollar's recent
strength and relieve the pressure on Turkey.
At the end of the day, however, I expect that this episode will be another step in the
direction of de-dollarization and will further reduce the ability of the U.S. to use economic
sanctions to bully its adversaries.
A strange paradox of life !
Owe your bank 1000 the bank manager will make you bankrupt, owe the bank a million and he'll
invite you home for dinner ! More to lose !
By this token I'd like to think, the more country's that refuse there debt, the less power
the west will have ! The less credibility and the less fear and influence they can inflict
.
If the west wants to weaponise banking so be it ! Bring it on. Let's pull the rug out from
under the banks/Rothchilds.
Feet ! Natural justice !
Pft @ 13 said:"Some say countries like Turkey should know better, but countries have little
control over their monetary policy under the global and independent central banking system
forced on them. Go against this system and you will be hit with sanctions , subject to regime
change or will be invaded."
CDWaller @ 15 said:"These rating agencies are the same ones that rated junk mortgage bonds
AA. They are for sale to highest bidder or since they haven't been prosecuted for their
criminal behavior, vulnerable to threats from the same political machine that turned a blind
eye in 2008."
There has been a dramatic shift in how the United States government carries out its business
internationally. Admittedly, Washington has had a tendency to employ force to get what it has
wanted ever since 9/11, but it also sometimes recognized that other countries had legitimate
interests and accepted there was a place for diplomacy to resolve issues short of armed
conflict. The Bush Administration reluctance to broaden its engagement in the Middle East after
it recognized that it had blundered with Iraq followed by Obama's relaxation of tensions with
Cuba and his negotiation of a nuclear agreement with Iran demonstrated that sanity sometimes
prevailed in the West Wing.
That willingness to be occasionally accommodating has changed dramatically, with the State
Department under Mike Pompeo currently more prone to deliver threats than any suggestions that
we all might try to get along. It would be reasonable enough to criticize such behavior because
it is intrinsically wrong, but the truly frightening aspect of it would appear to be that it is
based on the essentially neoconservative assumption that other countries will always back down
when confronted with force majeure and that the use of violence as a tool in international
relations is, ultimately, consequence free.
I am particularly disturbed with the consequence free part as it in turn is rooted in the
belief that countries that have been threatened or even invaded have no collective memory of
what occurred and will not respond vengefully when the situation changes. There have been a
number of stunningly mindless acts of aggression over the past several weeks that are
particularly troubling as they suggest that they will produce many more problems down the road
than solutions.
The most recent is the
new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury England. For those not
following developments, last week Washington abruptly and
without any new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in
the belief that Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter
Yulia on March 4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia
Skripal has
recently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the
conclusion that even one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted
by the British and American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges
between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise,
suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign
policy.
Turkey is also feeling America's wrath over the continued detention of an American
Protestant Pastor Andrew Brunson by Ankara over charges that he was connected to the coup
plotters of 2016, which were allegedly directed by Fetullah Gulen, a Muslim religious leader,
who now resides in Pennsylvania. Donald Trump has made the detention the
centerpiece of his Turkish policy, introducing sanctions and tariffs that have led in part
to a collapse of the Turkish lira and a run on the banking system which could easily lead to
default and grave damage to European banks that hold a large party of the country's debt.
And then there is perennial favorite Iran, which was hit with reinstated
sanctions last week and is confronting a ban on oil sales scheduled to go into effect on
November 4th. The US has said it will sanction any country that buys Iranian oil after that
date, though a number of governments including Turkey, India and China appear to be prepared to
defy that demand. Several European countries are reportedly preparing mechanisms that will
allow them to trade around US restrictions.
What do Russia, Turkey and Iran have in common? All are on the receiving end of punitive
action by the United States over allegations of misbehavior that have not been demonstrated.
Nobody has shown that Russia poisoned the Skripals, Turkey just might have a case that the
Reverend Brunson was in contact with coup plotters, and Iran is in full compliance with the
nuclear arms agreement signed in 2015. One has to conclude that the United States has now
become the ultimate angry imperial power, lashing out with the only thing that seems to work
– its ability to interfere in and control financial markets – to punish nations
that do not play by its rules.
Given Washington's diminishing clout worldwide, it is a situation that is unsustainable and
which will ultimately only really punish the American people as the United States becomes more
isolated and its imperial overreach bankrupts the nation. As America weakens, Russia, Turkey,
Iran and all the other countries that have been steamrolled by Washington will likely seek
revenge. To avoid that, a dramatic course correction by the US is needed, but, unfortunately,
is unlikely to take place.
According to leading analysts, America decided to take such a tough step because of
Washington's desire to restrain the development of our state as much as possible. However, it
is already clear that such actions on the part of American colleagues will only worsen
relations between the two superpowers. The new sanctions package altogether nullifies all
previous agreements.
"All the positive aspects that have emerged after the meeting of the two presidents in
Helsinki, of course, will be almost completely leveled," the media quoted the statement of the
head of the center for military and political studies Vladimir Batyuk.
According to him, the actions of the us administration threaten with negative consequences,
extremely complicating the further dialogue between Washington and Moscow.
First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on international Affairs Vladimir
dzhabarov, commenting on the situation, said - the United States is trying to "trim the wings"
of Russia.
"The reason is banal – they are trying to restrain the development of Russia. The
Americans themselves understand that our country is now deploying its wings, Russia is on the
rise, it can become a powerful competitor both economically and militarily. Therefore at any
cost try to constrain us", – the member of the Federation Council spoke.
According to dzhabarov, our country has long understood that Russia has no partners in
America. The US is engaged in dirty methods of competition, using a variety of levers to
squeeze Moscow from the EU energy markets.
"But it's useless. The history they, probably, not teaching. Let them read what the
sanctions against Russia led to, " the Senator added.
We will remind, on August 8, the U.S. state Department announced the introduction of new
restrictive measures against Russia. This package of anti-Russian sanctions includes a ban on
the supply of dual-use products to Russia, a decrease in the level of diplomatic relations, an
almost complete cessation of us exports, as well as a ban on flights to the States of the
Russian company Aeroflot.
"... (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it) ..."
"... still refuses to say any such thing ..."
"... Look at this paragraph: ..."
"... "Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities." ..."
"... It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as made in Russia, the FCO ..."
"... would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in Russia. ..."
"... In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and to the world. ..."
"... Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act Sanctions on Russia ..."
"... Press Statement ..."
"... Department Spokesperson ..."
"... Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. ..."
"... Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018. ..."
All of the sanctions (economic, diplomatic, and otherwise) against Russia are based on
clearly demonstrable intentional falsehoods; and the sanctions which were announced on August
8th are just the latest example of this consistent tragic fact -- a fact which will be proven
here, with links to the evidence, so that anyone who reads here can easily see that all of
these sanctions are founded on lies against Russia.
The latest of these sanctions were announced on Wednesday August 8 th . Reuters
headlined
"US imposes sanctions on Russia for nerve agent attack in UK" and reported that,
"Washington said on Wednesday it would impose fresh sanctions on Russia by the end of August
after it determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his
daughter in Britain." This was supposedly because "Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's
GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found slumped
unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury in March after a liquid form
of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to his home's front door. European countries
and the United States expelled 100 Russian diplomats after the attack, in the strongest action
by President Donald Trump against Russia since he came to office."
However, despite intense political pressure that the UK Government and 'news'media had
placed upon the UK's Porton Down intelligence laboratory to assert that the poison had been
made in Russia (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it)
, the Porton Down lab refused to say this. Though the US Government is acting as ifPorton
Down's statement "determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent," the actual fact is that
Porton Down still refuses to say any such thing , at all -- this allegation is merely
a fabrication by the US Government, including its allies, UK's Government and other Governments
and their respective propaganda-media. It's a bald lie.
On March 18th, the great British investigative journalist and former British diplomat Craig
Murray had headlined about UK's Foreign Secretary,
"Boris Johnson Issues Completely New Story on Russian Novichoks" and he pointed to the key
paragraph in the Porton Down lab's statement on this matter -- a brief one-sentence
paragraph:
Look at this paragraph:
"Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took
responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet
Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities."
It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as
made in Russia, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office -- UK's foreign ministry]
would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in
Russia.
Murray's elliptical report, which unfortunately was unclearly written -- it was rushed, in
order to be able to published on the same day, March 18 th , when the UK's official
response to the Porton Down lab's analysis was published -- was subsequently fully explained on
March 23 rd at the excellent news-site Off-Guardian, which specializes in
investigating and interpreting the news-media (in this case, Craig Murray's article, and the
evidence regarding it); they headlined "Skripal
case: 'closely related agent" claim closely examined'," and concluded their lengthy and
detailed analysis:
In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way
possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it
has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It
shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and
to the world.
Nothing has been published further about the Skripal/Novichoks matter since then, except
speculation that's based on the evidence which was discussed in detail in that March 23
rd article at Off-Guardian.
On the basis of this -- merely an open case which has never been examined in more detail
than that March 23rd analysis did -- the Skripal/Novichok case has been treated by the UK
Government, and by the US Government, and by governments which are allied with them, and by
their news-media, as if it were instead a closed case, in which what was made public
constitutes proof that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government. On that
blatantly fraudulent basis, over a hundred diplomats ended up being expelled.
The Porton Down lab still refuses to say anything that the UK Government can quote
as an authority confirming that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government.
All that's left of the matter, then, is a cold case of official lies asserting that proof
has been presented, when in fact only official lies have been presented to the public.
This is the basis upon which the US State Department, on August 8th, issued the following
statement to 'justify' its new sanctions:
Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act
Sanctions on Russia
Press Statement
Heather Nauert
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
August 8, 2018
Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined
under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act)
that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in
violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its
own nationals.
Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect
upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22,
2018.
US law is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" -- the opposite of legal systems in
which the contrary assumption applies: "guilty until proven innocent." However, regarding such
matters as invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 upon the basis of no authentic evidence; and
invading and destroying Libya in 2011 on the basis of no authentic proof of anyone's guilt; and
on the basis of invading and for years trying to destroy Syria on the basis of America's
supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against Syria's secular government; and on the basis of lying
repeatedly against Russia in order to load sanction after sanction upon Russia and to 'justify'
pouring its missiles and thousands of troops onto and near Russia's border as if preparing to
invade 'the world's most aggressive country' -- the US federal Government routinely violates
that fundamental supposition of its own legal system ("innocent until proven guilty"), whenever
its rulers wish. And yet, it calls itself a 'democracy'.
Donald Trump constantly says that he seeks improved relations with Russia, but when his own
State Department lies like that in order to add yet further to the severe penalties that it had
previously placed against Russia for its presumed guilt in the Skripal/Novichok matter, then
Trump himself is publicly exposing himself as being a liar about his actual intentions
regarding Russia. He, via his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's State Department, not only is
punishing Russia severely for this unproven allegation, but now adds yet further penalties
against Russia for it. Trump is being demanded by the US Congress to do this, but it is his
choice whether to go along with that demand or else expose that it's based on lies. He likes to
accuse his opponents of lying, but, quite obviously, the members of Congress who are demanding
these hiked rounds of sanctions against Russia are demanding him to do what he actually wants
to do -- which is now clearly demonstrated to be the exact opposite of exposing those lies. If
Trump is moving toward World War III on the basis of lies, then the only way he can stop doing
it is by exposing those lies. He's not even trying to do that.
Nothing is being said in the State Department's cryptic announcement on August 8th that sets
forth any reasonable demand which the US Government is making to the Russian Government, such
that, if the reasonable demand becomes fulfilled by Russia's Government, then the United States
Government and its allies will cease and desist their successive, and successively escalating,
rounds of punishment against Russia.
Russia is being offered no path to peace, but only the reasonable expectation of
escalating lie-based American 'justifications' to perpetrate yet more American-and-allied
aggressions against Russia.
There have been three prior US excuses for applying prior rounds of sanctions against
Russia, and all of them have likewise been based upon lies, and varnished with many layers of
overstatements.
First, in 2012, there was the Magnitsky Act, which was based upon frauds (subsequently
exposed here
and
here and
here ) which assert that Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by the Russian Government. The
evidence (as linked-to there) is conclusive that he was not; but the US Government and its
allies refuse even to consider it.
Then, in 2014, Crimea broke away from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation, and the US
and its allies allege that this was because Russia under Putin 'seized' Crimea from Ukraine, when in fact
America under Obama had, just weeks prior to that Crimean breakaway, seized Ukraine and turned
it against Russia and against Crimea and the other parts of Ukraine which had voted
overwhelmingly for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom the Obama regime had
just overthrown in a
bloody coup that had been in the planning ever
since at least 2011 inside the Obama Administration . Several rounds of US-and-allied
economic sanctions were imposed against Russia for that -- for the constant string of lies
against Russia, and of constant cover-ups of
"the most blatant coup in history," which had preceded and caused the breakaway.
These lies originated with Obama; and Trump accuses Obama of lying, but not on this, where
Obama really did lie, psychopathically
. Instead, Trump makes those lies bipartisan. On what counts the most against Obama, Trump
seconds the Obama-lies, instead of exposing them. And yet Trump routinely has accused Obama as
having lied, even on matters where it's actually Trump who has been lying about Obama.
Then, there have been the anti-Russia sanctions that are based upon Russiagate and 'Trump is
Putin's stooge and stole the election.' That case against Russia has not been proven, and
Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange says that what he had published were leaks from the DNC and
Podesta's computer, not hacks at all; and yet the sanctions were imposed almost as soon as the
Democratic Party's accusations started. Those sanctions, too, are utterly baseless except as
being alleged responses to unproven (and likely false) allegations . Furthermore, even in
the worst-case scenario: the US Government itself routinely overthrows foreign governments, and
continues tapping the phones and electronic communications of foreign governments, and
manipulating elections abroad. Even in the worst-case scenario, Russia hasn't done anything
that historians haven't already proven that the US Government itself routinely does. That's the
case even if Russia is guilty as charged, on all of the U.S-and-allied
accusations.
Either the lies will stop, or else we all will. Trump, as usual, is on the
wrong side of the lies . And he seems to be too much of a coward to oppose them, in these
cases, which are the most dangerous lies of all. This is how we could all end. Doing something
heroic that would stop it, seems to be way beyond him -- he doesn't even try. That's the type
of cowardice which should be feared, and despised, the most of all. Trump has taken up Obama's
worst, and he runs with it. Trump had promised the opposite, during his Presidential campaign.
But this is the reality of Trump -- a profoundly filthy liar -- at least insofar as he has,
thus far, shown himself to be. What he will be in the future is all that remains in question.
But this is what he has been, up till now.
In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship
August 10, 2018 •
92 Comments
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between
corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship, argues
Caitlin Johnstone in this commentary.
By Caitlin Johnstone
Last year, representatives of Facebook,
Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to
"quell information rebellions" and adopt a "mission statement" expressing their commitment to
"prevent the fomenting of discord."
" Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," the representatives were
told. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media
battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and
easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Today Twitter has silenced three important anti-war voices on its platform: it has
suspended Daniel
McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, suspended Scott Horton of the
Scott Horton Show , and completely removed the account of prominent
Antiwar.com writer Peter Van Buren.
I'm about to talk about the censorship of Alex Jones and Infowars now, so let me get the
"blah blah I don't like Alex Jones" thing out of the way so that my social media notifications
aren't inundated with people saying "Caitlin didn't say the 'blah blah I don't like Alex Jones'
thing!" I shouldn't have to, because this isn't actually about Alex Jones, but here it is:
I don't like Alex Jones. He's made millions saying the things disgruntled right-wingers want
to hear instead of telling the truth; he throws in disinfo with his info, which is the same as
lying all the time. He's made countless false predictions and his sudden sycophantic support
for a US president has helped lull the populist right into complacency when they should be
holding Trump to his non-interventionist campaign pledges, making him even more worthless than
he was prior to 2016.
But this isn't about defending Alex Jones. He just happens to be the thinnest edge of the
wedge.
Infowars has been censored from Facebook, Youtube (which is part of Google), Apple, Spotify,
and now even Pinterest, all within hours of each other. This happens to have occurred at the
same time Infowars was circulating a petition with tens of thousands
of signatures calling on President Trump to pardon WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange,
who poses a much greater threat to establishment narratives than Alex Jones ever has. Assange's
mother also reports that this
mass removal of Infowars' audience occurred less than 48 hours after she was approached to do
an interview by an Infowars producer.
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between
corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. Because
legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the
ability to control the U.S. government's policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no
effective influence whatsoever, the U.S. unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.
Large, influential corporations are inseparable from the state, so their use of censorship is
inseparable from state censorship.
This is especially true of the vast mega-corporations of Silicon Valley, whose extensive
ties to U.S. intelligence agencies are well-documented . Once you're assisting
with the construction of the US military's drone program , receiving grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, or having your site's content
regulated by NATO's propaganda arm , you don't get to pretend you're a private,
independent corporation that is separate from government power. It is possible in the current
system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to
billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political
power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else
they'll work with your competitors instead of you
Censorship Through Private Proxy
And yet every time I point to the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all
new media political discourse with an iron fist, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a
bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands. "It's not censorship!" they exclaim. "It's a private
company and can do whatever it wants with its property!"
They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will never be censored. Everyone
else is on the chopping block, however. Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's algorithms, and it won't be
long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the establishment Syria and Russia
narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same exact pretext as Infowars.
This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look like
what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of dissenting
media bit by bit.
Don't believe that's the plan? Let's ask sitting US Senator Chris Murphy: " Infowars is the
tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our
nation apart," Murphy tweeted in response
to the news. "These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our
democracy depends on it."
That sure sounds an awful lot like the warnings issued to the Silicon Valley representatives
on the Senate floor at the beginning of this article, no? This is headed somewhere dark.
We're going to have to find a way to keep the oligarchs from having their cake and eating it
too. Either (A) corporations are indeed private organizations separate from the government, in
which case the people need to get money out of politics and government agencies out of Silicon
Valley so they can start acting like it, and insist that their owners can't be dragged out on
to the Senate floor and instructed on what they can and can't do with their business, or (B)
these new media platforms get treated like the government agencies they function as, and the
people get all the First Amendment protection that comes with it. Right now the social
engineers are double-dipping in a way that will eventually give the alliance of corporate
plutocrats and secretive government agencies the ability to fully control the public's access
to ideas and information.
If they accomplish that, it's game over for humanity. Any hope of the public empowering
itself over the will of a few sociopathic, ecocidal, omnicidal oligarchs will have been
successfully quashed. We are playing for all the chips right now. We have to fight this. We
have no choice.
This
commentary was originally published on CaitlinJohnstone.com .
Ms. Johnstone is right. Government pressure on corporations works but the media in all its
forms does a pretty good job of sowing discord without government interference. There are so
few instances where the government and the major media are not in sync, they are hard to
find. As to allowing the lonely voices of worthy organizations like Consortium News, why
should they bother. Allowing them creates the pretense of free speech. If they become
dangerous, the mood of our elected officials is to fix the problem as Ms. Johnstone rightly
notes. The defense of freedom of speech by government and the major media is very selective,
and the use of the calling fire in a loaded theatre standard is a big enough vehicle for
suppression to drive a truck through, a whole convoy in fact.
As an aside, watching Sixty Minutes on their hit piece about Russian interference in our
elections was an example of sloppy journalism that seems to be the norm. when it is about
Russia. I was about to say they never used to be like that, but I think that is probably not
true.
Bulls-eye!!!! especially on Democratic party loyalists who perform a much more important
function for plutocracy than the Republicans and the Tea Party – to rally around fake
progressive politics dripping out of the DNC, and effectively drain off the pressure building
for true progressive politics.
cjonsson1 , August 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm
This is a good example of Caitlin explaining what is going on in the American media wars
which is crucial for people to know.
Our access to information, other than government propaganda, is becoming very limited because
the few major social network corporations are owned by a few wealthy individuals or private
government contractors. They are monopolies which should be designated public utilities, and
regulated as such, or broken up into smaller entities, allowing for competition.
It is important to preserve what is left of our freedom of expression and our free press. The
ability to comment on reporting and discuss it with others is diminishing while sources are
becoming more and more restricted.
Government and big business fight the public for control of information and opinion. We have
to collectively save our stake in democracy by rejecting censorship.
You make some very good points. Alas, I disagree about Alex Jones. The very few times I've
listened to his videos, it seemed to me every last thing he said was absolutely true and
correct. So I don't know where the idea comes from that he speaks disinformation. He's
sometimes obnoxious and hard to watch. But that's a different thing. His words are accurate,
particularly about the globalists, the deep state, US-Russia relations, and Trump.
"It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million
dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where
money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures
like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they'll work with your competitors instead of
you."
Actually, If companies get big, they become potential big tools/weapons for the war-making
State, at which point they will be offered a deal that they can't refuse, as one would expect
within this gangster Corporatocracy. Look at Wikileaks. Mozilla simply jumped on the fake
news bandwagon, so they are now safe, as Aaron Kesel at Activist Post points out. Lavabit's
owner, Ladar Levinson had principles and was loyal to his customers (including Edward
Snowden) whom he didn't want to betray just because the Corporatocracy State demanded it, and
so he shut down. He revived his company once he figured out ways to shield his customers from
the war-making State that attacks us all in the name of 'national security'.
So, it's a little more dire than the government just deciding to favor your competitors,
which of course the amazing Caitlin knows.
With all of this capture by tech giants, innovators, by the war-making State (Randolph
Bourne), How will end? I have more than one answer to that. One of those answers is the
obvious one: Ramped up counterrevolution, in the area of cyberspace mainly, in the State's
war against the people. And such a war is underway as any number of authors have demonstrated
thoroughly. And its not (just) Russia attacking the people. Jeff Halper wrote "War Against
The People." Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes edited "The Secure And The Dispossessed." Douglas
Valentine wrote "The Phoenix Program," which he notes wasn't confined to Vietnam. Noam
Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote the devastating two-volume "Political Economy Of Human
Rights," which included "The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism." And Edward
Herman wrote: "The Real Terror Network." All of those books and many others talk about
counterrevolution and the counterinsurgency (State terrorism) that goes with it.
And counterrevolution and counterinsurgency doesn't have to be of the extreme variety,
such as in South Vietnam when the US was torturing that country to death. Caitlin has talked
about how the State (New Zealand) went to work on her friend, Suzie Dawson. Read the account.
It's quite illuminating.
What do you call 'thinking' that is against 'thinking' (and what we consider to be a part
of innovation that leads to inventions that elevate society? It's called counterrevolution.
That's where our corrupt tech giants have gone. It won't end well for them, even if they
think otherwise and even if they feel safe because they are with the big guy. There's a
bigger guy who has that big guy in his sights.
Somehow I had missed those words from our elected "representatives" in Congressional
hearing. What these political pimps and whores don't want us to do is get together and agree
to dispel the bullshit that we're up to our necks in right now.
As far as I know this is the first piece I've read by Caitlin Johnstone, and I agree with
her general premise that this is more than just ominous. More and more of our elected
"representatives" talk and act like alien totalitarians.
The good news is that Trump's "trade" and saber-rattling belligerence is finally awakening
the rest of humanity to the fundamental non-starter of a unipolar anything. That one entity
so militarily, politically, and economically dominant that it can cause pain and suffering
wherever and whenever it decides. It is ironic that Trump's MAGA is the act in this play that
will dethrone the USA. The downside is that the 99% control NOTHING (this is true across most
of the planet.) Another downside is that the megalomaniacs in power will not concede power
without a cataclysmic conflict. But nothing is set in stone, though the indications don't
look promising.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the
human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion,
still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is always a great benefit
– the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision
with error."
– JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) English political economist, philosopher
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 3:12 am
Something must be getting into the water supply either by accident or design to induce the
mass hypnosis that has so many presumably intelligent people believing that we must all walk
in lockstep on every policy the elites want. Maybe we are all zombified from the massive
amounts of Xanax, Valium, Oxycontin and other mind-numbing psychoactive agents our population
consumes and pisses, unmetabolized, into the water table to be recycled into our drinking
water, obviating the need for a personal prescription to enjoy (suffer) the effects.
It's a real pity if the totally transparent sham scare stories they have disseminated are
alone enough to convince most of the people to give up their constitutional rights and
privacy. Clearly the tactic of the big lie doesn't work on every last individual or sites
like this one would not have an audience. That is why they want to shut us down, and Alex
Jones, though not a member of this journal club, is just the first step towards an outcome
that will encompass everyone remaining outside an all pervasive Groupthink.
Ideas, beliefs, memes, values, customs, habits and such are not received universally from
some inspirational force on high. (You are simply told to believe that from earliest
childhood.) They are spread through the population like a virus from mind-to-mind contact,
whether in person or via some modality of mass communication, like the TV or the internet.
The object of censorship, as per Alex Jones or Ron Paul most recently, is to extirpate the
source of "infection" as close to its point of origin as possible, before it can be spread to
too many carriers for transmission to others. People tend to believe what they hear and what
they hear comes from their regular contacts. Shut down their favorite talk show host or
internet site and they become starved for new "seditious" ideas. If they never hear a truth,
chances are they won't think it up themselves and certainly not act upon it.
Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind
control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard. I
know, I know, some of our number already get a taste of that.
Dave P. , August 11, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Realist –
"Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind
control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard .
. . "
You have it absolutely right. There have been markers all along since G.W. Bush/Cheney
rule, clear indicators of this new Future.
But some of us are so desperate to have a better and peaceful future for the humanity on
this planet that we get our hopes high for any silver lining in the sky – Obama's hope
and change, now Trump's getting along with Russia and stopping interventions abroad.
Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate, candidates
with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been or is. The
politicians in both parties are accomplished ConMen, in service of the real Masters –
MIC, Wall Street Finance, Media and Entertainment, working to bring this new Future. Bernie
Sanders is no different.
Skip Scott , August 12, 2018 at 7:08 am
"Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate,
candidates with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been
or is. "
I have noticed this ploy as well. They are willing to have a few faux progressives to keep
the progressive wing of the party from abandoning them altogether. They use Sanders, and now
this new Ocasio-Cortez, to sell their "big tent" narrative, and then co-op them when it comes
to all the important issues. They also constantly sell the idea that voting for third party
candidates is a waste of time, so you have to settle for "the lesser of evils" when it comes
time for a new president. I don't know how long they can keep playing the same con-game
before people see through it, but if it happens again in 2020, I think we are doomed.
Realist , August 12, 2018 at 10:01 am
The Democratic incumbent running for the senate in Florida (Bill Nelson) has made me so
angry by yet again using the party con against Russia that I could never vote for him even
though his opponent is the horrendous Governor Rick Scott (who plead guilty to defrauding
Medicare to the tune of a billion dollars for his Columbia HMO system prior to his election).
I cannot abide such theft of taxpayer money in broad daylight, but I also cannot accept
Nelson's spewing lies that Russia has actively hacked the Florida voter roles, plans to
delete registrations and disrupt the November elections. You know who's really more likely to
do those things? The Democratic and Republican parties.
Nelson is just making pre-emptive excuses for the loss that he sees coming. If he believes
his desperate gambit can work, he must think the voters are damned idiots to believe that
Russia would persist in perpetrating sabotage against American interests putting them
constantly in the crosshairs of our politicians and media. He must think that Floridians will
buy any tall tale that their elected officials tell them, totally unsupported by any
evidence. We are to believe that Assad never stops trying to poison his own people and that
Putin never stops interfering in American elections. (Why should Putin favor Rick Scott?
Because he admires American crooks?) If you truly believe such accusations, it is probably
logical that you would favor WAR with that country. I will vote for someone from the
Baader-Meinhof gang or the Taliban Party (if there is such a beast) before either Nelson or
Scott. Or I won't vote at all.
Zero Hedge tonight has an interesting article by Charles Hugh Smith, "The Grand Irony of
Russiagate: US Becomes More Like USSR Every Day". The clampdown in the old Soviet Union
before its collapse has parallels to what's going on in US now.
Jeff Harrison , August 10, 2018 at 5:12 pm
From Wikipedia. Fascism:
Fascism (/?fæ??z?m/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2]
characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong
regimentation of society and of the economy.
The Cheetos-in-chief would love to wield dictatorial power and has tried to do so in the
past as have his predecessors (Obama, yeah, well, we had to torture some folks::Shrub you're
with us or against us.). Senator Chris Murphy essentially telling these companies who to kick
off their platforms, the regimentation of society and the economy is continuing apace as
companies are forced to comply with government demands that the government should never be
able to make but they do for "national security reasons"
Pfui. As I've said before the US has become a fascistic police state.
MBeaver , August 11, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Many other western countries, too. The only thing missing to "fit" fascism is the
nationalism. They completely gave up their national identity for neoliberal agendas. I wont
look for a new term, because its as close to fascism as anything else, especially since the
definition of leftism and socialism has changed a lot since fascism was invented (by a
socialist), so why shouldnt the definition of fascism a tiny bit?
But it exposes people who always cry "its not fascism" because nationalism is missing, as
accomplices at the very least.
Also, as an objective person, you should at least admit, that "cheeto-in-chief" is
actually trying hard to keep the promises he made. I havent seen that in a western leader in
a very VERY long time. Its just very obvious that the president isnt almighty and the deep
state is very powerful. Thanks to Trump its become evident to even fools, that the USA is
much more corrupt than even any conspiracy theorist would have thought just a few years
ago.
jaycee , August 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm
The idea that discordant speech is somehow a threat to the nation or democracy is so
looney and bereft of fact that it is actually painful to contemplate how many otherwise
intelligent persons seem to have internalized the notion. Obviously, Trump's election victory
severely damaged the Establishment's confidence in the ability to "manufacture consent" to
the degree that fundamental concepts of free speech are now in the cross-hairs. They will
destroy the Republic in order to save it.
When the corporate state speaks of "hate speech" and "community standards" – one can
be sure they are not referring to Madeline Albright's stunning defense for killing of a half
a million Iraqi children with sanctions as "worth it." Nor would the corporate state ever
categorize as "hate speech" the daily attack by a wide variety of U.S. officials and media
pundits, not only on the Russian government, but on the very – "character" – of
the Russian people as a whole.
Our actual and very real – "community standards" – in the U.S. include the
complete normalization of illegal immoral endless aggressive war-making in violation of
international law (not to mention regime change by jihadists, drone murders, economic
warfare, political assassinations, etc.) – along with the despicable demonization of
official enemies – in other words the total "normalization of hate-speech."
"Violations" of these widely held U.S. "community standards" & "hate-speech standards"
involves plain and simply any – "challenge" – to them or deviation from them. In
other words to speak words not sufficiently 'anti-Russian' today is considered a form of
"hate speech" in MSM and in political discourse. To suggest peace rather than war with Russia
might be a good idea is to violate precious "community standards" which today tolerate only
mindless fact-free warmongering in public discourse. You really can't make this stuff up!
Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Excellent comments. So true.
We are heading towards some sort of dark ages, and at very fast pace.
Maxwell Quest , August 10, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Gary, pointing out the shameless and bald-faced hypocrisy as you did can sometimes shake
the stupefaction from an open-minded reader. Sadly, though, arguments such as these just seem
to bounce off the Russiagaters, having no effect. Conversely, these very same people couldn't
lavish enough praise on the peace prize winner Obama, whether he was bailing out the corrupt
banks, letting the lobbyists craft Obamacare, trafficking arms through Benghazi, or droning
some wedding party in the desert.
What do both of these examples have in common? Easy, the state media was able to control
the narrative in each case, and these same hypnotized drones ate it up hook, line and sinker.
This brings us right back to why internet-based censorship is the hot topic of the day, since
it is the single most threat to complete state control over the public mind.
Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 11:09 pm
Well said. Obama is not gone yet. He is still out there selling his philosophy of
promoting the Wall street and corrupt banks, and droning and killing the weak and innocents
all over the world , for the right cause so to speak – spreading freedom and democracy.
And liberals buy it. What a World we live in!
He, along with Clintons, is the main instigator of "Russia Gate", which may lead the human
life to extinction on Earth.
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:24 am
Dave
Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and
democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:22 am
Damn straight, Maxwell.
Mildly Facetious , August 11, 2018 at 4:16 pm
Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and
democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
??????????????????????????
They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will
never be censored.
Everyone else is on the chopping block, however.
Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's
algorithms, and it won't be long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the
establishment Syria and Russia narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same
exact pretext as Infowars.
-- - compare that, if you've a clue, (not to obfuscate your subject), Caitlan Johnstone,
with, not mere censorship, but the Protection of 'Confidential' information such as the
Industrial Pharma INDUSTRY OF DEATH (shades -of -nazi-germany??? )via INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
and PRESCRIBING OF OPIOIDS as if Huxley's "Soma" or/and a preview of " The Chemical and
Bacteriological Conditioning of the Embryo. – Practical Instructions for Beta
Embryro-Store Workers /// as in government forced vaccinations along with Facebook enforced
capitulation of any/all -- Personal Sovereign Belief/s massively defaulting and bowing the
knee and Becoming Persuaded and Trapped into inescapable Autocracy, by reason of Darwin-esk
dissembling and a dis-informed election to Dissent Into The Maelstrom of the sinking ship of
American Exceptionalism, -- as if God could/would "forgive" all-of-the-collective Brutality
of Bombs, bullets, Uranium Munitions / CRIPPLING Sanctions imposted -- support of brutal
dictators Who massacred INNOCENT Civilians in order to obtain/secure US MILITARY FUNDS, in
order to secure autocratic/authoritative CONTROL
We are engulfed in a Molding Faze of acceptance of/into a totally new Reality strangely
built upon Nazi science/experiments, now Entering an/the Age of Space-Age manipulation of
DNA, Gene Manipulation -- origins of species ordered inside test tubes.
George Gilder prophetically saw this in this and more in his prescient 1990's book,
MICROCOSM. --
George Gilder and his Discovery Institute were far Ahead – of -the -curve in this
'Facebook" era of Futurisms .
Please find and consider his book, esp as it relates to technological possibilities and
the New Wonders (Brave New Worlds) of Gene splicing / manipulation .
"... For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security. ..."
"... Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking. ..."
"... US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. ..."
"... Moscow could sell off its billions of dollars of US Treasury securities ..."
"... It could end titanium exports to the United States ..."
"... Nor have four other circumstances. ..."
"... turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. ..."
"... in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia. ..."
"... with the apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, ..."
"... is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during the 2016 presidential election . ..."
"... only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced, almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. ..."
"... to thwart and even punish President Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki summit in July. ..."
For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security.
Cohen begins by putting the current bipartisan Senate campaign to impose new, "crushing" sanctions on Russia in historical context.
Broadly understood, sanctions have been part of US policy toward Russia for much of the past 100 years. During the Russian civil
war of 1918-20, President Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to fight against the emerging Soviet government. Though the "Reds"
were clearly the established government of Soviet Russia by 1921, Washington continued to deny the USSR diplomatic recognition until
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established formal relations in 1933. During much of the 40-year Cold War, the United States imposed
various sanctions on its superpower rival, mainly related to technological and military exports, along with periodic expulsions of
diplomats and "spies" on both sides.
Congress' major political contribution was the 1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which denied Moscow privileged trading status with
the United States, primarily because of Kremlin restrictions on Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. Indicative of how mindlessly
habitual US sanctions had become, Jackson-Vanik was nullified only in late 2012, long after the end of the Soviet Union and after
any restrictions on Jews leaving (or returning to) Russia. Even more indicative, it was immediately replaced, in December 2012, by
the Magnitsky Act, which purported to sanction individual Russian officials and "oligarchs" for "human-rights abuses." The Magnitsky
Act remains law, supplemented by additional sanctions leveled against Russia as a result of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and particularly
Moscow's annexation of Crimea.
Looking back over this long history, there is no evidence that any US sanctions ever significantly altered Moscow's "behavior"
in ways that were intended. Or that they adversely affected Russia's ruling political or financial elites. Any pain inflicted fell
on ordinary citizens, who nonetheless rallied "patriotically" around the Kremlin leadership, most recently around Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more
akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking.
Why, then, Washington's new bout of sanction mania against Moscow, especially considering the harsh official Russian reaction
expressed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who called the Senate's proposed measures "a declaration of economic war" and promised
that the Kremlin would retaliate?
One explanation is an underlying, astonishing assumption recently
stated by Michael McFaul , the media-ubiquitous
former US ambassador to Moscow and a longtime Russia scholar: "To advance almost all of our core national security and economic interests,
the US does not need Russia." Such a statement by a former or current policymaker and intellectual is perhaps unprecedented in modern
times - and manifestly wrong. US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. They include avoiding
nuclear war; preventing a new and more dangerous arms race; guarding against the proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction;
coping with international terrorists (who are in pursuit of such materials); achieving lasting peace in Syria and elsewhere in the
Middle East; fostering prosperity and stability in Europe, of which Russia is a part; promoting better relations with the Islamic
world, of which Russia is also a part; and avoiding a generation-long confrontation with a formidable new alliance that already includes
Russia, China, Iran, and other non-NATO countries. If McFaul's assumption is widespread in Washington, as it seems to be, we are
living in truly unwise and perilous times.
A second assumption is no less myopic and dangerous: that the Kremlin is weak and lacks countermeasures to adopt against the new
sanctions being advocated in Washington. Consider, however, the following real possibilities. Moscow could sell off its billions
of dollars of US Treasury securities and begin trading with friendly nations in non-dollar currencies, both of which it has
already begun to do. It could restrict, otherwise undermine, or even shut down many large US corporations long doing profitable business
in Russia, among them Citibank, Cisco Systems, Apple, Microsoft, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Ford Motor
Co., and even Boeing. It could end titanium exports to the United States , which are vital to American civilian and military
aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing. And terminate the sale of rocket engines essential for NASA and US satellite operations.
The world's largest territorial country, Russia could charge US airlines higher tariffs for their regular use of its air space or
ban them altogether, making them uncompetitive against other national carriers. Politically, the Kremlin could end its own sanctions
on Iran and North Korea, alleviating Washington's pressure on those governments. And it could end the Russian supply transit to US
troops fighting in Afghanistan used since the early 1990s.
None of this seems to have been considered by Washington's sanction zealots. Nor have four other circumstances. Sanctions
against Russia's "oligarchs" actually help Putin, whom the US political-media establishment so despises and constantly indicts. For
years, he has been trying to persuade many of the richest oligarchs to repatriate their offshore wealth to Russia. Few did so. Now,
fearful of having their assets abroad frozen or seized by US measures, more and more are complying. Second, new sanctions limiting
Moscow's ability to borrow and finance investment at home will retard the country's still meager growth rate . But the Kremlin coped
after the 2014 sanctions and will do so again by turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western
partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. (Russian agricultural production, for example, has
surged in recent years, now becoming a major export industry.) Third, already unhappy with existing economic sanctions against Russia,
European multinational corporations - and thus Europe itself - may tilt even farther away from their capricious "transatlantic partner"
in Washington, who is diminishing their vast market in the East. And fourth, waging "economic war" is one impulsive step from breaking
off all diplomatic relations with Russia, this too actually being discussed by Washington zealots. Such a rupture would turn the
clock back many decades, but in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia.
Finally, what reason do Washington extreme Cold Warriors themselves give for imposing new sanctions on Russia? Most of them are
in the US Senate, historically a body with at least several independent-minded distinguished statesmen, but no longer, with the
apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has demonstrated considerable wisdom in regard to US-Russian relations.
Their professed reasons are various and nonsensical. Some say Russia must be sanctioned for Ukraine, but those events happened four
years ago and have already been "punished." Others say for "Russia's aggression in Syria," but it was Putin's military intervention
that destroyed the Islamic State's terrorist occupation of much of the country and ended its threat to take Damascus, to the benefit
of America and its allies, including Europe and Israel. Still others insist the Kremlin must be sanctioned for its "nerve agent"
attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK several months ago. But the British government's case against the Kremlin has
virtually fallen apart, as any attentive reader of articles in David Johnson's Russia
List will understand.
Ultimately, though, the new bout of sanction mania is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during
the 2016 presidential election . In reality, there was no "attack" - no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11, no Russian parachuters descending
on Washington - only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced,
almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. Indeed, whatever "meddling" Russian actors did in 2016 may well have been
jaywalking compared to the Clinton administration's massive, highly intrusive political and financial intervention on behalf of the
failing Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection campaign in 1996.
We are left, then, with the real reason behind the new anti-Russian sanctions effort: to thwart and even punish President
Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki
summit in July. This bizarre, also unprecedented, reality is more than a whisper. According to a
New York Times "news
analysis," as well as other published reports,
a "bipartisan group of senators, dismayed that Mr. Trump had not publicly confronted Mr. Putin over Russia's election meddling,
released draft legislation" of new sanctions against Moscow. "Passage of such a bill would impose some of the most damaging sanctions
yet."
Leave aside for now that it is not Russian "meddling" that is delegitimizing our elections but instead these fact-free allegations
themselves that are doing so. (How many losing candidates in 2018 will claim their victory was snatched away by Putin?) Consider
instead that for doing what every American president since Eisenhower has done - meet with the sitting Kremlin leader in order to
avoid stumbling into a war between the nuclear superpowers - in effect both Trump and Putin are being condemned by the Washington
establishment, including by members of Trump's own intelligence agencies.
If so, who will avert the prospect of war with Russia, a new Cuban missile-like crisis, conceivably in the Baltic region, Ukraine,
or Syria? Certainly not any leading representative of the Democratic Party. Certainly not the current Russophobic "bipartisan" Senate.
Certainly not the most influential media outlets, which amplify the warmongering folly almost daily. In this most existential regard,
there is for now only, like it or not, President Donald Trump.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their
(usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com .
Comment: As Cohen brilliantly points out - sanctions, for the US, are a dead end.
"... The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness). ..."
"... The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. ..."
"... This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." ..."
"... The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. ..."
"... "We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. " ..."
"... And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify. ..."
"... The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide... ..."
The faction that used to be the Democratic party can be described with some precision these days as a three-headed monster driving
the nation toward danger, darkness, and incoherence.
Anyone interested in defending what remains of the sane center of American politics take heed:
The first head is the one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign
that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" -- especially
the leadership of the FBI -- to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented. The "doctors" of this
Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later
that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr.
Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign,
and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous
-- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic
instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New
York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded
with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness).
The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support
arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists
in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn
up the temperature with some nuclear fire. They are apparently in deep confab with the first head and its Russia collusion storyline.
Note all the current talk about Russia already meddling in the 2018 midterm election, a full-fledged pathogenic hallucination.
This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse
them of "aggression." We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression.
We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state.We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish
and hazardous endeavor. The sane center never would have stood for this arrant recklessness. The world community is not fooled, though.
More and more, they recognize the USA as a national borderline personality, capable of any monstrous act.
The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human
nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication
of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between
men and women. Those differences must be abolished, and replaced with chimeras that enable a childish game of pretend, men pretending
to be women and vice-versa in one way or another: LBGTQetc. Anything BUT the dreaded "cis-hetero" purgatory of men and women acting
like men and women. The horror .
Its companion is the race hustle and its multicultural operating system. The objective has become transparent over the past year,
with rising calls to punish white people for the supposed "privilege" of being Caucasian and pay "reparations" in one way or another
to underprivileged "people of color." This comes partly from the infantile refusal to understand that life is difficult for everybody,
and that the woes and sorrows of being in this world require fortitude and intelligence to get through -- with the final reward being
absolutely the same for everybody.
"We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust
up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a
foolish and hazardous endeavor. "
And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the
"Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into
a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify.
I was talking to someone, who knows a lot about the 'inner workings' and we were discussing, not only the US, but Europe's
situation as well.
The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend,
not just nationally, but world wide...
"... "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law." ..."
"... Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." ..."
"... This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
– Globalism
– open borders
– anti-Russia, Iran
– American hegemony which means endless wars
– support for gay marriage
– anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues
aren't as clearcut anymore.
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
Bingo! It looks like neocons and neoliberals joined forces to fight the rise of "populism"
which should probably be more properly called "the crisis of neoliberalism." To a certain
extent, the current "NeverTrumplists" neo-McCarthyism campaign is the behavior of a wounded
neoliberal beast (I am not sure why they have such an allergic reaction to Trump who in
domestic policies is 100% neoliberal and in foreign policy is 66% neocon.)
They try to suppress dissent under the smoke screen of "commitment to democracy and core
democratic principles" because, as you can guess, this is very important "at a time when the
character of our societies is at stake." The character of the neoliberal society in the USA
and EU to be exact.
Ironically, those "defenders of democracy" are interested in the issue of democracy even
less than former Soviet nomenklatura. All they want is to kick the "classic neoliberalism"
can down the road (and, as a side effect, preserve their lucrative sinecures; this is
especially visible with Max Boot in his recent interviews )
As Professor Paul Gottfried
noted about the recent alliance of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP):
Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?
Presumably, it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as
personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban.
Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing with its
villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue
different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and
respect the rule of law."
It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other
right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have
disrespected their countries' legal traditions.
Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!)
to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances
and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is
to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's
cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and
nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about
Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values."
This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its
advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from
whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."
"Washington allies with ISIS as great power conflict trumps "war on terror"
7 August 2018
The "National Defense Strategy" document released at the beginning of this year declared
bluntly that the nearly two-decade focus by the US military on the so-called "global war on
terrorism" had come to an end. In its place, a new strategic orientation was being introduced
based on preparing for "great power" confrontation, i.e., war with nuclear-armed Russia and
China.
This was the first such defense strategy to be issued by the Pentagon in over a decade and
expressed the urgency with which Washington views the preparations for a third world war.
A particularly crude and criminal outcome of this policy shift is becoming increasingly
apparent in three major theaters where US forces are engaged in active combat operations.
Reports from Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan provide firm evidence that the US and its local
proxies are allying themselves with and employing the services of elements of ISIS and Al
Qaeda in the pursuit of Washington's broader strategic interests.
In Yemen, hundreds, if not thousands, of fighters from Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP), branded by the US government as the "most dangerous" affiliate of the loose
international Al Qaeda network, have been recruited by Washington's closest allies in the
Arab world, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to fight as foot soldiers in the
near-genocidal US-backed war that these Persian Gulf oil monarchies have been waging against
the impoverished country of Yemen since 2015.
According to an investigative report published Monday by the Associated Press, the
Saudi-led coalition "cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities
and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash Hundreds
more were recruited to join the coalition itself."
It added that "Key participants in the pacts said the US was aware of the arrangements and
held off on any drone strikes."
"Elements of the US military are clearly aware that much of what the US is doing in Yemen
is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that," Michael Horton, a senior analyst at the
Jamestown Foundation, a CIA-connected Washington think tank, told the AP.
"However, supporting the UAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against what the US views as
Iranian expansionism takes priority over battling AQAP and even stabilizing Yemen," Horton
added.
This is a gross understatement. Washington is providing indispensable military support for
a war that has reduced millions of Yemenis to the brink of starvation. It is prepared to wipe
out much of the country's population in order to bolster its strategic position and that of
the reactionary Arab regimes with which it is allied against the perceived threat of Iranian
influence to US regional hegemony.
The war has escalated in recent days in the ongoing siege of the Yemeni Red Sea Port of
Hodeidah, which was green-lighted by the Trump administration. The UN has warned that a
quarter of a million people could lose their lives in this operation, while millions more
across the country may die of starvation if it shuts down the port, the sole lifeline for
food, fuel and medicine for at least 70 percent of the population.
Recruiting Al Qaeda fighters to slaughter Yemenis in this immense and bloody war crime is
entirely consistent with US policy.
In regard to Syria, meanwhile, Russia's Defense Ministry last Thursday issued a statement
warning that ISIS has increasingly concentrated its forces in the area around al-Tanaf, near
the Syrian-Iraqi border, where the US military maintains a military base and has unilaterally
declared a 34-mile exclusion zone around it. US troops there have provided training to
so-called "rebels" opposing the government of President Bashar al-Assad and appear to be
providing a security screen for ISIS."
"Under the mantle of the "war on terrorism," successive US governments, Democratic and
Republican alike, have not only conducted wars whose victims number in the millions, but also
carried out an unrelenting attack on democratic rights, from domestic spying to censoring the
Internet.
The emerging international alliance between the Pentagon and ISIS only serves to expose
the real interests underlying these policies, which are bound up with the waging of war to
offset US imperialism's loss of economic preeminence and defend its crumbling global
hegemony, and domestic repression to sustain a social order characterized by the most extreme
inequality in modern American history."
"While many of the countries that have received detainees have chosen to keep quiet about
the repatriations, the Pentagon confirmed on Tuesday that the Republic of Macedonia had taken
custody of a group of foreign fighters.
"Today's transfer of Foreign Terrorist Fighters to their country of origin, Macedonia, marks
a significant milestone in the much-needed cooperative effort to combat the global threat of
terrorism," Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told CNN."
Huh? Are the Westie media not even pretending any more, that they are fighting
against the terrorists? Most of us know that was B.S. anyhow, but the broader
(ignoramuses) public, the kind of morons who watch CNN every day, were not ever supposed to
be let in on that little secret.
"... So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the danger of contagion . ..."
"... Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008. ..."
"... Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war. ..."
"... NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires. ..."
"... NATO only seems to be useful to the hegemony that supports it. Peace is not it's mission. ..."
By now you've probably heard that Turkey is having a financial crisis, and Trump appears to be pouring gasoline on it.
But you may not understand what is happening, or you may not know why it's important.
So let's do a quick recap
.
Turkey's currency fell to a new record low today. Year to date it's lost almost half its value, leading some investors and
lenders inside and outside of Turkey to lose confidence in the Turkish economy.
...
"Ninety percent of external public and private sector debt is denominated in foreign currencies," he said.
Here's the problem. Because of the country's falling currency, that debt just got a lot more expensive.
A Turkish business now effectively owes twice as much as it did at the beginning of the year. "You are indebted in the U.S.
dollar or euro, but your revenue is in your local currency," explained Lale Akoner, a market strategist with Bank of New York
Mellon's Asset Management business. She said Turkey's private sector currently owes around $240 billion in foreign debt.
This is all about hot money that has been washing around in a world of artificially low interest rates, and now, finally, an
external shock happened. As it
always happens .
The bid-ask spread, or the difference between the price dealers are willing to buy and sell the lira at, has widened beyond
the gap seen at the depth of the global financial crisis in 2008, following Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s collapse.
So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the
danger of contagion
.
The turmoil follows a similar currency crash in Argentina that led to a rescue by the International Monetary Fund. In recent
days, the Russian ruble, Indian rupee and South African rand have also tumbled dramatically.
Investors are waiting for the next domino to fall. They're on the lookout for signs of a repeat of the 1997-1998 Asian financial
crisis that began when the Thai baht imploded.
A minor currency devaluation of the Thai baht in 1997 eventually led to 20% of the world's population being thrust into poverty.
It led to Russia defaulting in 1998, LTCM requiring a Federal Reserve bailout, and eventually Argentina defaulting in 2001.
Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008.
The markets want Turkey to run to the IMF for a loan, but that would require a huge interest rate hike and austerity measures
that would thrust Turkey into a long depression. However, that isn't the
biggest obstacle .
The second is that Erdogan would have to bury his hatchet with the United States, which remains the IMF's largest shareholder.
Without U.S. support, Turkey has no chance of securing an IMF bailout program.
There is another danger, a political one and not so much an economic one, that could have dramatic implications.
If Erdogan isn't overthrown, or humbled, then there is an ironclad certainty that Turkey will
leave NATO and
the West.
Turkey, unlike Argentina, does not seem poised to turn to the International Monetary Fund in order to stave off financial collapse,
nor to mend relations with Washington.
If anything, the Turkish President looks to be doubling down in challenging the US and the global financial markets -- two
formidable opponents.
...
Turkey would probably no longer view the US as a reliable partner and strategic ally.
Whoever ends up leading the country, a wounded Turkey would most likely seek to shift the center of gravity away from the West
and toward Russia, Iran and Eurasia.
It would make Turkey less in tune with US and European objectives in the Middle East, meaning Turkey would seek to assert a
more independent security and defense policy.
Erdogan has warned Trump that Turkey would
"seek new friends" , although Russia and China haven't yet stepped up to the plate to bat for him.
Russia, Iran and China do have a common interest when in comes to undermining the
petrodollar . Pulling Turkey into their sphere of influence would be a coup.
Turkey lies at a historic, strategic crossroad. The
bridge between the peaceful West and the war-ridden dictatorships of the East that the West likes to bomb.
On its Western flank, Turkey borders Greece and Bulgaria, Western-facing members of the European Union. A few years ago, Turkey
-- a member of NATO -- was preparing the join Europe as a full member.
Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with
Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war.
Losing Turkey would be a huge setback for NATO, the MIC, and the permanent war machine.
more struggling economies are starting to get it. Trade wealth for the rulers (IMF supporters) to be paid by the rest of us.
Fight back. Squeeze the bankers balls. Can't have our resources, now way, no how, without a fight.
in a flailing Turkey? Weren't there some outside potential takers encouraging China when it floated its currency proposal?
Nastarana on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:41pm
NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires.
Patrolling our shores for drug running and toxic dumping. Teaching school, 10 kids per class maximum. Refurbishing buildings and
housing stock. Post Cold War, an military alliance with Turkey makes no sense.
Ukraine has huge problems because far right nationalists while hate corruption, do not control economics and oligarchs who
control it do not intent to share their profits with the population, who is on the edge of starvation.
Breaking economic ties with Russia helped to relegate Ukraine to semi-colonial status as without cooperation with Russian
industries and access to Russian market (which they know very well) many Ukrainian manufacturing industries are less
viable..
Ukraine was already converted into debt-slave, and it is extremely difficult to climb out of this hole without default.
At the same time it serves are powerful anti-Russian force in the region and as such will be semi-supported by both the USA
and EU. for example attacks on Ukrainian currency probably will be avoided.
This is a variant of " don't cry for me Argentina" situation.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably that while the west is gradually leaning toward dumping Ukraine and hoping Russia will solve the problem, the warning signs are there that Russia has no intention of bailing out an exhausted Ukraine, and that this time it is going to be allowed to fail all the way down. The west should be warned that nobody is riding to the rescue and pouring their resources into stabilizing Ukraine – if the west cannot do it, the alternative is collapse and draining emergency work to keep the population from starvation. Prosperity is an impossible dream now, and the people – I think – would be pretty happy to be back where they were before the glorious Maidan. ..."
"... Interestingly, something that was not touched upon in the 'Necessary' section was the elimination of the oligarchy in Kiev and other major cities. I will declare frankly that I have no idea how this might be achieved – as discussed before several times, the Ukrainian oligarchs control something in the order of 70% of Ukrainian GDP, and are not about to gift any of it back to the Ukrainian state. ..."
"... You'll know there's no more money in Ukraine when the oligarchs leave, and I see no sign of that so far, while it is evident they intend to be a big part of any future rebuilding. They've already successfully stolen most of the IMF money, and plainly think an even bigger payday is still in the offing. ..."
"... Eventually, if the USA is unsuccessful in forcing the outbreak of another world war, the west will get around to either asking Russia to help, or trying to dump Ukraine on Russia. ..."
"... Whatever happens, the dream of Ukrainian nationalists to forge a great and powerful ... nation of Ukraine is always going to remain that – a dream. They're happy enough at present scampering about in the ruins and glorying in their imagination of great power, but they are kings of the dungheap without any clue of nation-building. ..."
"... The few who both hated Russia and honestly aspired to a Great Ukraine – free of corruption and able to pay its way through judicious management of its undeniable resources and casting off the peasant mentality – have no influence, and operate at the pleasure of the power-brokers; they are allowed to dabble at anti-corruption until their probing becomes uncomfortable, and then they are discredited and fired, if not charged with the crimes they say they are investigating. ..."
That is indeed an interesting piece – generally speaking, we most enjoy writing with
which we agree, and I mostly agree with it and feel the ring of familiarity, because some of
it is what we have been saying here for a couple of years. Notably that while the west is
gradually leaning toward dumping Ukraine and hoping Russia will solve the problem, the
warning signs are there that Russia has no intention of bailing out an exhausted Ukraine, and
that this time it is going to be allowed to fail all the way down. The west should be warned
that nobody is riding to the rescue and pouring their resources into stabilizing Ukraine
– if the west cannot do it, the alternative is collapse and draining emergency work to
keep the population from starvation. Prosperity is an impossible dream now, and the people
– I think – would be pretty happy to be back where they were before the glorious
Maidan.
Interestingly, something that was not touched upon in the 'Necessary' section was the
elimination of the oligarchy in Kiev and other major cities. I will declare frankly that I
have no idea how this might be achieved – as discussed before several times, the
Ukrainian oligarchs control something in the order of 70% of Ukrainian GDP, and are not about
to gift any of it back to the Ukrainian state.
But for so long as Ukraine continues to elect one oligarch after another to the office of
President, the oligarch of the moment will be far more occupied with increasing his/her
personal wealth and power, and settling scores with rivals, than with governance and
accountability. At the same time, there is no use hoping the President will be a poor man or
woman, because they generally do not have the worldly education to grasp the problem and
envision solutions while being simultaneously beset from all sides by the oligarchy, seeking
to retain its power and influence.
You'll know there's no more money in Ukraine when the oligarchs leave, and I see no
sign of that so far, while it is evident they intend to be a big part of any future
rebuilding. They've already successfully stolen most of the IMF money, and plainly think an
even bigger payday is still in the offing.
The United States has largely forgotten Ukraine, as it was only ever a pretext for a
full-court press against Russia anyway, and it now has enough Russophobia sustainment in its
ditzy population to press forward without the need to invoke sympathy for Ukraine. Europe is
still quite interested in a resolution, but only because of its fear that it is going to get
stuck with the booby prize, and be made to assume responsibility for getting Ukraine on its
feet somehow, perhaps even absorbing it. Eventually, if the USA is unsuccessful in
forcing the outbreak of another world war, the west will get around to either asking Russia
to help, or trying to dump Ukraine on Russia.
Whatever happens, the dream of Ukrainian nationalists to forge a great and powerful
... nation of Ukraine is always going to remain that – a dream. They're happy enough at
present scampering about in the ruins and glorying in their imagination of great power, but
they are kings of the dungheap without any clue of nation-building.
The few who both hated Russia and honestly aspired to a Great Ukraine – free of
corruption and able to pay its way through judicious management of its undeniable resources
and casting off the peasant mentality – have no influence, and operate at the pleasure
of the power-brokers; they are allowed to dabble at anti-corruption until their probing
becomes uncomfortable, and then they are discredited and fired, if not charged with the
crimes they say they are investigating.
Well said. Presumably, the Donbass will pull away from Ukraine and vote to joint Russia and
Russia will approve for any number of reasons but certainly including humanitarian,
ethnic/cultural connections and military considerations. Other regions such as Odessa could
jump aboard as well.
There may be a mass exodus from what is left – the grifter to the West and those
seeking a better life to the east. The Nazis will remain behind and may serve some purpose
such as providing a pool of mercenaries for CIA projects.
I, for one, do not think the Donbass will be an overwhelming economic burden in the long
run. The population has shown resolve and resilience. Given leadership and material aid, they
can rebuild fairly quickly I think.
"... Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics . ..."
It's time for everyone to come off Twitter – it is like writing your message on your
buttocks with a black sharpie and dropping your trousers. Tweets are the kind of stupid thing
you send out at the end of work after you've had a bastard of a day, and something you read
or hear pushes you over the edge. People in diplomatic posts should not be allowed to use
Twitter at all, and should be punished for doing so – reporters now avidly follow the
Twitter feed of anyone who is anyone, and pounce on anything that has not been thought
through before it can be deleted: an attempt to delete it is just the icing on the cake, an
admission that you shouldn't have said it.
Time was, diplomats ran everything they said in writing in an official capacity through a
review before it was released, it was parsed six ways from Sunday to see how it might be
spun, twisted or misinterpreted. Diplomats speaking in a live interview were careful to
remain vague and say nothing which might not have meant several different things. You did not
get countries straining to get at one another because of something the minister of
agriculture said. But now everybody feels they can speak for the government on Twitter. It's
hard to imagine how the various countries of the world could come to be represented by their
stupidest citizens.
I hope America does formally sanction the Russian finance and banking sector. They're
already doing it under the radar, and going formal would give Russia an excuse to dump SWIFT
and stop using it, as well as the US dollar. Mastercard and Visa would be gonzo, taillights,
possibly in China as well. America sanctioning the Russian financial sector would remove its
last ability to keep an eye on it easily.
Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that
Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent
and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as
uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the
US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics .
It's just diplo-speak, to mark the speaker as a civilized man and not a thug. That is
beginning to become a bit of a sore point – is there anyone left who actually believes
that because Russian diplomats say "our American friends" or "our American colleagues", that
they labour under a delusion that this is just a temporary spat and under it all they still
have brotherly connections? If so, let me disabuse all those people of that notion; the
Russian government and all its operatives are well aware that America is a self-declared and
thus committed enemy. But saying, "the Americans, our enemies" would make for tiresome
commentary in the western papers, in which ideologues would assess that this practice proved
the Russians are the aggressors while westerners are just trying to work it out.
Alternatively, they could lower themselves to the vernacular and instruct, "Listen up,
motherfuckers".
Russia understands that America is an enemy and not a friend of any description, just as
it understands the United Nations is an American-dominated body and that it is next to
useless to expect the UN to back any Russian initiative. It continues to go through the
motions in both cases, merely to underline who is following the rules and protocols set up by
a better and more aware global civilization than currently prevails, and who is just kicking
sand in the other's face and trying to get him to swing for the chin.
Very true. Poll after poll fails to show any concern by American citizens over Russian
"meddling" or Russian "assertiveness". Sure, questions can be posed such as "Should the US
resist the Russian invasion of xxxxx?". Naturally, the answer would likely be yes. But when
asked, without prompting, what concerns them, Russia does not register as a concern at any
level. I find this remarkable as anti-Russian news is often the lead on every network evening
news show. I can not recall a news broadcast for many months that did not include a
Russian-bashing story. The tipping point on media credibility may have been reached
Cut off titanium metals and fabrications to the West – Boeing shutdowns as well as
many other US aerospace operations;
Close off air space or charge much higher tariffs to US carriers using Russian airspace. US
airlines become non-competitive in many Asian and European markets;
Stop exporting LNG and other energy products to the US;
Raise taxes or shutdown US companies in Russia;
Stop exports of the RD-180 and 181 rocket engines.
Action 1 would have a devastating impact on US aerospace manufacturing. The US has little
ability to replace with domestic or foreign supplies. This action should be reserved in the
event of extremely aggressive US actions such as a direct military attack on Syria;
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been
pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole
thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the
near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil
and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.
"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led
alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one
day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The
potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would
give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian
energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if
necessary."
Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report
"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads
by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries
toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political
interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)
It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these
were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty
of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not
long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because
it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have
control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'
Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact,
Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not
support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the
White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations
to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial
and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important
tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.
Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy
supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have
brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas
to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests,
and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming
about.
"... Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride. ..."
"... Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are potentially stupid dangerous. ..."
"... I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian. Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA. ..."
"... Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back and see the bigger picture ..."
"... I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to get elsewhere. ..."
"... The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling. But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical damage on Russian society and Russian people. ..."
"... It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate. ..."
Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and
trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those
from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would
subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride.
Mr. Putin's popularity with the Russian people rests largely on their confidence that he
is looking out for them, and always carefully balancing risk with reward. If Russia were run
by somebody like Erdogan, the west would have succeeded in overthrowing him ages ago.
Russia is in a good position to resist sanctions, because Washington dares not impose
restrictions on its trade in oil and gas. While it would be wrong to assume Russia has
nothing else, these are core industries and in the other sectors where Russia is strong, the
west does not buy much from it anyway except for steel and raw materials. Russia can easily
replace those markets. But western brands who spent decades building up their market in
Russia slowly and carefully have lost it almost overnight. And they will be a long, long time
getting it back.
PCR's sources of information probably focus too much on the doings of the Central Bank of
Russia and not enough on other sources of advice that the Russian government might rely on.
You wonder whether PCR or his researchers are aware that the Russians and the Chinese might
be mocking the US in the statements and policies they choose to make public.
Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like
turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is
clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to
the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are
potentially stupid dangerous.
I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech
which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as
well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian.
Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA.
Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO
restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this
opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back
and see the bigger picture.
I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from
Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to
get elsewhere.
I also agree Russia should keep on supplying the EU with energy, for a couple
of reasons. One, any interruption in the supply is just what Washington and its Atlanticist
Eurobuddies are looking for so they can label Russia an unreliable partner, and start that
whole alternative-sources conversation again: it's why they want to keep Ukraine in the loop
– to initiate disruptions and promote uncertainty about the reliability of Russian gas.
Two, Russia has a good chance of splitting factions in Europe off from the USA, as the latter
is more and more perceived to be trying to boss the European energy market so as to secure a
captive customer for its own exports. The last thing Russia needs is to create the impression
that Washington is saving Europe instead of dicking it around.
"The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only
one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia's economy. By any definition, Washington is,
in effect, declaring war on Russia.
The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about
them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling.
But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical
damage on Russian society and Russian people.
It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl
von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate."
All these articles are hysterical pap. The events after 2014 have demonstrated that Russia is
immune to western sanctions and actually massively benefits from them. It has also shown that
it can rapidly react to changing financial conditions as seen in the offloading of $230
billion in foreign debt in 2015. The current round of "the mother of all sanctions" trash
talk from Washington is desperate and pathetic failure.
Russia has no reason or incentive for war. It is NATzO that wants to take Russia out.
Russia will adjust to the new sanctions by become fully independent of any western financial
or economic links. Russia has the critical economic mass to by an autarchy. But it does not
need to be since it will keep on trading with most of the planet. NATzO accounts for 11% of
the global population (but thinks it is 100%). The congenital retards who run NATzO are
helping China to become the next premier financial power. The Yuan will replace the dollar by
necessity if not by choice.
I want to see the writers of this scaremongering garbage list the actual economic impacts
on Russia. Starting with the financial ones. Russia does not depend on foreign currencies. It
also does not depend on foreign loans like some banana republic. The current claims by the
chimps in Congress that they will bring Russia's economy to its knees are the same BS as
during the post Banderite Kiev coup sanctions which Obama was sure were going to cut Russia
down.
There is some truth in what you say but nevertheless I think you quite underestimate the
threat of US sanctions. One doesn't have to be an unabashed fan of Ben Aris to accept some of
the points that he makes in the following article.
http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-us-declares-economic-war-on-russia-146707/?source=blogs
In any case, I am a fan of Eric Kraus and he has serious concerns- check out some of his
comments here, say, for example, 7 minutes in.
Eric Kraus apparently thinks that Russian enterprises need to borrow dollars or euro from the
west. He is dead wrong. Russia can get all the dollars and euro it needs via the exports of
oil and gas, minerals, military equipment, nuclear power plants and assorted other exports
over $400 billion US per year. That was the point of my post: Uncle Scumbag's sanctions on
financial transactions do not cut Russia off, they cut the US and the EU off from the Russian
market. We are back to 2014 and these new "mother of all sanctions" will be as useless as the
previous round.
As for Japan, it is a useless comparison. Pearl Harbour was triggered by the US trying to
cut Japan off from vital resources. Non financial ones. Nobody can cut Russia either from
natural resources or the financing it needs. But Russia can f*ck the EU over big time by
cutting off natural gas exports. As the rabid mutt in Washington tries to go for broke,
Russia should keep diverting natural gas eastward. Let Uncle Scumbag save the EU with the
spare LNG he doesn't have.
Yes, the analogy between prewar Japan and Russia is false. It can be argued that it is
exactly the opposite. Russia has the resources that the West needs and if Russia were to cut
those off, the West could be induced to launch a war of desperation as Japan did. If Russia
is "walking on eggs" that is why.
Russia also can borrow whatever money it needs to from China. China probably has more than
enough to lend of its own, but if it does not, it is under no restrictions against borrowing
from western banks, and those banks have no control over how that money is reallocated.
I commented on the Pearl Harbour episode simply to make the point that the proposed sanctions
are a very aggressive move- this is clearly how the Russian government sees them, and rightly
so. If these sanctions clip a percent or so of Russian GDP growth for the foreseeable future
then they are very damaging for the country. Frankly, I would not be very sanguine about
Russia's long term future if it were not for China, and I continue to back Kraus's opinion
over Kirill's This earlier article by Aris sets the stage reasonably well- it's obvious
weakness is that the role of China is not taken into account
. http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-russio-delenda-est-140787/?source=blogs
A further point. No matter how creative Russia's scientists and engineers might be, it
beggars belief to imagine that any country can compete technologically long term if largely
isolated by the rest of the World. Again, this further emphasizes how critical China is
likely to be for Russia's well being.
Russia needs China and China needs Russia if it wants to remain a sovereign nation.
I would add that the US is in a very fragile state burdened by a stagnate economy despite
massive deficit spending in addition to a crumbling global empire. Russia may simply need to
ride out the storm and let nature takes it course relative to the US.
The chimps in Congress can't see past their own noses and think that borrowing and debt is
what sustains the Russian economy. Their bubble of delusion has no bearing on Russian
reality. They are currently engaged in "the definition of insanity is to repeat the same
failed approach over and over and expect a different result". You can't cut Russia off from
western banks more than once and there is obviously no cumulative impact from such sanctions.
On what basis do you estimate 1% GDP growth reduction (or contraction?) for the foreseeable
future? Kraus needs to make a case and not just engage in proof by assertion. How can we have
the same restrictions to banking access that were imposed in 2014 all of the sudden starting
to matter now? That is just ludicrous. Cutting off access to NATzO banks in 2014 was the
limit of what NATzO could do. It can't go into Russia and shut down Russian banks to prevent
Russian companies from financing themselves there or from the Russian government.
Anyway, too much obscure mush and utter lack of details. These "mother of all sanctions"
are a joke because the 2014 sanctions did most of the "damage".
But for how long can the rest of the world (meaning, I suppose, the United States and western
Europe, which seem together to think they are The World) keep it up? Long enough to bring
Russia down? I frankly doubt it. America needs trade for its corporations to flourish and
expand market share, and it is not achieving that through sanctions and tariffs. The USA is
not just taking on Russia; it is making enemies everywhere. The global economy is so
interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to death unless you can block
all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to Russia) without hurting Europe.
The present sanctions are lame and do not really do anything but get journalists excited
and use up paper. The sting is in the ones set to automatically go into effect in three
months, because to avoid them Russia must admit that it has a secret chemical-weapons
program, agree to shut it down and allow UN inspectors into the country to verify it has been
done. Perhaps Trump and his cabal gamble that Russia will cop to something it actually
doesn't have, just to avoid sanctions, as Gadaffi did. But Russia will not, while the
American attempt to bring more inconvenience and problems to the Russian people in an effort
to use them to bludgeon the government into doing Washington's bidding is about as shitty a
thing as America has ever done without involving weapons, since it offers no proof at all of
its conclusions. It is simply imposing collective punishment in order to get ts own way, and
would be the first to squeal if Russia did it.
"The global economy is so interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to
death unless you can block all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to
Russia) without hurting Europe."
"Like the Romans, the US has built a military-industrial economy that can massively
out-resource all its opponents' and so is impossible to defeat – a legacy of the rapid
militarisation during WWII when it simply out produced first the Nazis and then the Soviet
Union, the only other country on the planet at the time with any chance of matching the US's
industrial might"
Unlike the Reich the USA industrial base wasn't hampered by round the clock bombing from
the Eighth AirForce and the RAF , which also involved the diversion on billions of
Reichsmarks for thousands of planes and the Luftwaffe manpower in an attempt to stop or at
least mitigate the air attacks.
Likewise the USA industrial base was not hampered by having to -in a massive
undertaking-uproot its core manufacturing facilities and move them thousands of kilometers to
where they could be reassembled and resume production of machinery , armor and weaponry in
general.
Furthermore:
These are just a couple reasons for the fall of Rome, but what is perhaps most terrifying
about the fall are the corollaries to today. The Unites States of America has a Gini
coefficient of .45, and 40% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population.[5]
By every metric, the United States is even more divided and unfair than Rome before its fall.
The effects are perfectly evident as well as there is increasing inclination from the rich to
build fallout bunkers and withdraw from civilization and politics just as the roman elites
did centuries before. Worsening matters is the evidence of extreme racism towards migrant
workers who like slaves in Rome "take the labor from the hardworking middle class".
Increasingly the middle class shrinks as social unrest and bigotry grows. It is a scary
combination that, if we aren't careful, could spell the end of civilization as we know it,
just like it did for the Romans centuries before.
Therefore the Aris notion that USA can simply bide its time and wait for Russia to
collapse is suspect. If anything there may well be be a collapse but not Russia.
Agree with the sentiment but the Soviet Union outproduced the US in every industrial category
that mattered. Its military was much stronger than the US on land and in the air. On the sea,
the US probably had the edge.
The Soviet Union fell because its ideology provided no means to deal with psychos and
sociopaths. Religion, with all of its shortcomings, at least tried to address sociopathic
behaviors with such terms as sin, evil, etc. When religion left the building, there was
nothing left to stop the psychos and its kissing cousins, the Randites.
The West is immune from such dangers as it embraces sociopathyy. Russia, I believe, is
seeking a society that can withstand such assaults without heavy handed purges which only
provide temporary relief. The Orthodox Church ascendancy in modern Russia is helping to
provide that moral anchor to keep socciopathy from becoming the dominant world view. I think
even atheists can agree on the importance of its role in providing a stable and humane
society.
USA say that Russia did poison the Skripals in Salisbury.
"The US blamed the attack on Vladimir Putin and said they would be issuing fresh sanctions
in response to the deadly attack.
The state department says Wednesday the sanctions will be imposed on Russia because it
used a chemical weapon in violation of international law.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said: "The United States determined under the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that
the government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation
of international law, or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own
nationals."
Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok, a
military-grade nerve agent, in the British town of Salisbury in March."
What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all
this pandering to western partners.
No need to batten down the hatches. Just ignore the yapping NATzO chihuahuas. We have not
even had a proper trial to determine guilt. The US leadership is not some ultimate judicial
body. They can make as many political judgements as they want, but that will do Jack to
Russia.
At this point all the hysterical US-driven sanctions against Russia are totally self
defeating. The monkeys in Washington clearly think that Russia is a banana republic and that
it needs to have access to foreign money and technology to function. They are cleared fucked
in the head.
It would reportedly include more drastic measures, such as downgrading diplomatic
relations, banning the Russian airline Aeroflot from flying to the US and cutting off nearly
all exports and imports.
So, are we talking about RD-180 rocket engines and Americans traveling to the ISS on
Russian rockets? Are we talking about titanium fabrications that Boeing needs for its
aircraft manufacturing?
This Russian hysteria is masking something, something big. My one-track mind suggests
fixated on the idea of an approaching economic collapse and subsequent imposition of martial
law and/or massive levels of censorship; all to be blamed on Russia. The increasingly
frenetic pace of Russian hysteria suggests a near-term sh!t-storm is on the way.
The Russian hysteria is scary as so many citizens over there believe in the Russiagate
nonsense and have been manipulated to feel they have been attacked.
It means therefore that conditions have been created whereby the USA has the support to
attack back.
Putin should never have gone to Helsinki as that escalated the madness.
Trump is emasculated just as obama was and has no power to do anything to block this
pathway to outright confrontation
The Europeans will sit by and watch – Russia has no allies there.,
Europe will stay on the porch and let the big boys duke it out. In the red corner, we have
Vlad – the Terminator. In the other corner, we have Donald – the Orange Haystack.
In another corner we have Bruce – the Red Dragon.
Haystack lumbers out of his corner before the bell rings, makes some nasty gestures and
starts his victory dance. The Terminator stands in his corner, muscular arms folded across
his chest with a wry smile across his face. The Red Dragon is closely studying Haystack with
an inscrutable stare. Haystack exhausts himself and collapses mid-ring. The Terminator and
Red Dragon leave the arena as the Haystack fans seek their autographs. Something like
that.
Perhaps a boxed piano will fall from a ninth-floor balcony and crush Nauert to a rectangular
pizza. I'd pay to see that.
Define 'pandering'. Can you name some concessions the United States has wrung from Russia
in the last two years? I seem to recall the British investigators said there was no proof
that anyone in the Russian government was involved – they simply speculated that
because Novichok could only be made in a state facility, there must be state involvement.
Does the USA have some evidence that the British have not seen yet? Perhaps they found it in
the same place they filed their satellite photography of the Buk missile taking out MH17.
You mean the same Russia that is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled
and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to
the CWC? That Russia?
I can't wait for this determination to be made public along with the coinciding evidence
as released by an official judiciary body wielding the requisite jurisdiction and authority
under official auspices of the UN. That's what is meant by determined right? Pretty
unambiguous terminology there.
This entire charade has gone so far beyond farce it's not even comical anymore, just
depressing.
That's an interesting point, because a likely consequence of the continued hysterical
hostility from the west will be opacity where there once was transparency; ie: if the United
States wants to know something about Russian unconventional weapons programs, it will have to
go to extensive and complicated labour to insert a deep-cover spy or persuade an asset that
it can trust to find out the information, never knowing if it is being fed disinformation
deliberately by a double agent, where once it could simply have asked and been invited to
verify the truth itself. International organizations controlled by Washington will be less
and less likely to have a free pass to come in and poke about as they see fit.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned the US that any sanctions targeting Russian banking
operations and currency trade will be treated as a declaration of economic war and retaliated
against by any means necessary.
" If they introduce something like a ban on banking operations or the use of any currency,
we will treat it as a declaration of economic war. And we'll have to respond to it
accordingly – economically, politically, or in any other way, if required ,"
Medvedev said during a trip to the Kamchatka region.
" Our American friends should make no mistake about it ," he emphasized.
"... Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU – remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute' which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing, if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year ago? ..."
I suppose few were under any apprehension that Trump would not sign the sanctions bill
reimposing American sanctions on Iran. Consequently, most will be unsurprised that he did so.
Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU –
remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute'
which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while
Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with
demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing,
if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts
must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such
authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to
allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national
courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year
ago?
I need hardly draw attention to the unmitigated and brazen arrogance of the stated US aim:
to "force the Iranians to the table for a renegotiation of their role in the Middle East".
They fucking live there, for God's sake, but the intent of the sanctions is to force them to
bow to American will, and accept the plans for them of a state which is more than 6,000 miles
away – yet insists on its right to direct and order regional affairs to its own
strategic and economic benefit.
Once upon a time, America's meddling in the Middle East could count on the support of all
the major western powers. For the time being, that practice is in abeyance, as the major
western allies try to bring about American failure. Goodwill toward the United States has
more or less evaporated completely, and America is increasingly regarded as an enemy by
former allies. I can't see any possibility of it prevailing, unless it starts a major war and
drags everyone into it. I can, however, see irreparable economic damage being inflicted on
the American economy.
If the EU will actually protect European companies from US enforcement/retaliation and compel
European companies to honor contracts with Iranian companies or government, that is big. But
why would they do such?
I speculate the US plan is to take Iranian oil off the market thereby driving up crude
prices. The downside is that it helps Russia (perhaps not a major concern for Trump) and
hurts China but it will be a boon for US oil frackers to the point of avoiding mass default
of loans and collapse of major US operations. If Nord Stream II can be stopped, US LNG may
surge as well assuming gas frackers can ramp up. And when Iran capitulates (in US dreams) US
companies will be granted special concessions to soak up Iranian oil revenues and the EU left
of the sidelines.
So the above could be some of the reasons for the EU's stiffening. Putin is probably
breaking out the popcorn.
The US has suddenly recollected that if it wants to take on China, it will actually need the
support of its traditional allies, and is supposedly launching a make-up effort, especially
where Europe is concerned.
Trump is such a boob; his policies are all over the place – first the hard-ass who
will never back off, then conciliatory and talking international unity. Anyone who would
willingly help that country achieve its goals needs their head examined, as it clearly will
turn on its traditional friends the instant it is unhappy with the relationship. Trump brags
that trade hardball is 'his thing', but that's just more of his stupid ego, and he appears to
not grasp many of its implications.
American farmers understand, though, all too well. It does not take a genius to figure
that a $12 Billion bailout fund suggests an assessment of a potential $12 Billion in damage
to the sector, which seems like a lot of money. But as agricultural economists correctly
deduce, the real damage is to long-term trade relationships, as customers repelled by
America's thug tactics turn to other suppliers. I already mentioned the new prominence in
Canadian supermarkets of identifying symbols to highlight Canadian products, and Canada is
the biggest export market by a considerable margin for American agricultural products. Canada
could not win in a trade war against the USA, but it could inflict serious damage on the
agricultural sector. Much of Canada is farm country just like south of the border, and all
the USA really has going for it in the way of growing-season advantage is California and
Florida. Products from there which are out of season in Canada can be purchased from Mexico.
Otherwise, pretty much anything you can grow in the USA, you can grow in Canada.
Well Canada has rather upset the apple cart, hasn't it? On the one hand, western moralizing
and sermonizing other states about what they should do used to be only restricted to mostly
enemy states, preferably much less rich ones, on the other hand values only mean something if
you actually are willing to pay a literal price in either money, blood or both.
The financial papers are saying that this will damage SA's the confidence of foreign
investors, precisely those SA is trying to attract so that it can start to diversify its
economy away from petroleum based products, but we have yet to see if this will have a
noticeable effect, rather than just a wish effect.
The US has said Sweet FA, along with the rest of the sermonizing weapon selling west, so
Canada has very little support from its allies. So far. Germany should be an obvious
supporter but if pissing of the Saudis makes it more dependent on Russia ergo there are
plenty of reasons that can be wheeled out to keep treading lightly.
It looks to me as just another sign of the existing order breaking down, whether or not
Canada back tracks or not. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
As for the so-called free and democratic media, well they only further discredit
themselves publicly.
Meanwhile, I just checked out the Canada headlines and this jumped out:
Global Affairs Canada would not say whether Canadian taxpayers are financing the sale, and
would not provide any other details about the arms deal
Few details are available about the proposed sale of weapons, as the Canadian
government says such information is commercially sensitive. It has declined to name the
company selling the guns or indicate how many rifles would be sent to Ukraine. However
Conservative MP James Bezan, who has been in contact with the Canadian company that has the
agreement to supply the rifles to Ukraine, confirmed the deal's likely timeline. He declined
to name the firm since the sale still has to be finalized.
Nicolas Moquin, a spokesman for the Canadian Joint Operations Command Headquarters,
said the Canadian military has been providing sniper and counter-sniper training to Ukraine's
security forces since September 2015. He said Canada is not looking at this time of providing
additional sniper training to coincide with the delivery of new weapons .
####
OR, is this just Canada selling sniper rifles that are not necessarily of Canadian
origin?
According the the video below with Canadian MP James Barazan, he says there are large
numbers of weapons such as assault rifles, sniper systems, mortar systems, counter battery
radar etc. sitting in warehouses in Jordan (& Toronto) that were supposed to go to
Kurdistan.
Yes,, the world order is falling apart. For some reason, this state of affairs reminds me of
the observation that married couples who are heading toward divorce are on that path not
because of a lack of communications but because they are now communicating for the first
time.
Ukraine is awash in small arms – they could give them out with a box of tea at the
supermarket as a promotion, and it would still take months to work through their supply. The
last thing they need is more rifles. On the other hand, new ones will probably fetch a good
price on e-Bay.
Oh, dear; Ukraine has more or less lost its case before the WTO, in which it wept that Russia's unfair imposition of an embargo
on its railway cars and rolling stock constituted a violation which caused a former $3.2 Billion in annual sales – more than it
realizes from transit fees for carrying Russian gas to Europe – to collapse to $150 Million. The WTO bought the Russian rationale
that Russian inspectors going to Ukraine to ensure the product conformed to Russian standards would be in fear of their lives.
But the WTO ruled that the security situation was such that Russian inspectors sent to check that Ukraine's exports complied
with Russian standards would have been risking their lives, and Russia was therefore justified in not sending them to Ukraine.
"The panel fully agreed with Russia's position and recognized that there was no systematic restriction of imports of Ukrainian
equipment by Russia," Russia's Ministry of Trade and Economy said in a statement.
The WTO did go on to say Russia could have carried out the inspections outside Ukraine, but therein lies a sandbag to the head
that Ukraine probably spotted already – if Russian inspectors found shoddy work or any other reason to refuse the offered goods,
to say nothing of the probability that no contracting position between the two countries even exists any more, then Ukraine would
be out the sale plus whatever costs it incurred to ship the goods outside Ukraine.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
"... However, these gunmen were not local Catholics, they were not part of the IRA or any other Ulster organisation, whoever they were, they were there on the orders of external forces. ..."
"... From the point of view of those who sent those gunmen, the event was a great success, it achieved precisely the results they wanted as it resulted in 13 dead, innocent Catholic civilians and ignited the province of Ulster into decades of awful violence. ..."
"... Who would want to do such a thing, who would want to create an internal conflict inside the British Isles that would greatly influence Britain and it's governments for a quarter of a century? I believe that Bloody Sunday was part of the CIA-lead campaign of false flag terror known as Gladio. Gladio terrorist operations had begun in 1972, three years after Muammar Gadaffi had been placed in power in Libya by a CIA coup and Libya was to be the base of operations for Gladio. ..."
Note
the point made by a Para that all of the members of the British Army killed in the three years
of The Troubles to that point had been the victims of 'highly accurate sniper fire'. Then note
how the situation was setup to place the Paras in the worst possible position – sent in
to a very hot spot where the high ground – the blocks of flats, was occupied by the
enemy, an enemy that was known to have possessed at least one sniper rifle. The Paras were
going to be shot at and the gunfire was almost certain to come from the flats.
Listen to the testimony of the Paras, they are adamant that is indeed what happened –
that multiple weapons opened fire on them from the flats, they were experienced troops and knew
exactly what incoming rifle fire sounded like, they saw the bullets striking the ground around
them. I have no doubt that this is indeed what happened, that the Paras were fired on from the
flats. What happened next was all too predictable -the Paras reacted in the only way they were
trained to react when fired upon – to seek out the source of the gunfire and attack it
immediately.
This was the start of the massacre as the Paras reacted to the gunfire from the flats by
moving forward and shooting at any targets that presented themselves and tragically, the only
targets that day were innocent, unarmed British civilians, young Catholics who were guilty of
little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bishop and other Catholics
present on that day are equally adamant that no-one on the civilian side was armed, that none
of the protesters fired on the Paras; I believe they are telling te truth just as much as the
Paras are.
How can both the Paras and the civilians be telling the truth when they hold opposing
testimonies?
I think it is pretty simple and with the benefit of decades of hindsight and the knowledge
of many subsequent false flag events, pretty obvious what really happened. I believe that
gunmen were indeed placed in the flats and perhaps other buildings around 'Aggro Corner' and
those gunmen did indeed fire at the Paras, not with the intention of hitting any of them as
that would provide proof that gunmen were present and active that day, but with the intention
of causing the Paras to react with the hyper aggression which they had been trained to
display.
However, these gunmen were not local Catholics, they were not part of the IRA or any other
Ulster organisation, whoever they were, they were there on the orders of external forces.
Forces that intended to escalate the civil unrest that had wracked the province since 1969 into
a far more belligerent and violent affair where large and highly organised paramilitary forces
like the IRA were formed to battle the British Army and the Ulster Constabulary in what was a
virtual civil war. For this to happen, an event like Bloody Sunday had to take place, innocent
Catholics had to be sacrificed and the British had to look like brutal and murderous
imperialist oppressors.
From the point of view of those who sent those gunmen, the event was a great success, it
achieved precisely the results they wanted as it resulted in 13 dead, innocent Catholic
civilians and ignited the province of Ulster into decades of awful violence.
Who would want to do such a thing, who would want to create an internal conflict inside the
British Isles that would greatly influence Britain and it's governments for a quarter of a
century? I believe that Bloody Sunday was part of the CIA-lead campaign of false flag terror
known as Gladio. Gladio terrorist operations had begun in 1972, three years after Muammar
Gadaffi had been placed in power in Libya by a CIA coup and Libya was to be the base of
operations for Gladio.
Gladio had multiple objectives, in the political climate of the Cold War it aimed to
discredit left wing political groups, more importantly, the aim was to inculcate a climate of
fear among the general populace. This was known as the 'strategy of tension' which was intended
to generate a pervasive sense of fear which would encourage the population to appeal to the
state for protection. I firmly believe that Bloody Sunday and the subsequent 'Troubles' in
Northern Ireland was part of Gladio and that the intelligence services of Britain, the USA and
their NATO allies were directly responsible.
One point Ian that is not clear from the videos Ian is that high above the Bogside along
the City of Derry walls British soldiers fired down from on high into the crowds making
away from the city center for Free Derry Corner. With soldiers separated there is always
danger of crossed signals, soldiers caught in crossfire and officers at cross purposes. All
in all, as you say, it was a disaster. When the Paras are around expect a no-nonsense high
intensity encounter. Whoever, the cad or Hooray Henry was who decided to use the Paras for
crowd arrests deserved to be thumped. Nobody deserved to die that day. Nobody! Soldiers as
you say just follow orders and if confronted with real or probable danger will react
accordingly. And those trained to kill, do just that, kill. Everything in the planning of
that day smacked of deliberate provocation/saber-rattling against a peaceful Civil Rights
protest march. And the planners of the Bogside havoc from their offices at Whitehall proved
a world away from ensuing events on the ground and a far remove from logic or basic common
sense. And God rest the dead!
A very busy week indeed. It looks like the world is dividing into two alliances: those who
will follow the dictates on Iran and Russian sanctions and those who won't. We're in the
prelude to a long winter of a cold war or a very hot one, depending on how the USA chooses to
enforce those sanctions. Effectively at this point the upcoming sanctions would serve as the
equivalent of a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. A much more lively August than any of
us expected. The devil is never idle.
Miserable fat scheming twats like Karl Rove have nothing to look forward to on vacation
and so delight in poisoning everyone else's. There's a whole warren of similar rats in the
Trump administration and over at Langley which is why I mention Rove. While he's not in the
current administration, he's a very visceral representation of what the world is up against
until we put the neocons and PNACers out of business for good.
PS. I see nhs continues to post tracking links instead of direct links @7. b, I'd really
appreciate it (and the rest of the tech savvy audience here would too) if you'd ban tracking
links or more positively insist on direct links. Technically speaking all of nhs's posts
should be held as he's a serial offender. You can either clean his links for him (sounds like
as much fun as fixing his toilet for free) or just delete the comments which contain URL
shorteners (tracking links). The latter would make encourage him to clean up his act fast.
You'd be surprised how quickly inconsiderate, spying, spamming types like nhs would learn how
to post direct links.
" I don't quite get what their endgame is here .Why are they pushing a propaganda war
which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know
that there cannot ever be a real hot war?"
Most probably, because they are calculating that under various forms of psychological and
economic pressure Russia will crumble from within and surrender, just like in the times of
Gorbachev-Yeltsin, without having to fight a real, risk-filled war. Surrender and subjugation
without firing a shot – THAT'S their imagined endgame. "Why wouldn't what worked within
living memory, a mere 30 years ago, work again now in updated form?", they think –
especially since the Russia of today is in a comparatively much weaker position overall than
the USSR of back then and the Russian rulers and society are not really too much different
psychologically from what they were back then, and are even mostly COMPOSED OF THE SAME
INDIVIDUALS? Is it really surprising that they think that way, given the continued existence
and thriving inside Russia of a powerful, openly seditious Fifth Column which is not
seriously combatted by either the Putin government or the stupid mass of the Russian populace
(who stand to lose the most, suffer terribly, and be reduced to colonized virtual serfs or
exterminated if the Fifth Columnists and their foreign masters succeed in crashing
Russia)?
Of course, IF this is a miscalculation (and I'm not sure that it is, given the current
weak, appeasing mentality of the Russian government and population), and the psychopathic
Western ruling elites don't manage to get a hold of their oversized lunatic egos and rein in
their arrogant hubristic belligerence – well, then the whole situation could devolve
pretty quick into a massive, WW I/WW II/Iraq/Serbia combination-type hot war scenario.
Except, this time, with the real probability of stepwise escalation from conventional
hostilities to Thermonuclear Holocaust.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia?
Russia may have struck a heavy blow already, when she dumped her holdings of U.S.
treasuries. The relatively small amount ($100 to $200 billion) may not have been significant,
but as a signal to the rest of the world it may have been loud. The new sanctions may be an
attempt to punish Russia for that. They won't work, of course, but the noise they generate
may help to obscure the import of Russia's recent action.
What I don't understand is why the US thinks Russia and China will continue to sanction North
Korea. It seems like the US is handing out straight razors to everybody and asking them to
slit each others throats. Except for Erdogan, they all seem to be saying, "Sure why not?"
Maybe they are simply accustomed to taking orders.
Looks like the aim of US sanctions is to ratchet the hostility up with Russia to the level of
a full blown cold war. Ukraine can be a victim.
Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, you'll get bogged down in Ukraine. You'll face tough choices (sanctions will get North Korea-style quickly, and even Chinese sympathy will get questionable), like should you spend your scarce resources on modern weaponry or a large security force to keep Ukraine pacified? ..."
"... Very few people in Russia would want Ukraine now. The consensus is: "good riddance". In Ukraine, on the other hand, there are people who want Russia to invade. Some are waiting for someone else to liberate them from Nazis (they apparently are not familiar with Protestant wisdom that God helps those who help themselves), some pray for a pretext to invite NATO/US (as if anyone is willing to die for them). ..."
We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of whether or not we are going to invade.
Well, I'd say it's a precondition to invading Ukraine. If you're incapable of
making such a simple law, you're sure as hell incapable of invading Ukraine. And you do need
the law if you want to avoid the sanctions creating the perverse incentives inside Russia, like
the biggest banks not having branches in the Crimea. Decoupling from the US dollar is no help,
since US sanctions are extraterritorial, if you didn't notice, so they affect euro or even
Chinese yuan denominated transactions, too.
Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a
country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern
Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more.
Within living memory, Hungary had armed forces of 150,000 troops and 1,500 main
battle tanks (admittedly, the majority were somewhat obsolete), with hundreds of fighter and
light bomber jets (MiG-21s and Su-22s etc.), and we were the slackers in the Eastern Bloc, not
spending on defense as much as other neighbors of us. Increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP
is what's the plan. If you invaded and occupied the whole of Ukraine, it could easily go up to
4-5%.
Of course, the Americans might come in numbers, too. But you're delusional here:
Doing so will impose costs on the USA. Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could
impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking tensions in Eastern Europe.
We have no military industry to speak of. Most of our neighbors do have some, but
even they are nowhere near self-sufficiency. You can guess who we'll buy our weapons from.
Poland recently offered to pay for an American base on its soil. So it won't be much of a cost
for the US, it might actually be quite beneficial.
Meanwhile, you'll get bogged down in Ukraine. You'll face tough choices (sanctions will
get North Korea-style quickly, and even Chinese sympathy will get questionable), like should
you spend your scarce resources on modern weaponry or a large security force to keep Ukraine
pacified?
Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine!
Stalin's USSR at the height of its power only deported much smaller populations.
You'd need a lot of people to achieve that. But let's assume you'll manage to do that. It will,
of course, create a huge backlash against Russia: popular opinion will get united against
Russians. (Defense spending quickly up to 5% of GDP or higher.) The Ukrainians in our countries
will of course enter the workforce and join anti-Russian ragtag militias to control the border.
Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern Poland
So the people ethnically cleansed from their homes will rise up against NATO in
support of Russia. This is a seriously dumb idea.
Very few people in Russia would want Ukraine now. The consensus is: "good riddance". In
Ukraine, on the other hand, there are people who want Russia to invade. Some are waiting for
someone else to liberate them from Nazis (they apparently are not familiar with Protestant
wisdom that God helps those who help themselves), some pray for a pretext to invite NATO/US
(as if anyone is willing to die for them).
This reminds me of an old Russian joke.
An old hag sits on the bench and screams: "Help! They are raping me!"
Another one passes by and asks: "Have you gone completely mad?"
The first one answers: "Everyone is entitled to a pleasant dream!"
Don't worry about my IQ woes – they are non-existent. I am a stable genius –
just like Donald Trump. Your IQ issues are – on the other hand – very easy to
fix. All you have to do is admit that you are Russian and you immediately gain 20-30 IQ
points. Of course, this will come at the expense of Russia, but then again. everything you've
ever done in your history came at the expense of Russia. All the Russians ever wanted was to
have a brotherly nation in Ukraine. They have a brother all right, unfortunately that brother
has a Down syndrome.
Any Russian ruler who tries to return Crimea will be overthrown in no time. As Russia
gradually disengages from the US-dominated financial system, the costs will go down. Russia
has already created its own payment system similar to that of Visa and Mastercard, as well as
its own money transfer system similar to SWIFT. On the other hand, if Russia fails to
disengage from dollar-dominated system, the losses would be much greater than Crimea. It
might even turn into a shithole, like Ukraine.
Insurance is more often a scam than not: Lehman Brothers enjoyed pretty high ratings until
their crash. What's more, banks were insured against the risks of sub-prime mortgages they
held. Remember what happened in 2008?
As to the future, nobody has the crystal ball. Can you tell how much a Big Mac will cost
in the US five or ten years from now? $4? $40? $400? $4,000? Your guess is as good as mine.
Ponzi schemes have a habit of crashing and nobody worked out a way of predicting when exactly
the crash will occur.
This might be in the cards. The US sanctions actually squeezed Russian comprador (5th
column) oligarchs, who were always subservient to the West, sent their families there, and
are siphoning off their money offshore, more than anything. If Putin uses this to expropriate
their stolen riches, which he might do (98% of Russian population would be cheering; they'd
cheer even more if Putin hangs those bastards, but that's unlikely), these sanctions would be
yet another example of the US shooting itself in the foot. The US is getting pretty good at
that lately, always screaming that it hurts afterwards.
"... So will a good Christian like Mike Pompeo reconcile these obvious falsehoods, self deception. With every letter, he will be denying the very God he professes to believe in. ..."
"... Trump and his administration are the reveal of the true nature of modern American political Christianity. This is what it always was ..."
"... But The People are not exactly conscientious objector on the issue of Yemen and the crimes committed in our name either. The Republic might rot from the head, but the rot has certainly spread far and wide. ..."
A senior general urged Saudi officials to conduct a thorough investigation into an
airstrike that killed at least 40 children in Yemen, the Pentagon said Monday, an indication
of U.S. concern about allied nations' air operations against Houthi militants.
The general's request actually shows how little concern the U.S. has for how the Saudi
coalition conducts its war effort. If the U.S. were concerned with how the war was being
fought, our officials wouldn't be asking the perpetrators of atrocities to investigate their
own crimes. It is pointless to urge the Saudis to conduct an investigation into their own war
crime when we already know that they will find that they did nothing wrong. As the
Post article notes later on, the coalition's investigations predictably excuse their
actions:
According to Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director for Human Rights Watch, Saudi
investigators had cleared coalition military officials of legal responsibility in virtually
all investigations the JIAT had conducted.
The pattern of Saudi coalition conduct over the last three years is clear. Their forces
commit numerous documented war crimes, and then when they "investigate" those crimes they
determine that their forces are guilty of nothing. It would have been laughable to ask the
Saudis to investigate themselves back in 2015, and to do the same over three years later is
inexcusable. It is an invitation to whitewashing heinous, illegal acts. The U.S. will not
honestly call out the coalition members for their crimes against Yemeni civilians because our
government is
deeply complicit in those crimes, and so we are treated to this pantomime farce where we
send officers to call for investigations whose results have been predetermined even before the
crimes were committed. The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone
ordered to participate in it.
There needs to be an independent, international inquiry into war crimes committed by all
sides in Yemen. All parties to the conflict are assuredly guilty of war crimes, and all parties
should be held accountable for what they have done to Yemen's civilians. As long as the U.S.
enables Saudi coalition crimes and then shields them from scrutiny, our government is
implicated in both the crime and the cover-up. Congress could put a stop to this if they
were willing to do their jobs and assume their proper responsibilities, but for more than three
years they have shirked their duties and acquiesced in a despicable and indefensible policy in
Yemen.
"The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to
participate in it."
For all that they're doing it at the order of even more disgusting civilians, this has got
a be a low point in the history of the American military. The word "Yemen" on a resume or CV
will make military people stink for the rest of their lives. Like "My Lai" or "Dishonorable
Discharge".
We are getting a preview of the letters Mike Pompeo will be signing off on to Congress.
So will a good Christian like Mike Pompeo reconcile these obvious falsehoods, self
deception. With every letter, he will be denying the very God he professes to believe
in.
"The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to participate
in it."
Conduct unbecoming.
The higher the rank of the officers involving themselves in this – in following
unconstitutional orders to participate in an illegal campaign of aggressive war and
collective punishment – the worse it gets. It would be a heroic act for a private
– or even the officer piloting a refueling tanker – to speak out against this, a
general has much less of a claim to honor and acquiescence both.
If The People really supported those who serve, they would rally to every conscientious
objector – even the misguided ones – because anybody who has the honor and
integrity to question orders is preferable to those that pay no heed to the meaning of their
oath.
But The People are not exactly conscientious objector on the issue of Yemen and the
crimes committed in our name either. The Republic might rot from the head, but the rot has
certainly spread far and wide.
"... Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan. ..."
"... Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel because uh chaos and destabilization. ..."
. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal
of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well
as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion
dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less
is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel
which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.
Oh right, who can forget the cabal of Jews controlling the US government and military at
the time of the Iraq invasion, such as President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, CIA director George Tenet, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice Every.Single.Time, am I right, folks?
Oh wait, they aren't Jewish? Well, I blame the Jews away. Just look at uh Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Woflowitz and
journalist Bill Kristol. That sounds like an extremely powerful cabal easily capable of
commanding such trivial figures as the President, CIA director, Secretary of State, et
cetera, to do their bidding.
Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to
pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack
on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the
Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks,
but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.
Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and
created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and
likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel
because uh chaos and destabilization.
And if you doubt that neocons totally control the US government, just look at how we're at
war with Iran! Well we're not technically at war yet, a decade after neoconservatives
began promoting the war and President Obama did somehow manage to sign a nuclear deal with
Iran that infuriated his neocon and Israeli puppetmasters but I'm sure that President Trump,
famously beloved by Jews and neocons everywhere, will soon go to war with Iran.
' I'm not entirely sure why you keep hanging on to this tired and false narrative that
US politicians are some sort of stooges and puppets of Israel '
Maybe because they are stooges and puppets? In extreme cases, they even boast of it. When
Romney was running for president, he promised he would check with Israel on any action we
took in the Middle East. When Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was promoting civil war
in Syria, she explained that this was necessary because Israel wished it.
It goes on, and on. If someone is considering a run for Congress, he gets a nice little
packet from AIPAC. Among other things, he's asked to write an essay expressing his feelings
about Israel.
If the essay isn't satisfactory, AIPAC backs his opponent.
Not surprisingly, when Netanyahu -- the premier of a tiny state on the other side of the
planet -- spoke to Congress he was interrupted with standing ovations seventeen times. The
display put me in mind of the sort of frenzied adulation Communist delegates used to display
towards Stalin.
and the motives, of course, would be similar, even if actual death isn't in prospect. For
most in Congress, displease Israel, and your political career just ended.
"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had
considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with
Washington."
It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack.
I think it needs to be emphasized that it's not merely a matter of practical politics.
Israel is evil -- she brings misery to millions, actual happiness to almost no one, and
engages in behavior with no defensible moral foundation at all. She has attacked every
single one of her neighbors, compulsively seeks out further conflict to paper over the
shortcomings in her own national identity, and treats her Palestinian subjects with a
morality about like that of a nasty little boy pulling the wings off a fly.
Arguably, others are as bad. However, unlike the others, Israel could not have come into
being without our support, and could not continue to exist today without our continued moral,
economic, diplomatic, and military support. If we pulled the plug, Israel would cease to
exist as a Jewish supremacist state within -- at most -- a decade.
We are, in fact, responsible for Israel, and hence responsible for Israel's crimes. Other
people's teenaged sons may well be out there stealing cars and raping girls. This happens to
be our son doing it. We're responsible.
We pursue many policies I regard as futile, short-sighted, deluded, or self-destructive.
My personal list would include 'come one come all' immigration, global warming denial,
maintaining a massive military establishment, condoning 'Black Lives Matter,' and probably
some other things.
No doubt the reader has his own list. However, that's not the point. The point is that
essentially, these policies are merely stupid rather than actually evil. It's not evil
to think we should just let whoever wants come into the US. It's dumb -- but it isn't
evil. In fact, I'll willingly credit people who vote for 'sanctuary cities' et al with the
most laudable sentiments. I merely question their intelligence.
Israel is different. Israel is evil, and hence our support for it is as well. It is the
most fundamentally wrong act we are engaged in.
There is a moral dimension to life. There is a distinction between striving to do good --
however unsuccessfully -- and willingly participating in evil.
"A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of
individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part
by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason
but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House
without any objection from a controlled media."
Kind of begs the question, why are we giving any aid to a first-world country with a GDP
growth rate in the 3% to 4% rate for years (even while we were stuck below 2%) and an
unemployment rate below 4%?
The Israeli economy is in better shape than the US economy; they should be giving us
aid.
"Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad,
an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham
but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them."
Yes, it is truly amazing what our "Best & Brightest" will do to stay on-side.
Following Mr. Giraldi's earlier post regarding the gubernatorial run of Israeli puppet Ron
DeSantis and the Big Sugar connections of Adam Putnam, it would seem a Floridian's least
worst choice is Bob White.
Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself
1st part: Absolutely, indubitably correct.
2nd part: ¿Qué? Why do people say/write this? Under what corrupt
arrangement does an oh, so obvious outlaw have any such right?
Consider: A gang of out-of-towners turns up at a block of flats, breaks the doors down and
occupies the building, killing some erstwhile owner/occupiers and ejecting most of the rest
on the way in, thereafter whooping it up big, and ignoring [obviously too feeble] orders to
RoR+R*3 [= Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.] Since when can such
outlaws dictate anything, thumb their noses at the Law?
Property, especially here land, is alienable – but this does not mean
' subject to seizure by aliens .'
Kindly consider: "A fair exchange is no robbery." A fair exchange means willing
seller, interested buyer, and a freely and fairly agreed price. No such thing exists
vis-à-vis the forcible colonisation of Palestine. Some proof may be seen
here [my
bolding]:
By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and
villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20,500
km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine
Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership.[5]
5. Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land
and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.
Especially in reference to the illegitimate entity which terms itself Israel, wiki is not
reliable, being, like the US Congress, Israeli-occupied territory. So it is noteworthy that
they write "in control of" as opposed to 'own.' They can't ever own it due to not having
purchased it, and Palestinians may not surrender it, due to the UDHR which specifies
*inalienable* rights:
Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Also, see the Washington Consensus:
10.Legal security for property rights.
Further, there is UNSC242: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, plus
only just law may earn respect, and/or be respected. A law dispossessing erstwhile legal
owner/occupiers is an utter travesty.
Me; comment: Its illegitimacy is all so howlingly obvious!
Fazit: Apart from the ~6% of 'pre-Herzl Palestine' which 'invading by stealth' alien,
mostly European Jews managed to purchase, the illegitimate entity does not own nor can they
ever own the land/property they squat upon, which still belongs to the erstwhile
owner/occupiers, specifically the 'native' pre-Nakba Palestinians [now including heirs &
successors]. Then, the illegitimate entity does not declare borders for two reasons 1) any
such declaration would be [probably successfully] challenged and 2) the illegitimate entity
expresses the desire to expand to 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' Q: Just how ghastly is
that? A: Could hardly be worse.
Closing the loop: How can land-thieves have any 'right to defend' such improperly
alienated land/property? It doesn't compute! rgds
Thank you, Mr. Giraldi, for another forceful rebuke of Zionist criminality and US
culpability.
The supremacist kosher state is a cancer on America. Just survey the wreckage. Count the
bodies. Who benefits from this?
The Zionist project is a plague on humanity. It entertains no compromise. It will stop at
virtually nothing. Examine the blood-soaked damage from Soviet Russia to Germany to Palestine
and beyond. It moves Washington around via remote control.
The situation has become very grave. Speech deemed 'anti-Semitic' is rapidly being
criminalized worldwide.
Right wing political expression (that Jews don't like) on Twitter, Facebook and the web is
being de-platformed for speech infractions that involve 'hate'. But it's only 'hate' of a
certain stripe.
After all, hatred is ubiquitous in America. It cuts in every direction. So why is the
focus so intense on just one spectrum of hatred?
Might it have something to do with the political preferences of those in power?
Oh maybe.
Principles be damned. Whose ox is being gored?
With that in mind, consider this: who might actually be the biggest hater of
all?–and killer? (Hint: it's certainly not the powerless Alt-right 'deplorables'.)
Might it instead be the world's foremost victims?
After all, incendiary speech–even 'hate speech'–does not kill. It takes bombs,
drones, tanks and missiles to accomplish that.
So where's the uproar over routine sorties which needlessly dispense death and
destruction?
It's gone missing.
Incredibly, it is rough speech and acute political criticism–not failed, horrific
wars–that are being criminalized. Pro-Zionist 'wars of choice' still get a pass in our
corporate board rooms, TV studios, news rooms, and in most of Official Washington.
This entrenched distortion allows neocons and their underlings to jawbone and plot their
next preemptive war. The Big Squeeze is on. Beware Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and
Iran. Zionism is an 'unshakable' Washington value. So get ready.
How distant wars advance the interests of average Americans remains a mystery.
Despite this puzzle, America's MSM offers little resistance and no straightforward
criticism of Zio-Washington's ceaseless war efforts on behalf of a certain 'democratic ally'.
In similar fashion, the Fourth Estate has also been compromised.
It's worth remembering that, according to the UN Charter, a state-sponsored 'First Strike'
against another sovereign state is the most serious war crime. This elementary moral precept
however matters not–at least not when Israel is pulling the strings. Quiet, children.
Listen. Obey.
What we have here is a pattern of vast serial criminality.
Zio-Washington has become Israel's war vessel. We regular folk are just along for the
ride.
So don't forget to cheer for the good guys!
Incredibly, US-enabled, Israeli ruthlessness has gotten even worse under 'America First'
Trump. After all, Trump needlessly tore up Obama's hard-fought peace deal with Iran.
Why would Trump make such a move? (As a candidate, he was far less hawkish).
Our weakened and despised President needs desperately to please America's foremost lobby.
Trump cannot govern without their support. This peculiar situation however requires
additional blood-letting on behalf of the Zionist state. Foreign wars that benefit Israel are
the unwritten price that the goyim leadership in America must pay. Sorry folks!
(Are you listening, Tehran?)
Jewish power corrupts. Overwhelming Jewish power corrupts in overwhelming fashion.
Moss also told the Guardian that Manigault Newman's use of a recording device presented
counterintelligence risks. "All it takes is one foreign agency hacking [the recording device],
and setting it to passive record mode," said Moss. The result would mean all conversations, not
just those Manigault Newman chose to record, would be "accessible to foreign entities".
This concern was shared by Kayyem. "There might be the perception, particularly by our
enemies, that the entire White House might be compromised, and that's kind of scary," she said,
adding: "The audience isn't just us and Omarosa and Trump. It's the Chinese and the
Russians."
Is recording in the Situation Room a crime?
Moss said, however, that just because the conversation occurred in the Situation Room, which
is actually a secured series of connected rooms, there is "no real obvious criminal liability".
All staffers entering the area must lock away their cell phones and other insecure electronic
devices. But he noted the violation would likely be enough to deny Manigault Newman a security
clearance if she ever wishes to work for the federal government in the future.
What has
the White House said?
"The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation
Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security," said White House press secretary
Sarah Sanders. She added: "Then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack
of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee."
I agree with your analysis. In addition, President Putin does not want to ruin the US
economy as doing so could have catastrophic ripple effects across the globe. What he does
want is to neuter the US government so it cannot so easily continue to make war, which
indirectly will weaken the Israeli state to the same.
Those people who have their monies in sound, diversified investment houses (ie:
Schwab, Canada's TD Bank) will weather the financial storms but houses such as Glodman's
and all the other speculators will most likely lose everything while bankrupting most of
the US government itself.
If it goes far enough and and the US government under the current set of Republican
loons decide to shut down Social Security and Medicare under such stresses, it will most
likely be game over for the government at that point allowing the UN to come in a reorder
the mess the US has made of itself; hopefully under Russian directives...
That the 'storm' is coming, needs no elaboration, because this spending spree the US
has indulged in, can, on any REAL planet, simply not go on indefinitely, ...
...and Russia isn't the only country, divesting themselves of this highly toxic brew
of the US' 'reserve currency', other countries are doing it too, namely China.
If the grapevine is to be given any credence, Japan is ALSO trying, with ever greater
desperation, to divest themselves from the US dollar, but because their economy is so
much tighter strung to the US', this diversification isn't going to happen without some
major 'pains', ...
The ones, who are going to bear the brunt of the US financially collapse, ...like it
happened during the GFC, are the Europeans, Africans and South Americans, who's economies
aren't endowed with either such resilience, ...like the Russian economy, or with such
size, ...like the Chinese economy.
Sounds like they're preparing for the possibility that this will one more bit of ammo
that the US will use against Russia. If you recall, they've made noises about it in the
past. Putin's trying to cover against all possible infringements of Russian freedom and
business by doing this. It's a smart idea to get the companies using the alternative to
SWIFT before it becomes necessary. It is also good news that Russian companies and
civilians are not specifying dollars for their loans. Smart thinking!
Yes, the Russians took the lemons of the sanctions and made lemonade - re-creating
their exports by diversifying into agriculture, industrial and technological equipment,
meat, dairy and other items. As for tourism, they are rated very high with St. Petersburg
being high on the list of 'want to visit' cities. The World Cup brought the truth out to
fans of how great, friendly and safe the country is. I'm sure they'll survive whatever
the US throws at them with elan.
And they need to be. I don't see the US softening their attitude anytime soon. No
matter who wins the midterms, the loser will blame their loss on Russian meddling, so
this will continue on - we've got at least 2 more years of the shit, possibly 4 after
that, if Trump runs and wins again. I myself am tired of all this - it will only be the
loss of the dollar as world currency that ends this and that's started happening already
and will be speeding up as more sanctions and tariffs come into play worldwide.
"... Moscow. July 27. INTERFAX.RU - Russia is not giving up the dollar, because at the
moment it is the universal reserve currency to which there are no full-fledged
alternatives, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Russia is not abandoning the dollar, the dollar is the universal reserve currency.
The Euro could more or less claim that status, but not fully. Therefore, we are perfectly
aware what the dollar represents today," he said at a press conference on the results of
the BRICS summit in South Africa, answering the question on reduction of investments of
the Russian Federation in US Treasury bonds.
"As for the reserve currencies in general, regional reserve currencies already emerge.
In a sense, this is the role that the Russian ruble plays in relation to the CIS or
EurAsEC countries. But in general, any national currency is strong and good if it is
backed by an equally strong and good economy. We must proceed from these fundamental
facts", said the President.
...
... "
Russia wont drop a dollar, do drop a dollar means surrender to China...Putin wont
allow China to progress over Russia, Chinese economy dropping with the speed of light
anyway...
In reply to Dennis, I think he is right on all counts, but, in the end, the U.S.
national debt coupled with ten times the "unfunded liabilities" is going to completely
tank the dollar, and nothing short of Americans demanding our government beg to be
allowed in the now dozen or more "real, gold capitalized banks" of the world, and being
accepted only because we do have some gold, and it would be security, and at the same
time, the U.S. returning to "capitalism", not a form of trade, but natural law in the
realm of "value added trade", something socialists have had to learn the hard way, and in
teaching the lesson, our own considered themselves 'above that issue', never allowing
themselves to dream of what could, would, and has happened, the actual taking up of this
natural law, and re-securing world trade out of being manipulable by the power brokers,
bankers and central banks, and once again, answering to the singular stable value that
has served humanity for millennia.
There is a way, and reason for "allowing America" to join, we've taxed the whole of the
trading world with inflation since 48, we've reduced the dollar from 22.50 per ounce to
35.00 between 33 and 48, and from that to floating around 2000, depending on our
government's manipulations on commodities markets, and oil in particular, and the world
would be better off if it could recoup some or all of the pillage my government has done,
outside the country.
As to "buying gold while it is down, I've bought much silver, for security, at 22.00 an
ounce, later at 19.xx per, and recently, at 14.xx per, as nations sell off metals to
provide liquidity in their markets. The metals have real value, and we can only guess the
probable future value of the paper, so securing one's place on a continuous, ongoing pace
means one will get better value one week, and perhaps lesser value the next, but
regardless, all its value is secure, in a way paper never can be.
In the mid-19th century, a cattle rancher with history and reputation of honesty by long
practice, could scribble a note on the back of a shingle, a check, buying cattle, and the
person taking the shingle in exchange for a herd, could take the shingle to the town
bank, and get gold in the amount denoted on the rancher's signature on his, scrap wood
"check".
Gold and silver "certificates" were issued to make money more easily carried, but they
acclimated people to the idea paper can hold real value. The people, we, humans, forget,
all the value is in the words put on the paper, and trust in the Person upon whose
signature that value is secured by. Informal, on scrap paper, scribbled, we never forget
it merely represents a pile of gold, and we don't let just anyone trade a scrap of
shingle for a herd of cows, only those we know by experience, we, personally, can trust.
We can never trust fancy printed paper, special, illegal to make, except the one who
makes it for money, and we should know by the kind of paper, the fancy special ink, and
the "flourishes", it was never intended to represent money, but to replace it on its
face, without having to carry the real value, which then can be kept, stolen, when paper
is lawful to own, and gold is not.
Satan didn't tell Eve "you won't die, God lied to you", he merely asked, "surely you
won't die?", implying God must love her too much to fulfill His word. The lie was all in
Eve's mind, Satan merely gave her opportunity to lie to herself, and our monopoly money
system is exactly the same kind, and form of enticement to lie, that puts the onus of the
lie upon ourselves, in accepting pretend money.
All great lies are made by those desirous of the power, or wisdom, wealth, ease, but
don't wish to fulfill God's promise, "you will earn your daily bread by the sweat of your
brow", but know so many who will fall for deceit in hopes of getting something more than
they earned. Those who doggedly tie their lives, their honor, and their fortunes to God,
and their faith, won't fall for the game, and are the exact enemies of the evil, because
they prove the truth and the lie in their everyday work.
America has walked a long dark way down that broad and wide path, and we are right close
to the point of no return. I don't know which side of that point we're on, time will
tell, but I pray we are short, and can still be saved if we choose to turn to right.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro ,NC, USA
Those who are looking for a swift collapse of the dollar will probably be mistaken.
Instead a whole series of events is gradually eroding its world power. These events
include the rise of China as the world supremo of trade, the increasing isolationism of
the US in world trade and diplomacy, and the need for US to keep increasing its Fed rate
which in turn makes its debt servicing more unsustainable
Russia pays the [huge] cost of remaining a nation, a civilization and a state ~Vladimir
Putin.
Putin Slams US: "The Biggest Mistake Russia Ever Made Was To Trust You"
This is a clear attempt top abuse the dominant position of the USA in the world. For Russian
this is powerful blow in the torso, Will it be knockdown remains to be seen. Also as a weaker
party Russia can's afford a powerful counterstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... "Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas" ..."
"Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth,
hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the
one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans
of Washington and its chihuahuas"Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey 14 hours
ago | 2,909
85 More sanctions
from the USA using the Skripal affair as an excuse without a shred of evidence, based on hype,
hysteria and hearsay. Back-door economic warfare.
Surprise, surprise. The USA invokes a law from the 1990s claiming that it has to impose
sanctions when a country crosses a chemical or biological line, in this case an invisible one
with no proof, no law case, no due legal process, just an allegation from wonderful British
intelligence that the Kremlin was involved in the Skripal case. Proof? None actually...none at
all. Just a vague blanket statement along the lines of "They have done it before and they have
said they will take out traitors and in the absence of any plausible alternative, they must be
guilty". For Washington, after months of vacillating, stating the obvious that it is very
complicated to apportion the blame when nobody knows which novichok was used, where it was
produced and in the total absence of any trail linking it to the Kremlin, we get the idea that
we are looking yet again at the wonderful British intelligence of the type that Colin Powell
used to justify the USA's illegal and murderous act of butchery against Iraq. The type of
intelligence which resembles a decade-old doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the net and
sexed up by Downing Street.
And here they are again, the dynamic duo. Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of
truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to
derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil
hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas.
Drawing the time line at the beginning, let us analyze what is happening and let us see the
movie developing from a distance. The political system in vogue at present is the corporatist
model controlled by the $inister $ix $isters which control the policies of Washington and its
chihuahuas, namely the BARFFS (Banking, Arms, eneRgy, Finance, Food, Pharma/DrugS Lobbies). The
BARFFS live off resources and as history has shown us when they have none themselves, they
invade countries and steal them. Ask Africa, the victim of a silent Holocaust which claimed
seventy million lives.
Russia for them is kosher when it is ruled by something that bends over when told to and
allows foreigners to steal the country's resources. Russia for them is not kosher when someone
like Putin comes along, slams his fist on the table and says loud and clear that Russian
resources are for Russians, managed by Russians. What the BARFFS want is to see Russia divided
up into, say, one hundred micro-states each one with a BARFFS-friendly government allowing
foreigners to syphon off the vast resources of this country.
The game starts with promises made to the then-USSR about friendly relations, about NATO not
encroaching eastwards, about a new world order based on partnership. It then quickly morphs out
of control with the help of the media, using buzz-words and expressions such as "collapse of
the Soviet Union" (absolute nonsense, it did not collapse, it transformed from the Union to the
Commonwealth as per the terms of the Third Soviet Constitution, without consulting the people,
or has everyone forgotten that?). There then ensued acts of provocation in the Balkans, and
then in Russia itself (Chechnya), then on Russia's frontiers.
Before Georgia in 2008 we had a spectacular example of war crimes and an illegal invasion of
Iraq to test the waters, where military hardware was deployed against civilian structures,
where fields of cereals were strafed by NATO aircraft to starve families, where Depleted
Uranium was deployed leaving swathes of territory poisonous; beforte this we had the illegal
interference in the Republic of Serbia, backing terrorists (Ushtria Çlirimtare ë
Kosovës, UÇK or KLA) and the illegal act of kidnapping and subsequent
manslaughter/murder of Slobodan Milosevich, who died in custody while being held illegally and
without being found guilty of any of the crimes leveled against him.
With Georgia we had another act of provocation in which Georgian forces attacked Russian
peacekeepers in South Ossetia and were building up to do the same in Abkhazia, territories
which under the Soviet Constitution had necessarily to have status referendums on which way the
people wanted to go and into which Republic they should integrate. Georgia refused to hold
these referendums.
And since Georgia we had Libya, a shocking act of barbarity in which NATO interfered in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, sending the country with the highest Human Development
Index back into the dark ages, fragmented and crawling with terrorists. Not to mention
Afghanistan, started in 2001 and ongoing, where "allied" troops are photographed guarding opium
fields, where opium production has risen and where Talebaan fighters are seen escorting NATO
convoys, paid, like WTF?... and not to mention Syria, in which the same side once again allied
itself with terrorists as it did in Libya, terrorists which raped little girls before and after
they were beheaded, which raped nuns savagely in every orifice of their bodies, which impaled
little boys on stakes and which ripped the hearts out of Syrian soldiers and bit into them.
So we see what we are up against. And if all that were not enough today we have the idiotic
acts of provocation in the Baltic where a handful of NATO soldiers are cavorting around like
toy soldiers claiming to keep their countries safe. From what? Jupiter? Ah and yes, we have
Ukraine as the latest act of provocation.
It started off well before the so-called protests in Independence Square, Kiev with
subversion and organization of protesters who took to the streets in November 2013 and in late
February 2014, shots were fired from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraine on the protesters in the
square below to create a "cause", the democratically elected President was ousted in an illegal
coup, massacres were perpetrated against Russian-speaking Ukrainians (this story seems to have
disappeared from the Western media) and Fascists shouted slogans such as "Death to Russians and
Jews". As a reaction, Russian-speaking Ukrainians defended themselves in South-East Ukraine and
in the absence of the due legal force in the Republic of Crimea, the Legislative Assembly, now
the organism with due legal force, organized a referendum on status and over ninety per cent of
the population (Russians) voted to reintegrate Russia. It's called Democracy. Maybe Washington
and its chihuahuas should try it some time.
What the BARFFS wanted Russia to do was to roll over, drop its pants and say "sock it to me,
babe". With another leader, that might have happened. Not with Putin. So now we have instead,
economic warfare with sanctions, more sanctions and increased sanctions, trying to tie a knot
around Russia's throat and tightening it, now linking Crimea to Abkhazia to South Ossetia, to
state-sponsored terrorism without a shred of respect for the law and the facts. It is by now
crystal clear what the West wants.
It wants to strangle the Russian economy to create unrest in Russia and create political
movements against Putin. It then wants to instal a west-friendly government which will see
Russia fragmented, sooner or later, into a myriad of republics, each one with their resources
controlled by foreigners.
That is what the sanctions are about. Let us see whose side God is on.
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war
was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the
bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering;
on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a
fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched
down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers
and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they
swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with
stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest
intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in
the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of
Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which
moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured
to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a
stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of
sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church
was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams --
visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing
sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the
surrender!
Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of
glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors
and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to
win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a
war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed
by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with
glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:
God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate
pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an
ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers,
and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in
the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong
and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and
to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his
eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet,
his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy
face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and
wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side
and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence,
continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent
appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of
our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled
minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound
audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he
said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the
house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the
prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I,
His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import.
For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who
utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed
his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one
uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all
supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would
beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon
your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which
needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor's crop which
may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by
God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you
in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant
that it was so! You heard the words 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is
sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words.
Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for
many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow
it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He
commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle -- be
Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our
beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody
shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of
fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help
us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the
wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in
summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee
for the refuge of the grave and denied it --
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract
their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain
the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble
and contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of
the Most High waits."
--
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in
what he said.
The rest of the world needs to rally around Russia. Regular Americans have no voice in
this insanity. Contacting Representatives/Senators does no good. The neocons, run by you
know who, seek to destroy Russia b/c they can't control Putin. The neocons are
psychopaths and care not about US or other lives nor even the interests of citizens -
they want war. Hope Putin can dodge this with China and the other BRICS.
http://theduran.com/us-sanc...
Hitler's plan for Russia was called "General Plan Ost."
After being conquered, the country up to and including the western third of Siberia was
to be carved up into a series of administrative regions like "Muscovy", "Ukraine" and
others, and exploited. The remaining two thirds of Siberia was to be given to Japan.
There was a special plan for Crimea because of its favourable climate. Cities like
Leningrad and Moscow were simply to be erased as serving no useful purpose in the Plan.
Moscow was to be submerged under an artificial lake.
The population of 200 million was to be reduced by "natural" means, ie starvation.
Different figures were given of the numbers who would have to die. 45 million, initially.
But ultimately only 15 million young Russian men and women would need to be retained as
slave labour.
The country would be comprehensively looted and run as a resource colony, supplying its
colonial overlords with grain, oil, timber and metal ores.
Of course, in the event the Plan was never carried out. Things didn't quite work out
according to the power point presentation. But like they say, it's the thought that
counts.
The western plan for the Russian Federation is broadly similar, except in the details.
They probably wouldn't bother submerging Moscow in an artificial lake. These plans came
very close to being realised and put into effect in 1941 and 1991. That these things did
not come to pass is not the result of any natural law. If circumstances had been slightly
different, all these things would now be part of the historical record. Maybe if the
weather had not been so severe in 1941. Or if German leadership and planning had been
slightly better. Or if some quisling stooge had come to power after the 1990s instead of
Putin. Any of these things could easily have happened. And Russia would just have been a
half forgotten memory, like the ancient civilisations of Central and South America.
And that is why Russia needs to stop referring to its "western colleagues and
partners."
What Russia is like today, with it's leader Vladimir Putin ,was meant to be .I firmly
believe this.
From the Sleeping Prophet Edgar Cayce sometime in the 1930's
"Through Russia comes the hope of the world. Not in respect to what is
sometimes termed Communism or Bolshevism -- no! But freedom -- freedom! That each
man will live for his fellow man. The principle has been born there. It will
take years for it to be crystallized; yet out of Russia comes again the hope of
the world." ~ Edgar Cayce
You could be right, but Russia has had some disastrous leaders in the past - Yeltsin,
Gorbachev, going back to Kerensky, or Tsar Nicholas. Not necessarily evil or corrupt,
maybe well meaning, but disastrous leadership. Imagine if someone of that kind was at the
helm now, someone like Merkel/ Macron/ May. It could have happened, and Russia would be
just like Ukraine today...
"Bring Them on and Let's See Whose Side God Is On!"
LOL, sounds like Erdogan who recently said "They have Dollars, we have our God".
Funny social media comments followed, such as; "Maybe God should be appointed our
economy minister". .. "As if 'they' don't have any God"... "Is God a Turk?" (which is
funny because "Allah" is an Arab God).
But religious people are totally unable to question; only they believe in the right
religion, in the right God and only they are God's favorite people. Everybody else is
doomed.
Russia must learn to counter the sanctions threat. If sanctions result in Russia
correcting the errors in how her money system functions (these all stemming from the
world banking monopoly which only ever issues money as an ever-increasing and ever more
dragonian burden on nations and people) then it will lead to prosperity based on Russia's
own vast natural resources, her own increasing production capacities and the material
requirements of her people. When Russia sweaps aside all the lies that the global banking
monopoly relies upon Russia will not only be truly free and prosperous, it will lead the
rest of the world in a better and more secure economic future.
Sanctions on Russia is of lesser importance than interest level
Let us say sanctions increase machinery cost for a farmer with 10%, so a $50,000 machine
will cost $55,000. That is $500 per year (downpayment 10 years)
While 1% interest on $500,000 (all his debt) is like $5000. Today's 15% interest on
$500,000 will be $75,000 per year.
Farmers need more sanctions anyway
Japan was loaded down with so many sanctioned that it had no choice but to attack
Hawaii. That was the plan after all - but the American people never found out about it
till - Now. Russia has more than a few hundred - Zero's to attack its enemy with. It's
another Washington game and once again the people of the US - are out to lunch.
The American people are brainwashed by their media about all this. They are swallowing
the lies b/c they don't get enuf alt media and even there, not enuf is reported. Most
still believe Crimea was militarily taken over by Russia. Keep getting the truth out.
God favors truth,I don't expect the racists blinded in their zeal,can concieve the
virtues of the real deal christain faith,not for the faint minded,nor them purists who
assume justice is easier said then done!
General Grant, who participated in the war against Mexico as a junior officer, said he
believed the Civil War was God's inevitable punishment for that act of illegal
aggression.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case
Unless you are talking that angry, vindictive, bloodthirsty, pedophilic "god", of the
Babylonian End of Times Death Cult.
Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end.
Putin and Trump are in bed with the pedophile evil of Israhell!
So it is obvious, the "God" which WASHINGTON DC/USA, Moscow and the Russian Orthodox
Church serves, is not the God, who is the Father, of Jesus the Christ, who did not say
crawl in bed with the Holocausting pedophiles!
Maybe Moscow's/ USA/WASHINGTON DC's God's name is Shekels.
"Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end".
Now John, as your friend who agrees and sympathizes with your righteous anger, surely
that's not exactly what he said? As I recall, he warned that it would better for such
people if they were drowned. The implication seems to be that God will punish them
severely - either now or, more likely, in the afterlife.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
All the Jews are screaming Fascist today
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case !
They are trying with all their deceptive stupidity,to project an image of Israhell
that is totally false. The little poor innocent insignificant Israhell that hurts no one
and minds its own business. Deception and evil is in their dna.
It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to
continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of
Samantha
Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in
control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement
in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.
The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
announced
on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations
between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign
policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now,
they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating
Washington and Moscow.
The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador
Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran
but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so
much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into
the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion
between Russia and Trump.
This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats
of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.
Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest
sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas
turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration,
however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.
In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will
no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be
implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it
destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.
Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination
Act of 1991.
The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the
now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that
conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.
However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of
the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a
letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.
Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty
among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia.
But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even
though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.
Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by
Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian
involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.
The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council,
the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.
The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."
Strangely, a government research
facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain
of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and
the Public Health England.
Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison
had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.
It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many
NATO countries for years after
the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector
in the 1990s.
The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly
were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President
Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical
capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.
All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning
of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any
evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the
country.
It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up
to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.
With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect,
it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse
for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral
world order being challenged more than ever.
The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration,
and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian
nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict
with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but
the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.
F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.
Marxism provides one of the best analysis of capitalism; problems start when Marxists propose
alternatives.
Notable quotes:
"... Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo ..."
"... I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods. ..."
"... The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system. ..."
"... any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain. ..."
"... dirigiste regimes ..."
"... With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international ..."
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. ..."
"... US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital. ..."
C.J. Polychroniou: How do you define imperialism and what imperialist tendencies do you detect as inherent in the
brutal expansion of the logic of capitalism in the neoliberal global era?
Prabhat Patnaik: The capitalist sector of the world, which began by being located, and
continues largely to be located, in the temperate region, requires as its raw materials and
means of consumption a whole range of primary commodities which are not available or
producible, either at all or in adequate quantities, within its own borders. These commodities
have to be obtained from the tropical and sub-tropical region within which almost the whole of
the Third World is located; and the bulk of them (leaving aside minerals) are produced by a set
of petty producers (peasants). What is more, they are subject to "increasing supply price," in
the sense that as demand for them increases in the capitalist sector, larger quantities of them
can be obtained, if at all, only at higher prices, thanks to the fixed size of the tropical
land mass.
This means an ex ante tendency toward accelerating inflation as capital
accumulation proceeds, undermining the value of money under capitalism and hence the viability
of the system as a whole. To prevent this, the system requires that with an increase in demand
from the capitalist sector, as capital accumulation proceeds, there must be a compression of
demand elsewhere for these commodities, so that the net demand does not increase, and
increasing supply price does not get a chance to manifest itself at all.
Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on
the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was
done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement
of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the
"drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken
away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo . The income of the
working population of the Third World, and hence its demand, was thus kept down; and
metropolitan capitalism's demand for such commodities was met without any inflationary threat
to the value of money. Exactly a similar process of income deflation is imposed now upon the
working population of the Third World by the neoliberal policies of globalization.
I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for
imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the
threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make
the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the
contemporary periods.
We recognize the need for a reserve army of labor to ward off the threat to the value of
money arising from wage demands of workers. Ironically, however, we do not recognize the
parallel and even more pressing need of the system (owing to increasing supply price) for the
imposition of income deflation on the working population of the Third World for warding off a
similar threat.
The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and
bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into
globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing
an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate
the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the
Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system.
Those who argue that imperialism is no longer a relevant analytic construct point to the
multifaceted aspects of today's global economic exchanges and to a highly complex process
involved in the distribution of value which, simply put, cannot be reduced to imperialism. How
do you respond to this line of thinking?
Capitalism today is of course much more complex, with an enormous financial superstructure.
But that paradoxically makes inflation even more threatening. The value of this vast array of
financial assets would collapse in the event of inflation, bringing down this superstructure,
which incidentally is the reason for the current policy obsession with "inflation targeting."
This makes the imperialist arrangement even more essential. The more complex capitalism
becomes, the more it needs its basic simple props.
I should clarify here that if "land-augmenting" measures [such as irrigation, high-yielding
seeds and better production practices] could be introduced in the Third World, then,
notwithstanding the physical fixity of the tropical land mass, the threat of increasing supply
price -- and with it, [the threat] of inflation -- could be warded off without any income
deflation. Indeed, on the contrary, the working population of the Third World would be better
off through such measures. But these measures require state support and state expenditure, a
fact that Marx had recognized long ago. But any state activism, other than for promoting its
own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not
surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance
capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of
obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own
domain.
The post-decolonization dirigiste regimes [regimes directed by a central authority]
in the Third World had actually undertaken land-augmentation measures. Because of this, even as
exports of commodities to the metropolis had risen to sustain the biggest boom ever witnessed
in the history of capitalism, per capita food grain availability had also increased in those
countries. But I see that period as a period of retreat of metropolitan capitalism, enforced by
the wound inflicted upon it by the Second World War. With the reassertion of the dominance of
finance, in the guise now of an international finance capital, the Third World states
have withdrawn from supporting petty producers, a process of income deflation is in full swing,
and the imperialist arrangement is back in place, because of which we can see once more a
tendency toward a secular decline in per capita food grain availability in the Third World as
in the colonial period.
There is a third way -- apart from a greater obsession with inflation aversion and a yoking
of Third World states to promoting the interests of globalized finance rather than defending
domestic petty producers -- in which contemporary capitalism strengthens the imperialist
arrangement. It may be thought that the value of imports of Third World commodities into the
capitalist metropolis is so small that we are exaggerating the inflation threat from that
source to metropolitan currencies. This smallness itself, of course, is an expression of an
acutely exploitative relationship. In addition, however, the threat to the Third World
currencies themselves from a rise in the prices of these commodities becomes acute in a regime
of free cross-border financial flows as now, which threatens the entire world trade and
payments system and hence makes income deflation particularly urgent. Hence the need for the
imperialist arrangement becomes even more acute.
Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that
"McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely,
this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still
alive and kicking?
The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported
financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world
through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce
among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the
phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific
truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of international
finance capital which is interested in preventing any partitioning of the world, so
that it can move around freely across the globe.
Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which
is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance
capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The
US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the
interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a
German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.
Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity
or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is
international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital.
So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a
different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se . The latter,
though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention all over the
world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the
imperialism of international finance capital.
Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a
vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both
of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism
has gone beyond.
... ... ...
One final question: How should radical movements and organizations, in both the core and the
periphery of the world capitalist economy, be organizing to combat today's imperialism?
Obviously, the issue of imperialism is important not for scholastic reasons, but because of
the praxis that a recognition of its role engenders. From what I have been arguing, it is clear
that since globalization involves income deflation for the peasantry and petty producers, and
since their absorption into the ranks of the active army of labor under capitalism does not
occur because of the paucity of jobs that are created even when rates of output growth are
high, there is a tendency toward an absolute immiserization of the working population.
For the petty producers, this tendency operates directly; and for others, it operates through
the driving down of the "reservation wage" owing to the impoverishment of petty producers.
Such immiserization is manifest above all in the decline in per capita food grain
absorption, both directly and indirectly (the latter via processed foods and feed grains). An
improvement in the conditions of living of the working population of the Third World then
requires a delinking from globalization (mainly through capital controls, and also
trade controls to the requisite extent) by an alternative state, based on a worker-peasant
alliance, that pursues a different trajectory of development. Such a trajectory would emphasize
peasant-agriculture-led growth, land redistribution (so as to limit the extent of
differentiation within the peasantry) and the formation of voluntary cooperatives and
collectives for carrying forward land-augmentation measures, and even undertaking
value-addition activities, including industrialization.
Small Third World countries would no doubt find it difficult to adopt such a program because
of their limited resource base and narrow home market. But they will have to come together with
other small countries to constitute larger, more viable units. But the basic point is that the
question of "making globalization work" or "having globalization with a human face" simply does
not arise.
The problem with this praxis is that it is not only the bourgeoisie in the Third World
countries, but even sections of the middle-class professionals who have been beneficiaries of
globalization, who would oppose any such delinking. But the world capitalist crisis, which is a
consequence of this finance-capital-led globalization itself, is causing disaffection among
these middle-class beneficiaries. They, too, would now be more willing to support an
alternative trajectory of development that breaks out of the straitjacket imposed by
imperialism.
The Founding Fathers had someone just like Donald Trump in mind when they
banned any and all emoluments to the president from any foreign or state
governments
Conservatives, we are constantly told, believe in strict adherence to the
Constitution based primarily on the text and secondarily on the views of the
Founding Fathers, who wrote and breathed life into our founding document. If
conservatives really were "originalists," they would be the first to say that
Donald Trump is exactly the kind of president who ought to be impeached.
The Founding Fathers, savvy students of history and human nature, were
highly attuned to the risks of public corruption -- actual or perceived -- and
inserted language into the Articles of Confederation and later into the
Constitution to guard against such human frailties. They wanted to make sure
that anyone who held a public office would serve only one master: the American
people.
A farewell to kings
For the Founders, public corruption wasn't just a theoretical danger. They
viewed it as the primary threat to their independence. Living in a small,
fledgling country, the Americans feared that the European powers would seize
control of the American democracy by flattering and bribing our officials.
The kings and princes of Europe were masters of the art. The British king
had corrupted Parliament by providing titles and sinecures, a major
contributor to the split between the colonies and Britain. The true history of
the 1670 Treaty of Dover had just been published, which revealed that King
Louis XIV of France had bribed Charles II of England with a secret pension, a
beautiful and beloved French mistress, and a promise of protection. In
exchange, Charles had agreed to convert to Catholicism and to join Louis in
his costly and fruitless war against the Dutch, his former ally.
During the Constitutional Convention (
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
),
Gouverneur Morris (who is regarded as the chief architect of the presidency)
argued that receiving such emoluments would justify impeachment of the
president: Because the president would not have a lifetime office or income,
Morris said, "he may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and
no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the
first Magistrate in foreign pay, without being able to guard against it by
displacing him."
It seems the Founding Fathers had Donald Trump (or someone very like him)
in mind when they wrote those clauses into the Constitution. They were
concerned about our government officials being corrupted by foreign or
domestic powers. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Paper #73 (
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers
)
that the domestic emoluments clause was designed to keep the president
independent and incorruptible.
'Appealing to his avarice'
"In the main," Hamilton argued, "it will be found that a power over a man's
support is power over his will."
With the emolument ban in place, "they can neither weaken his fortitude by
operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his
avarice," Hamilton wrote.
The key passage in the Constitution is Article I, Section 9: (
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-sect
-)
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent
of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any
kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The point of this clause is to prevent any foreign power from gaining
influence over the U.S. government by providing gifts, titles, jobs or other
benefits to its officials.
No exceptions
Article II, Section 1 (
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-sect
)
specifically limits the president and does not allow Congress to approve
exceptions: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the
Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
The point of this clause is to prevent the Congress or any of the states
from gaining undue influence over the president by lining his pockets.
Note that these prohibitions don't require a legal finding of bribery. The
Constitution doesn't say payments are OK as long as there's no quid pro quo.
Such "emoluments" are unconstitutional, full stop.
The only real point of dispute between Trump's defenders and his critics is
over the meaning of the word "emolument." Trump's lawyers say (
http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Defendants-Motion-to-Dism
)"emolument"
means only the money that is earned for holding an office (and not for renting
a room or granting a lease). His critics say "emolument" means any profit,
advantage, gain or benefit.
It's interesting that Messitte's ruling relies heavily (but not
exclusively) on an "originalist" approach. He notes in his opinion that the
preponderance of the evidence shows that the common meaning in 1787 of the
word "emolument" was any "profit," "gain" or "advantage." Nearly all
dictionaries of the day followed this definition, and many authors and
politicians at that time also used that definition. Trump's alternative
definition has almost no contemporaneous support, the judge ruled.
Messitte's ruling may be overturned, of course. There is considerable
pressure on Republican office holders, as well as conservative jurists, to
ignore the stench of corruption stemming from Trump's ownership of a large and
complex business that does business with governments near and far.
The Founding Fathers could well imagine that a foreign or domestic power
would try to corrupt the president. But they could not imagine that the
constitutional system they created would ever permit the president to corrupt
the Congress or the courts. Let's hope they weren't wrong about us.
'Guard against corruption'
Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, delegate to the Philadelphia
convention and first attorney general of the United States, said during the
ratification debate that the president "is restrained from receiving any
present or emolument whatever. It is impossible to guard better against
corruption."
And if the president does so, "he may be impeached," Randolph declared with
no reservations.
The Founding Fathers, in other words, would have impeached Trump in a New
York minute.
I believe Russia sees the sanctions for what they are. A crude attempt to
provoke them into a hasty reaction. It is virtually certain they won't react in a childish or inconsidered way.
Paul Craig Roberts is well behind the curve when it comes to what is
believed about the west in Russia politics.
A clue might be in the fact they have just
reduced their $ reserves to 14 billion, down from nearly 200 4 or so years ago.
Like Iran,
the Russians know the U.S.A. Is about as reliable as a third hand condom and just as
classy.
"... Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. ..."
"... The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war. I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack" on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep drifting towards actual war. ..."
"... I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave. ..."
"... Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a hostile act by Europe. ..."
"... Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again. ..."
"... Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely – then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world order. ..."
"... Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly doesn't give two hoots about. ..."
The Trump administration is hitting Russia with new sanctions punishing President Vladimir
Putin's government for using a chemical weapon against an ex-spy in Britain, U.S. officials
told NBC News Wednesday.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on a determination that Russia violated
international law by poisoning the former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in March,
officials said, a decision that was announced Wednesday afternoon by State Department.
The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis.
A second, more painful round kicks in three months later unless Russia provides "reliable
assurances" that it won't use chemical weapons in the future and agrees to "on-site
inspections" by the U.N. -- conditions unlikely to be met. The second round of sanctions
could include downgrading diplomatic relations, suspending state airline Aeroflot's ability
to fly to the U.S, and cutting off nearly all exports and imports.
Section 7 covers the sanctions that are to be imposed, which consist of initial sanctions,
and further sanctions to be imposed after 90 days if there is no compliance on the country's
part.
Initial sanctions : Ban on foreign assistance, arms sales, denial of US credit, and
exporting national security sensitive goods. (Most of this is already functionally in place
with respect to Russia).
Further sanctions : Ban on multilateral bank assistance [e.g. IMF, World Bank, the EBRD,
etc], ban on US bank loans, a near total export ban (except food and agricultural commodities)
and import ban, downgrade or suspension of US diplomatic relations, revocation of landing
rights to air carriers controlled by the government of the sanctioned country.
Reuters has a US State Department official saying that the sanctions
would not apply to Aeroflot, which some commenters have
qualified as backtracking. But I think that the official was merely talking of the initial
sanctions.
How does Russia go about removing the sanctions? The President will need to "certify" to
Congress that the country in question: (1) Has made "reliable assurances", and is not making
preparations, to use chemical/biological weapons in violation of international law, or against
its own citizens; (2) is willing to allow on-site inspections by UN observers to confirm the
above; (3) is making restitutions to the victims of its chemical/biological weapons usage.
This would basically require Russia to admit guilt for the Skripal poisoning and subject
itself to the inspections regimes that the US typically tries to force on "rogue states." In
other words, it is out of the question.
Moreover, even in the theoretical possibility that this goes through, it's not like
President Trump's "certification" will be worth anything amidst the Russiagate hysteria.
Another possibility to avoid the near cessation of trade between the US and Russia is to
have the President "waiver" the application of individual sanctions, if he can determine and
certify to Congress that doing so is necessary for the national security interests of the US;
or that there has been "a fundamental change in the leadership and policies" of the sanctioned
country. In either case, the President needs to provide a report to Congress explaining his
detailed rationale for the waiver, and listing steps the sanctioned country is taking to
satisfy the "removal of sanctions" clause.
The newspaper Kommersant has published a full draft of the proposed "Defending American
Security from Kremlin Aggression Act," which demands a U.S. investigation into Vladimir
Putin's personal wealth and whether Russia sponsors terrorism, and would impose a ban on U.S.
citizens buying Russian sovereign debt, though the U.S. Treasury publicly opposed this idea
in February, warning that it would disrupt the market broadly. Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham, one of the initiative's sponsors, says one of the draft legislation's goals is to
impose "crushing sanctions."
[Sanctions to include:]
* Banning the banks . The draft bill proposes banning Russia's biggest state banks --
Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Rosselkhozbank, Promsvyazbank, or Vnesheconombank -- from
operating inside the United States, which would effectively prevent these institutions from
conducting dollar settlements.
* Oil and gas . In the energy sector, the legislation would impose sanctions on investment
in any projects by the Russian government or government-affiliated companies outside Russia
worth more than $250 million. Businesses would also incur penalties for any participation
(funding or supplying equipment or technology) in new oil projects inside Russia valued above
$1 million.
* Lists and research . If the bill is submitted in its current form and adopted, the U.S.
president would have 180 days to begin implementing its provisions; within 60 days of
adoption, the White House would need to provide a new list of Russian individuals suspected
of cyber-attacks against the United States; the Treasury Department would have 180 days to
update its "Kremlin list" of Russian state officials and oligarchs; the director of national
intelligence would be tasked with completing a "detailed report on the personal net worth and
assets" of Vladimir Putin and his family; and the State Department would have 90 days to
determine whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
* A new Sanctions Office . In order to shore up the 2017 Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act, the draft legislation would also create an "Office of Sanctions
Coordination" within the State Department to coordinate work with the Treasury.
(1) The bill's sponsors, which include Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, and Ben Cardin,
preface their text with a call for President Trump to demand Russia stop interference in US
"democratic processes", return Crimea to the Ukraine, stop supporting the separatists in East
Ukraine, as well the "occupation and support of separatists" in the territories of Georgia and
Moldova, and support for Bashar Assad, who continues to commit "war crimes."
(2) They note that the general drift of the document is towards a consolidation of separate
anti-Russian sanctions, from the "Ukrainian" to the "cyber" ones, into a "single
mechanism."
(3) Subject to a 2/3 vote in the Senate, the bill also includes a ban on financing "direct
or indirect" steps, that have as their goal to support the attempts of "any US government
official" to take the country out of NATO. Every 90 days, the US Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Defense Minister, would be required to present a report to the relevant
committees in Congress about "threats to NATO", which would include attempts to weaken US
commitments to the alliance. Considering Trump's ambiguous feelings on NATO, this part is
primarily aimed at Trump himself.
(4) There are calls to "pressure" Russia from interfering with UN and the OPCW attempts to
investigate chemical weapons usage, as well as to "punish" Russia for producing and using
chemical weapons. This directly syncs this sanctions bill to the previous one.
The report concludes that it's not yet clear how to interpret this. In the worse case, it
could be a "preliminary application" for a UN campaign to exclude Russia from the Security
Council; alternatively, it could just be a "pragmatic" run-up to merely invoking great
sanctions, as with Iran in 1983.
***
I suppose we now also know why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15 billion
from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
For comparison,
the last time such a drawback happened (but which only lasted three weeks) was in the
immediate aftermath of Crimea.
The last time Russia pulled such a large sum out of the U.S. was just after the annexation
of Crimea in 2014, when the central bank withdrew about $115 billion from the New York Fed,
Reuters reported last year, citing two former Fed officials. Most of that money was returned
a few weeks later, after it became clear that the scope of initial U.S. sanctions would be
narrower than the Kremlin expected, according to the news service.
But I suppose this drawdown would now be permanent, since it is increasingly evident that
Iran-tier sanctions on Russia are now on the horizon.
These sanctions are either going to steadily creep in – or rush in like a tsunami if
there is a Blue Wave in 90 days, or if Trump was to be removed.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly
punish Russia is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the
economic output. Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
Moreover, as I have pointed out , Russia has
plenty of surprising ways to hurt the US as well. For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to
the US has a simple response – banning US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia,
period. It can resurrect a bill – first raised this May, since sunken in the legislature
– to impose fines and prison time
on individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window.
Some questions we should now be asking include:
1. Precisely how far is the US prepared to go? Cutting off its own trade with Russia is one
thing – penalizing foreign companies that do business with Russia is something else. As
Ben Aris
notes , the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions against Oleg
Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals market. The
ideological Russiagaters need to balance their PDS/TDS against the pecuniary practicalities of
catering to finance and oil & gas interests and their lobbies.
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US sanctions
against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine precisely how
deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This sounds very close to a declaration of war. USA is beginning to throw everything it has
behind economic warfare and go "all in" forcing even its closest allies to either suffer
serious sanctions for not joining the economic attacks or to inflict self-harm by limiting
trade with Russia, Iran, and anyone else the US chooses to declare economic warfare upon.
I don't believe that this set of circumstances can continue indefinitely without a serious
realignment or a degeneration into "kinetic" warfare.
Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum
is the most appropriate place for the whole American "leadership", down to the last
man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between us and WWIII, which would be a suicide
of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable position of Putin and the rest of Russian
leadership.
It is clear to anyone with a brain that the US "sanctions" on Russia have zero chance of
changing Russia's stance on any international issues of consequence. Crimea is a good
example: it will return to Ukraine the day after the Hell freezes over. On the same date
Georgia gets South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and US-sponsored Islamic bandits win over Assad in
Syria. Thus, The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's
hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war.
I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid
for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal.
I agree. They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack"
on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get
psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep
drifting towards actual war.
There is also a lot of projection going on here: the Americans obviously perceive their
own election meddling as war by other means, and so they accuse their enemies with the very
same thing.
Russia is far too integrated in to the wider European economy, and Russia is too stronk for
sanctions to do anything. See Nord Stream II. Ignore the Israel lobby sanctions, not even the
corrupt congress critters could vote for those.
I have no idea why these new meaningless sanctions have been conjured up, maybe the Rand
Paul letter has the answer, maybe not. I think we may have some answers after the
midterms.
I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is
more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes
of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave.
Now that it is within the realms of reasonable debate, if there were a nuclear war between
the USA and Russia what targets would be hit? Would Russia hit puppet regimes such the UK,
France or Poland? Would the USA hit Iran (because if they are going to hit Russia they might
as well get Iran in there as well).
If say only Russian and USA were hit, how much of the nuclear fallout would affect
Europe?
Why, if Putin threatened Netanyahu to call off his dogs, he would have to? Actions of
AIPAC should be accountable.
Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has
reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a
hostile act by Europe.
Russia today is in a much better position to withstand sanctions. Global oil investments have
been lagging for half a decade due to low prices, and this will inevitably show up in the
coming years.
Russia in 2014 was battered by a twin storm, of which the oil price collapse was in fact far
worse. That factor is now gone.
Furthermore, a planned VAT rise next year will mean that the break-even oil price for the
Russian budget will fall to $50 after $60 this year and $67 last year, according to Alfa
Bank's analysis . Steady, impressive
improvement. So even in an event of an unexpected oil price decline, Russia is far more
prepared this time around.
Additionally, over the last 4 years, Russia's economy has indigenised to a much greater
extent than before. This is especially the case in the financial markets. Russia is simply a
lot less reliant on foreign funding. Bershidsky wrote about how more and more Russian
companies are leaving UK capital markets and returning to Russia. This process will continue
but it has already yielded results. As a country with a large current account surplus, tamed
inflation, an incredibly strong fiscal state, there is indeed very little that the US can do,
which is probably why they are reaching with ever-greater desperation.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be
partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi
has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again.
India has
always bristled at being treated as a close ally rather as a 'partner'. It has cherished it's
non-aligned movement legacy and its historically close relations to Russia. It is unlikely to
want to give up on that in order to become a subservient lapdog to US interests in the manner
that the EU has degraded itself.
China's AIIB is a good start, but the full range of new institutions must bear fruit. Some
of the BRICS ideas are good but ultimately both Brazil and South Africa are too unimportant.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Turning to Europe. Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely
– then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the
US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the
non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world
order.
America now has a "good cop, bad cop" with Trump and Congress.
Congress puts in more sanctions, but there is constraint responding too much because Trump
seems friendly, and you don't want to alienate him. Trump himself doesn't care about the sanctions, because he thinks it is leverage that he
can lift them later.
There was an article a few months ago that Trump is actually worse than Obama – even
in Obama did not supply direct weapons to Ukraine.
I think Trump plans to remove the sanctions in the next year and improve the relations
– but without any kind of timetable (his meeting with Putin is delayed already to next
year).
OT: The Turkish lira is now the worst-performing currency this year, bar none.
Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while
pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say
Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly
doesn't give two hoots about.
Turkey was not entirely foolish to believe this strategy could work. Pakistan during the
reign of Islamist military dictator Zia ul-Haq, used a similar strategy during the 1980s. He
empowered the mullahs and moved Pakistan decidedly to the hard-right in religious/cultural
terms while massively opening up the economy to speculative finance, thereby pleasing
Washington. Saudi Arabia has used this policy for a long time. For those who knew this, the
revelation that the US funded some of the most extremist "moderate" rebels in Syria came as
no shock.
So perhaps it isn't the Islamism in of itself which is the problem in Erdogan's case. What
could it be? Well, one clue is the case of Pastor Brunson. The good pastor, who under house
arrest in Turkey, is accused to be close to the Gülen cult. The official line in the
Western MSM is that Trump is trying to appease evangelicals before the midterms. I don't buy
that. He has them in the bag regardless. Gülen himself, some of you might recall, still
lives in the US despite repeated pleas from Turkey to give him back. Which is the unreliable
ally here? Curiously, Gülen's religious bent is even more Islamist than Erdogan's. He's
also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
At any rate, the demand from the US has been for Turkey to release Brunson
unconditionally. Erdogan's media has speculated that Brunson was slated to become CIA chief
in Turkey had the 2016 coup come to pass. Obviously, Turkey does not want to release him
unconditionally: it makes them look extremely weak. Well, they now got hit where it hurts.
Indeed, Trump even tweeted out new sanctions news today even as Erdogan was delivering a
speech. I don't happen to believe in coincidences. The result is that the lira lost close to
a quarter of its value in a single day. I haven't even mentioned Turkey's apparent interest
in the S-400 missile system among other matters. This, I think, is what truly irked D.C.
rather than Erdogan's human rights record or "authoritarianism", which is just the
pretext.
Make no mistake: the decline of the lira was structural from the beginning. Turkey's large
CAD made it extremely vulnerable to financial speculation from the getgo. It has now paid
that price. But this does not preclude the fact that countries which are overtly reliant on
Western financial flows to fund large current account deficits should forgo the lesson that
there is no free lunch. Erdogan made this cardinal error. Poland is not nearly as vulnerable,
but we're also in the same orbit. This is why I always laugh at the Poland Stronk memes. It's
also why I dismiss the criticism against Orban that he plays all sides, including taking
money from the EU, as politically naïve. Very few countries in this world can reliably
be called truly independent. Russia is in the process of becoming one. So is China. India is
not quite there, but it has the potential. The rest of us will simply have to balance
hegemons, while reminding ourselves of our inherent vulnerability. If we forget that, then we
just had a textbook example of what happens when we overestimate our hand, playing out in
front of our very eyes today.
Good to hear something sensible from Polish Perspective (in every sense of this
expression). I know some Poles, who tend to be reasonable people, so the policies of Polish
government always amazed me. Then again, if Polish democracy is similar to the US, the
opinions of the people don't matter at all.
There is still a long way to go before Russia, China, or any other country frees itself
from the clutches of dollar-based financial system. However, an alternative might look
parallel at the beginning, but it won't be parallel for long. Thing is, the US dollar and the
US sovereign debt have become essentially Ponzi schemes. If Russia, China, and a few others
create a "parallel" system, dollar-based Ponzi scheme folds, as the US does not have
sufficient assets to support the dollar or pay off its debt. The fall of the Empire will
likely be violent. The only thing we can hope for is that the humanity survives it.
As to EU, it missed every chance of becoming something with a spine. Too late now. In
fact, what French president once said about Arafat (he never missed an opportunity to miss an
opportunity) applies to the EU with a vengeance.
I suppose we now also now why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15
billion from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
You're making the Kremlins look smarter than they actually are. They should have done this
4 years ago. What I want to know is what happened to the proceeds from the sale? CBR data
shows that value of "foreign exchange" held by the CBR hasn't declined:
Now I can't use the Export-Import Bank insure the export of American-made products from a
swing state to Russia. Really Making America Great Again! Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Regarding India, they are asking America for a permission to keep buying Russian weapons.
Asking for a sanctions "waiver" – this is just sad. India also agreed to reduce imports
of Iranian oil. So, perhaps, not so independent anymore.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth. But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil,
our economy will shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Rohrabacher is a flake and blowhard as well. If he were in the running for Secretary of
State, he could just as easily flip and become militantly anti-Russian in order to impress
people in Washington. Appearing tough on foreigners in front of one's peers in Washington is
their prime motive. They've been like this since before the Vietnam War era.
Obviously a good read overall, but there was this one part that I found particularly well,
interesting, and actually quite surprising:
"Moreover, the mid-2020s will also see a massive influx of electric vehicles into the
global car fleet, which could lead to a final collapse in oil prices. There was practically
no real diversification: the number of industrial robots per worker in Russia is at the
level of Iran and India. Meanwhile, "effective managers" like Sechin turned out to be so
effective that Rosneft's debts exceed the value of the company itself from this year. An
acute economic crisis in a few years is almost inevitable. "
So I'm clearly not even entirely sure whether that translation is accurate, but it really
seems like you're kind of suddenly much more pessimistic on the Russian economy. Or is that
just the "best-case" scenario for Russian nationalists?
Didn't you rate Putin's "economic management" reasonably highly not a long time ago, just
before the Presidential elections? Of course compared to the situation in 2000, but
still.
You've also pointed out several times that Russia's oil dependency has been considerably
exaggerated. Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
Jon Hellevig's research and numbers as well (GDP share of oil & gas, the consolidated
budget, etc). And Polish Perspective's comment above.
So shouldn't the repeat of 2014 be kind of unlikely, if not impossible? At this rate,
Russia's remaining oil dependency should already be considerably lower by the mid-20s,
despite all those technological limitations.
You don't believe in an annual growth of 3% anymore? You seriously think there will be an
"acute crisis" in a few years?
I actually just read that even the always (or atleast recently) conservative/pessimistic
Russian authorities (in this case, the Economic Development Ministry) forecast a growth rate
of atleast around 3% beginning from 2021, after the VAT hike, some other "reforms" and
increasing spending.
At the same time, Trump his helping to push the Turkish economy off a cliff with his Twitter
account. Russia and Turkey find themselves in the same boat. So?
Israel and Netanyahu responsible for American sanctions on Russia, conspiracy makes less
sense to me than the others I read here (Israel responsible for killing Kennedy, etc). Why do
Israel want to impose American sanctions on Russia?
This week's sanctions mainly targeting Russian airlines. Aeroflot is about to buy 30
Boeing 737s from America – and now this is in danger.
In Israel, Aeroflot is the third airline, and Israeli government pays it direct subsidies
to reduce the ticket prices for places like Eilat. They allow Aeroflot to put giant Aeroflot
commercial posters along the roads and skyscrapers.
According to the news earlier in the year, Israel is negotiating to join a customs union
with the Eurasian Economic Union. How will they reconcile their own actions, with being the
one responsible for America to sanction Russia? It would be very competent 4 dimensional
chess, from people who cannot even count their illegal immigrants or deport a single illegal
immigrant, or coordinate their nationality policy with a few thousand druze. While making
America sanction Russia has no benefit for them, deporting illegal immigrants, or
coordinating with Druze has important benefits for them (yet supposedly they can do the
former, but not the latter).
At the same time, they do the opposite of sanctioning themselves.
Also if this is the case, how in Russia, nobody in the expert community is aware Israel is
responsible for the sanctions. Instead the media celebrate when it still wants to export
carrots. And if any of the Kremlin top think relations with Israel are bad, then why is
Israel allowed to operate freely in Russia.
If explanation is to do with Syria – it also does not fit. Intervention in Syria was
presented as something which would encourage West to remove its sanctions.
For Israel, Russian-American alliance would improve the situation in the region. And also
probably for Turkey and the Arabs.
Israel is terrified with an increase of Iran in Syria. The reality is that is that both
Russia and America is going to reduce presence in Syria, and Iran is going to increase it.
The problem of Russia in Syria for Israel, is that Russia's presence is only minimal, and
will allow Iran on the ground to take over the same territories that Russia helps secure for
Assad. In the current equation and stage of the war, they will be hoping Russia increases its
presence and reduces the need for Iranian forces. Problem of Assad for them is his only to
the extent of his relation with Iran, not with Russia.
Before the Trump-Putin summit, the Mueller involved FBI indicted 12 Russians, knowing full
well that they'd not be turned over to the US. This latest round of sanctions comes right
after Rand Paul's trip to Moscow, for the purpose of seeking closer US-Russian relations.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge. He
leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK, there're
Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the Russian
government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to kill two
birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government disclosure
on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the Russian
government.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions.
Seconded. Washington is too much in love with their sanctions.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
It's up to 50% of the federal budget in recent years, is funded by oil and gas revenue,
although in low oil price years the proportion can fall (to lower 40s%).
When the proportion falls, then you are by definition financing a federal budget in other
ways, which are usually less politically popular.
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
Raising pension age (as needs to often be repeated to people) is necessary and reasonable,
but raising VAT is a bad thing as in most countries.
Karlin is probably too pessimistic about oil price demand peaking in 2020s (demand for oil
probably peaking in the 2030s).
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms, reduction of size of government
sector, increase in proportion of private sector in many areas, investment in education for
future industries.
Having Russia go pirate on US copy-rite laws could be interesting. Do you think the US would
build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing Russian content, and could they
actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like back in the good old 90′s days
with Napsternik?
Russia might even make some headway with Pirate Party types. Information belongs to the
people, comrades! Also Russia switching to Linux would probably lead to an increased development of
Linux.
Looks like these sanctions will force their hand: their new narrowbody airliner was going
to have pratt and witney engines with the aviadvigatel ones only for government planes. Not
sure what the exact reasons for this were: p&w ones have a slightly higher bypass ratio,
it allows international buyers to utilise existing service infrastructure or aviadvigatel's
ability to mass produce might be crap. If the us imposes a complete export ban they'll all
have to have them.
Russia's current widebody airliner is pretty much obsolete though.
Aeroflot had benefited from collapse of Transaero. They're getting 35 planes (all Airbus and
Boeing models) from the Transaero fleet and are putting them into Aeroflot fleet this year.
With Boeing, they also had an order of Dreamliners, which they cancelled a few years ago.
Although that was just because there was a downturn in long-haul flights. New Boeing 737
orders are for building up their lowcoster "Pobeda".
For that, Russia needs to produce all types of civilian aircraft, like the USSR did.
That's hard after the 1990s, when the traitors destroyed Russian aircraft industry. There are
moves in the direction of restoring it, in cooperation with China. However, they both need to
be able to build aircraft w/o any parts from the US and its vassals. That would take 5-10
years. In fact, US sanctions pushed Russia and China in the direction of self-sufficiency
very hard. In Russian it is called "sawing off the bough you sit on". The West is really good
at that lately.
These sanctions might be a net positive for Russia in the long term, forcing them to
develop indigenous industries instead of just importing everything from the oil revenue.
Do you think the US would build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing
Russian content, and could they actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like
back in the good old 90′s days with Napsternik?
The "free market" of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify will protect good Americans from
fake news.
Presumably they can still source from Rolls Royce. The UK is a smaller economic power than
America and presumably less interested in sabotaging one of its crown jewels (never rule it
out with the UK ofc).
Russia's aerospace technology is inferior to the West, but that's irrelevant since Russia
can simply force Russian carriers to purchase Russian aircraft. Higher operating costs
relative to foreign carriers can be addressed with subsidies (or tariffs).
Prioritizing your own technology also creates the option of charting an independent
technological course. For instance, instead of building swept-wing jets with low bypass
turbofan engines optimized for transonic cruise, you could build straight-wing aircraft with
propfans optimized for low fuel consumption. You can also build supersonic aircraft and
experiment with different planforms than the boring one established by the Boeing 707.
It's kind of funny how many Americans feel threatened by Iran.
Regarding Russia as a threat at least makes a certain sense given Russia's nuclear arsenal
and ability to destroy the US.
Every time Medvedev opens his mouth, he makes me cringe. Seriously, if you're going to
proclaim an "economic war", against USA no less, then you better explain how Russia is going
to fight back and win. Smart Russians will be heading to currency exchange (
обменный
пункт ) after hearing this statement.
More fuel consumption than is usual with modern aircraft, noisier passenger cabin, more
external noise (also important for some airports with regulations restricting noisy
aircraft), less safety, etc.
It's just not competitive to operate them. Airlines have very low margins anyway, you
cannot make a profit with obsolete aircrafts.
There are a couple of new planes which Aeroflot is going to buy/buying for shorthaul
– Superjet 100 and MC-21. Karlin was blogging about these planes a few weeks ago.
Airtickets are a freemarket, and most passengers don't want to fly in unsafe old planes
like Tu-154
A single crash can be even fatal for an airline – crash of an An-148 has earlier
this year, destroyed Saratov Airlines
As a customer, I don't think there is any disgrace in buying Boeing and Airbus. All major
airlines now, and around the world, are using mainly Airbus and Boeing, and have now retired
the Tu-154.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth
AND also Ukraine's, Moldova's, Georgia's, the Baltics and the friendly countries like
Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan etcetera. If anything the US's moron, scumbag policy towards
Russia ends up doing the exact opposite of what it intends to do Ukraine, Moldova, Gerogia and
Baltics then become more financially interlinked and even dependent on Russia than they were
before.
But in the circumstances ..is guaranteed 1% or 1.5% GDP growth per year for the next
decade even that bad considering the circumstances? Every social/infrastructure element is
improving in Russia
The enemy is probably laughing his ass off at Medvedev. One simply should NOT be making
such statements as a prime-minister of Russia. Here is another fool, who doesn't understand currency markets:
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
It's fake outrage and fake unpopularity on these two issues. 18% increased to 20% is a
non-issue ( the budget is being spent significantly better than ever to offset this increase
in VAT)
A lot of nonsense about "long overdue" get's said about pension reform but this is total
BS.
Yes Russia has 48 million out of 146 million as pensioners, but the most important thing is
the unexpected , way above average increase in life expectancy . that has actually instigated
this move by the authorities.
Those approaching retirement won't suddenly have to work 1-5 years longer they can still
opt-in to the current arrangements in the overlapping period.. and with guarantees pension
increased much further to corresponding inflation levels than now.
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms
Disagree with this .the same patterns that have been shown in the last 4 years need to
continue, no radical "reform" is necessary. Small and medium sized business have gone from 10
million to 20 million people and should easily reach the target in afew years time that the
President wished for in May,credit behavior and availability is becoming more and more
western,
Instead of saying "reduction in size of government sector" you must specify exactly which
areas of state control should be privatised .too often from liberasts their focus is solely
on getting state control off critically important energy resources and distribution .nothing
else.
Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their
greatness-acknowledgers – even when it's detrimental to their own survival.
If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers – the
role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.
Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has
always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or
to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical
instruments to put on a remarkable concert – even if afterwards no one is left to
applaud.
Mice and humans are quite different, results applying to mice apply to humans less than
50% of the time. The loss rates on this, at any rate, are insane:
Of the 1348 embryos they made, eight pups were born.
Every beginning is hard. Considering that all the cutting edge research in
fertility/cloning/artificial wombs is done on shoestring budgets, the progress is amazing.
Imagine what could be done with sufficient funding.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
The West is stymied by the "pro-lifers" of the right and "bioethicists" of the left, and this
is Russia's chance. Unlike the origial M project, Russians can keep things secret, and even
if the West will suspect something, what can they do? Impose sanctions?
In the thirties, ignorant Caucasian moustacheoid gangster picked the Lysenkoists over the
scientifically correct Darwinist transhumanist eugenicists. Time to undo this mistake.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
And it will have as much impact on the outcome of the looming confrontation as the
Mengele's research had on the outcome of the WWII.
He's also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
The west has no qualms about using Islamist. Radical Islam has been used in 1950s against
Nasser's regime in Egypt. Islamist were used against secular pro Soviet regime of Afghanistan
and then against Assad's Syria, Hussain's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya. The equation is
complicate: on one side you have Israel's Yinon Plan and global neoliberal and Islamists and
on the other side you have secular national countries that try to build greater sovereignty
and stronger state.
Majority of Islamist are just useful idiots while some among the leadership are operatives
of western security services. Sometimes they break off the leash like Hamas which it does not
seem to be controlled by Mossad anymore but it still does everything from the wish list of
Israel's hard-liners.
My pet theory is that Islamist of Iran who destroyed the fast growing and developing Iran
of Shah were also used by some foreign interests in the west and/or Israel. Shah himself
believed it was the British.
You should look at history of your own country in 19 and 20 century. To what extent all
those patriots responsible for numerous and hopeless uprisings were useful idiots, dupes or
operatives of foreign interests?
Question about the Skripal poisoning–if it wasn't the Russians, then who did it?
Also, it's interesting that Sergei Skripal's poisoning has resulted in much more Western
action than Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning back in 2006 did.
' The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis. '
Now they'll have to pay the Israelis to get it for them. Does this count as aid to
Israel?
I am always puzzled to hear that lesbians require artificial insemination. I had a couple
of friends who were a bit behind schedule, and were trying hard to conceive just before the
last eggs would wither. Whatever they were doing, taking days off from work when the
thermometer said so, shoving it at any price, and so on – it could not be described as
pleasurable. So why would the lesbians not bear it if they so much need children?
On a more general note, I am puzzled as to how USSR survived between 1945 and 1989 without
fainting at the thought that Americans would not recognize annexation of the Baltic jokes,
that Russians would not be allowed to use dollars, or that Pokemon Go could be blocked in the
Russian app store. Surely, if you have a population of idiots, like USSR circa 1989, who
would think that it's their ow government blocking the dollar and Pikachu, it may gnaw at the
roots of the state. But today's Russians can guess that with Putin or without him, with
Crimea or without it, they are still seen as enemies of America, and will be treated
accordingly.
Conservatives pilloried the program, which sources said is a gift to an Orthodox Jewish
community that has pressed for government-paid fertility services for 15 years.
Orthodox leaders called the budget measure a "significant victory" for women struggling
to have kids in a community that traditionally values large families.
"This amendment will make it easier for women who would like to have children to do so,"
said Jeff Leb, a top lobbyist for Jewish nonprofits.
Guilty until proven innocent? Don't open that Pandora's box. You're gleefully piling on
the Russians now, but give a few years and the same gang might apply that principle to you in
turn. Just because they hate Russians at this moment doesn't mean they hold any love for the
rest of humanity.
Brunson's captivity had dragged for quite long already, and we heard negotiations for his
release made some progress before. However, Trump ramped up the rhetoric at a precise moment:
when Turkey announced they would not only shirk new Iran sanctions (like they did in the
past) but also were being vocal about this.
Seeing what ensued, again yes the S-400 was an irritant for a while already and certainly
cumulate with other factors but the timeline is interesting. God forbid we conclude those who
should not be named are ultimately setting the agenda here, not really the pastor's plight
under islamist thugs.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge.
He leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK,
there're Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the
Russian government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to
kill two birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government
disclosure on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the
Russian government.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow
got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested
for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic
to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky
suggest a source other than the Russian government.
That's wrong, except about the innumeracy of the majority of biologists. Evolutionary
biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of them are numerate
(like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
Evolutionary biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of
them are numerate (like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability
theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form a
semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.
(A theory that will never be formed, because Darwinism violates the very basic theorems of
probability and computation.)
Could you give an example of some probabilities? How do you calculate them and with what
assumptions?
At resent article by Fred Reed the commenter "j2″ produced some numbers but I was
too lazy and not certain that his starting assumptions were correct to verify it.
Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability
theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form
a semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.
Such complete bullshit. Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics
and an education in theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the
practical applications, better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly
deal with abstract theory. You clearly know nothing beyond high school level physics (or
anything else for that matter).
Some fields of modern physics like thermodynamics ARE basically just pure probability
theory applied to physical phenomena. If you take a random sample of research physicists from
your local university, they're much more likely to be doing statistical mechanics rather than
trying to find analytical solutions for their n-body problem and some application of
probability is usually the most important field of mathematics for working physicists.
You're right again about the Litvinenko conspiracy, Mickey. The notion that the Russian
government would want to eliminate somebody who had betrayed its secret service, written
books denouncing Vladimir Putin for giving the order to murder the likes of Boris Bereszvsky,
Anna Polikovskaya and others, accused the secret service of being behind the bombings of the
Russian apartment buildings, just doesn't add up or make any sense. The fact that Litvinenko,
while lying on his death bed directly accused Putin for being responsible for his death also
didn't lend any value that it was indeed Putin behind his poisoning. It just goes to show you
the lengths to which the enemies of Russia and Vladimir Putin will go to try and besmearch
Putin's honorable name. But they'll never be able to fool somebody with your veracity and
skillul analysis – keep up the great 'independent foreign analysis'!
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
I wasn't aware of this and am glad that you pointed this out. Another incredibly strong
reason not to believe that the Russian government was behind the Litvinenko poisoning. Isn't
it time that you wrote a book, Mickey? I know that other book authors regularly rely on your
input to write their own monographs, isn't it time that you put it all together and shared
more of your thoughts with the world? Perhaps, Karlin might let you write a chapter in his
forthcoming book 'The Dark Lord of the Kremlin'?
Anyone wants to comment on this bizarre diplomatic spat, that Greece and Russia are having?
The abrupt deterioration in relations between Greece and Russia has intensified after
Athens publicly accused Moscow of attempting to bribe state officials and meddle in the
country's internal affairs.
Athens also rejected requests for entry visas from Russian Orthodox clerics heading for
northern Greece's all-male monastic republic of Mount Athos.
The community is alleged to be a "den of spies" , with reports that Moscow has
turned the Holy Mount – widely seen as the spiritual centre of Orthodoxy – into
an intelligence-gathering operation with extensive funding of monasteries across the
peninsula.
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt
relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in
2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.
Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics and an education in
theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the practical applications,
better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly deal with abstract
theory.
Untighten your panties. That was my point, which you managed to miss by blindly charging
to M'Lady Science's defense.
Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding.
The practical stuff physicists are using for solving practical, well-defined problems is
useless here.
* Age of the universe is about 10^18 seconds.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45 seconds.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
Now assume an ideal computer. Let each atom of the Universe be a CPU, operating as fast as
physics allows.
That gives us an upper bound of 10^(18+45+82) = 10^145 CPU cycles for computation.
Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.)
If we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random
combinations.
So if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose
a Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so.
How much more complex is an E. Coli cell compared to a sonnet?
P.S. This is obvious, freshman-tier stuff unless you're blinded by ideology.
What' s to make of it? The article that you cite clearly explains what the row is all
about:
Moscow announced the move weeks after Athens banned four Russian diplomats after
accusing them of fomenting opposition to a landmark deal between Greece and macedonia,
opening up the possibility of eventual Nato membership for Skopje.
Your own bizarre explanation betrays your own Russian reasoning:
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt
relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in
2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.
My guess is that the Greek government wants to gain a powerful backer against
Brüssel.
In Greece, he very often appears in public alongside Kammenos and spreads his political
views on what is going on in the country via his Twitter account.
The influence goes so far that Pyatt unchallengedly criticizes the Greek judiciary and
demands measures against anti-American demonstrators. Tsipras administration, arguing
anti-Americanly itself at opposition times, on the other hand, fulfils every wish of the
USA. While on the other side of the Bosphorus NATO partner Turkey is pushing its dispute
with the US to the top, Greece's government is the most US-friendly since the overthrow of
military rule in July 1974: NATO interests, gas pipelines and the regional influence of the
North Atlantic defence alliance.
The coalition government of SYRIZA and the Independent Greeks agreed to the expansion of
American military bases in Greece, including the stationing of nuclear weapons. This was
not initially communicated to the public by the government, but only became known when the
Secretary General of the Communist Party, Dimitris Koutsoubas, criticized it during public
performances.
Secret diplomacy, as in the case of NATO, is also a characteristic of the Tsipras
government in resolving the name dispute with northern Macedonia and in ongoing
negotiations on border corrections with Albania. All negotiations are held in secrecy, with
reference to the protection of state interests. There is no detailed information and no
transparency regarding the reasons for the decision.
Athens is now providing NATO with the infrastructure for military bases in the event
that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan withdraws his country from the North Atlantic
Defence Alliance.
Yes, that's is the infamous Pyatt who was ambassador in Kiev during the Maidan Coup.
He has been in Athen since 2016.
The case brings to the forefront the tension that seems to have been brewing between
Athens and Moscow over the last two years, for reasons that have to do with regional
security.
Yeltsin was president when the bombings happened. Putin was only prime minister for a
couple of weeks before the tower block bombings happened. Boris Bereszvsky killed himself
(exiles are often miserable, Skripal wanted to go back) after Litvinenko, they were a couple
of losers. No, Putin is a proud man, he sent the anti terror police to arrest Gusinsky not
because of investigation into the apartment massacres of hundreds, but because that puppet
show Dolls of Gusinsky's NTV portrayed Putin in a way he hated.
Who wouldn't want to inflict a horrible death on someone who accused them of being a
paedophile? Litvinenko accused Putin of being a child molester and so Putin immediately
issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered and a month he was poisoned (like apartment
bombings, these things take a while to set up).
This brings me back to my point about Hitler & weak, foolish Eastern Europeans. Greek
government is only behaving this way because it sees no risks in antagonising Russians
whatsoever. Slapping sanctions on Greece (by banning tourism for example) might get them
thinking.
Look, I'm not passing judgement on the veracity of these accusations, that Litvinenko made
against Putler. I see that you've added another one to the list, that Litvinenko accused
Putler of being a pedophile too. All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why
Litvinenko was a target for unfriendly Rusian actions, not like our resident 'Independent
foreign Policy Analyst' Mike Averko who claims:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act.
Of course, he's a professional analytical type that always knows what he's talking
about?
Greece has been a member of NATO since 1952, it joined the European Community in 1981.
It's odd though that a Greek leftist like Tsipras is pro-American, given the strong
anti-American traditions of Greek left-wingers. But Tsipras seems to be an all-around scumbag
anyway.
how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades
Russia can start taking China's side on an ad hoc basis, e.g. sending ships to the
disputed sea and hassling US ships and planes. Russia could hassle them on the Northern half
and China on the Southern half, a nice division of labor and multiplication of hassle for the
US Navy.
Russia has enough chicken legs of its own now. They are not washed in chlorine.
Disengagement will simply remove what little influence the US has on Russia. Russia's
exports are utterly dominated by primary production which is entirely fungible. The US
exports little of high added to Russia and the EU and Switzerland, Korea and increasingly
China can replace that. Japan probably won't. Russia has been trying to play a softer game
with Japan but both sides true imperialist nature keeps on re-emerging. Like the US, Japan
has remarkably low levels of trade with Russia given the size of its economy. Switzerland
does a lot of high end complex electromechanical systems, like the Germans. The Germans are
good; The Swiss are perfect.
I'm not really sure how low prices for Turkey can become lower. It's already very
cheap.
Maybe further devaluation can contribute to the tourist market diverging more between
Greece and Turkey. More and more poorer people will go on holiday to Turkey, as it becomes
almost as cheap to go on holiday in Turkey, as it is to stay at home.
Maybe Greece can focus more on middle segment of the tourist market.
Greece had withdrawn from the NATO military structure after the invasion of Cyprus by
fellow member Turkey. If I remember rightly it was their own PM who told Greeks they had to
go back into NATO to be allowed to join the EC.
Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding.
Bullshit. I have a pretty good education in probability theory both from the theoretical
physics and mathematics departments so feel free to explain whatever point you think you have
in as technical terms and with as much abstract math as you like.
I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X,
Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me
wrong.
It will have a negative impact on domestic Russian consumption short term. It's stupid,
short sighted, and hard to reverse. Sanctions work best when used least.
"Age of the universe" is a pop sci concept. In the standard model of cosmology it is
estimated that the universe has developed from a massively dense state to the current state
in roughly 13 billion years. We can backtrack the development over that time with current
theories of physics and then we hit a wall as matter is so dense that we'd need a quantum
theory of gravity to go further back in time but we don't have that. We don't know how long
the universe existed before that, actually we don't even know if time existed in the same
manner. The earliest known state of the universe was NOT informationless (there were
variations in mass distribution etc) so your assumption that patterns would emerge only in
the following 13 billion years is false.
[MORE]
If you watch some pop sci documentary, they will explain all sorts of stuff about how the
universe was at first some tiny point and there was a big explosion that spread it all over.
This is all nonsense that was made up so that pop sci documentaries could have CGI
graphics.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45
seconds.
There is no such thing as the "smallest possible unit of time". This is complete nonsense.
You seem to get your knowledge of physics from science fiction movies.
There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small
time scales (which have not been reached by experiment). This is not the same thing as
postulating that there is some "smallest possible unit of time". Current theories of physics
simply do not include such a thing.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you
pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.
Turks are a lot more orderly and competent than Greeks. In fact, I was surprised how much
more organized Turks are: we rented a car in Ankara near railway station and returned it in
another city near airport, and they delivered the car where we wanted it and then took it off
my hands, without car rental agency at either point.
For Russians, there are two additional advantages: no visa is required (you just pay $20
at the airport, and they stick what they call "visa" in your passport), and the same services
are cheaper than in Greece.
"Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding."
The US went thru a period of noticeable politically motivated violence (in one form or
another), that among other things included the murders of the Kennedy brothers, King, X,
black children in a church, fatal Kent State shootings and the Manson involved murders.
There was absolutely no need for the Russian government to orchestrate the Moscow
apartment bombings. The evidence is non-existent, with the so-called evidence being a
put mildly creative stretch. On par with the idea that the US government sought and was
involved in planning 9/11. Terrorism from Chechnya was a clear reality before the Moscow
apartment bombings.
A disingenuous cherry pick on your part, along with empty calories sarcasm. It wasn't only
his (as has been said) sympathy for Chechen separatism, but a combination of factors, in
conjunction with that aspect.
What I said in full on this matter:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
It's a pity that the good things Macedonia is doing (like fixing its relations with Bulgaria
and Greece and starting to slowly accept the real history as opposed to the shit made up by
the Serbs, the communists and Tito) are all done for such a shitty reason like entering the
EU and NATO.
Greece has an inferior tourist industry and plenty of great European competition (Spain,
Italy, Croatia etc.)
Thanks to Cyprus, you don't even to travel to Greece if you want to be on vacation in a
Greek-speaking country.
Stick to the facts and do not reply back with your monotonous drum of often recited BS
when you don't have a credible reply, Mickey!
I was specifically pointing out the paucity of information that you provided regarding
your alternative suggestion that somebody other than Russian backed was responsible for
Livinenko's demise. As I've already pointed out, I do not pass judgments on any of the
aspersions that Litvinenko made against Putler, only that the smoking gun clearly points
towards Moscow. If you've got something better, then present it I'd try something more clever
than indicating that Litvinenko was in favor of Chechen separatists.
Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks,
designed to spin an otherwise faulty impression.
Whoa, what do we have here? Another genuine ' Averkoism '??
You indicate that I ' include mis-informative cherry picks' to spin an otherwise
faulty impression. Why yes, I guess that's what I can be contrued doing. Most
impressions that you make are faulty' ' and deserve to be rebuked, don't you think? I
think that what you meant to say was that:
Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks,
designed to spin an otherwise accurate impression.
Mickey, you don't really want to be remembered for making 'faulty impressions ' now
do you?
I have to agree with Mikhail here. I think that Litvinenko affair was like a
dress-rehearsal for the most famous, daring and successful spy operation in history –
the Babchenko affair.
You see, such a stunning operation like that takes years to perfect and for the Ukrainians
Litvinenko was just a guinea pig on whom they tested their secret intelligence (OK,
intelligence might be a stretch) operations skills.
And Litvinenko was an easy choice, the Ukrainians were sure that because of his background
– it will be blamed on the Russians.
Nevertheless, this doesn't take anything away from the professionalism and mastery that
Ukrainians displayed when they designed the Babchenko hoax. I wouldn't be surprised at all if
Babchenko success story launches a new series of spy novels – maybe about agent 008
– where 008 is the IQ of the agent.
My take too rT. Economic warfare will not play out against Russia today as it did against
Japan and Germany in the 1930′s; because while they were energy dependent, Russia has
an abundance of oil and can and will–as you say–bootstrap its own industries inso
far as they are able. They don't have to develop a surplus to trade since, like the USA 100
years ago, their population is sufficiently large to support a robust internal market.
Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores
Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would
love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.
You can read statements of their foreign ministry.
His statements to do with paranoia about Russian-Turkey relations – statement from
Greece was claiming Russia is a "comrade in arms with Turkey".
As Russia becomes friendly with Turkey – they will find an excuse to be angry, and
vice-versa.
I feel that this is one of those situations, when you need to read between the lines.
Turkey, religion and "meddling" ARE excuses for Greece. Trying to please Greece's creditors
is the real issue here. It's a literal crackwhore of a nation, living from one tranche to
another.
Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores
Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would
love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.
This is implausible, for reasons that have been discussed multiple times here, including
recently.
The idea that the Chinese will move to seize Siberia is a ridiculous fantasy.
China and Russia already in the 1990s peacefully resolved all of their outstanding
border issues.
China suffers from below replacement fertility and solved its food security issues in
the 1980s, so the era of "Yellow Peril" population pressure belongs to the distant past.
And in any case the Russian Far East is useless for agricultural purposes.
There are indeed some minerals in Siberia, but let's review some economic facts about
China:
China can buy all the resources it needs. The main threat to China's economic security
are the naval and air forces of the United States and Japan, and to a lesser extent the US
Treasury and Commerce Departments. Expanding into Siberia does exactly zero to counter any
of these threats, unless you think the Port of Vladivostok somehow enables the PLA-N to
break out into the open Pacific.
Instead it multiplies these threats by pointlessly adding Russia to its enemies and
eliminating the possibility of overland trade substituting for seaborne trade.
China is a security threat to Siberia only once the following are true:
1 – USA abandons Western Pacific in favor of hemispheric security
2 – China secures dominance over Second Island Chain
3 – China replaces USA as lynch pin of global financial (as opposed to just economic)
system
And given China's cautious attitude, that might not be enough. For instance, a USA
focused on hemispheric security would still be viewed as potentially dangerous by China
owing to its blue water navy and dominance of the "Third Island Chain".
If China displaces the USA as the world's preeminent power, then there might be some cause
for concern. But even then I'm not so sure–Russia would be Canada to China's America.
The USA and Canada have had very good relations since the 1930s.
Lebensraum with Chinese Characteristics is not going to happen.
That's not to say everything will be hunky dory in Russian-Chinese relations. There are
areas of friction like:
• Influence in Central Asia
• Chinese IP theft
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports
The CRAIC CR929 project looks great for now, but the gist of it is that while it's
designed in Russia it will be made in China. Once China matches Russia in aerospace
technology, what is Russia's role in this partnership? Seems like the most likely outcome is
that Russian industry is reduced from producing aircraft to merely being a Tier One supplier
and, perhaps, an engine supplier.
Will Russia be happy with that? I don't know. The UK decided to accept being reduced to
this status after the commercial failure of its innovative but flawed postwar airliners
cheerfully enough I suppose. Japan considered but decided against developing a complete
aerospace-industrial base, though this may be changing (MHI Regional Jet, Kawasaki P1, MHI
X-2 Shinden).
He's a svido troll as evidenced by his ongoing distortions and omissions, which include
not having a good comeback to the following:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
So, do you have even one shred of any evidence linking the poisoning of Litvinenko
with the Ukrainian secret service? If not, I wouldn't spend too much time writing your novel
about 008 and Babchenko, unless you intend it for an audience of only one gullible reader,
Michael Averko!
His ' Italian friend '? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of
their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job
too?
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to
believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made
him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If
Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with
unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there
were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest?
Why Litvinenko himself, albeit (if true) in a possible unintended way. No proof that the
Rusisan government did him in. No need to reply anymore to your rehashed trolling tripe.
Still no good answer to:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.
Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order.
Followed by IMF and ECB.
Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get
their money back.
Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them),
especially not accountants.
-
Reason for tensions with Greece, are the new relations with Turkey.
An alternative world, with a solvent Greece, they would be more angry, than currently
weak, insolvent one – considering sale of S-400 to Turkey, construction of Akkuyu for
Turkey, and recent decision for Turkstream.
Turkstream was always supposed to go to Greece, but two months ago, finally announced it's
going to Bulgaria (with no mention of Greece).
For Turkstream it's now option if it needs to go to Greece at all – it could also
reach Italy, via the Balkans.
In a Northern option that gets to Hungary and Italy over Serbia. (With no need of
Greece).
At the same time, Israel, Cyprus and Greece are probably building a rival pipeline
(probably not very economically rational), after Cyprus has discovered a gas field.
Well orderliness is not the only reason for holiday choice.
And Schengen visa is not a big deal for middle class tourists (35 euros).
Greece already has almost "too many" tourists (from around the world), for size of the
country.
Greece receives 32 million tourists this year (while Turkey receives around 40 million a
year tourism – and is six times larger than Greece in land area).
Perhaps Greece can even raise prices and market more for middle class tourists?
You missed my reply in #143 with plenty of decent replies. I don't mind reprinting them
for you, I know how prone you are to missing information that is contrary to your myopic
belief system:
His 'Italian friend' ? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of
their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job
too?
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to
believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made
him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If
Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with
unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there
were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.
I believe Russia's loss of influence there is inevitable. China has $$$; Turkey/Islamic
world has ethno/religious draw; USA has its hegemonic culture.
Russia has some fading sovok relicts, such as old political ties and the Victory Day
cult.
However, China is displacing it gently, as opposed to batting it away as the US and EU are
wont to do. This naturally makes Russia much better disposed than it otherwise would be.
• Chinese IP theft
Will become less of an issue as China converges with and overtakes Russia in many
technological areas. For instance, the realization that China's MIC is progressing far faster
than expected – without significant Russian tech transfer – has contributed to
Russia dropping its inhibitions on selling the S-400 and advanced fighters to China in recent
years. (An HBD realist could have told them as much, earlier).
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
The equitable arrangement would be for Russia to defer to China on North Korea and the Far
East in general (though economic relations with Japan should be broadened), and to require
that China do the same for Russia wrt to its Near Abroad.
But certainly a much more dominant China may no longer feel the need to honor such an
arrangement.
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports
This will certainly be an issue.
Russia's nuclear technology is much further advanced than China's (the gap is much bigger
than the rapidly dwindling one in the military sphere), and it doesn't appear to me that
China is making a major R&D push in that area. I think Russia will continue to dominate
global nuclear tech exports for at least 2-3 more decades.
Russia's current dominance of global nuclear exports is something of a fluke.
The West crippled its nuclear industry owing to pathological atomophobia. Design expertise
didn't atrophy, but construction experience did. Result was massive cost overruns and endless
delays on the few Western Gen III reactor projects. Now effectively priced out of the world
market.
Japan suffered from the double whammy of Fukushima and Toshiba getting dragged down by the
collapse of Westinghouse. Even though it's somewhat unfair, no one will now order Japanese
reactors in the near future. The Japanese elite, once truly impressive in its atomophilia and
determination to resist popular atomophobia, is no longer united on the issue either. Former
Prime Minister Junichiro Koisumi has for instance called for Japan to shut down all nuclear
power plants.
Emerging competitor is South Korea. The Koreans successfully won the project in the United
Arab Emirates, and within South Korea they have an excellent record of efficient
construction. Fortunately for Russia, the very weak President Moon is a disgraceful
atomophobe.
Thanks for your comments. I really wasn't referring to today, more to a tomorrow when
China is the world's leading economy and the USA is struggling to enforce dollar
supremacy.
You are looking at it from a wrong perspective, pal. I was simply expressing pride and
admiration for the competence of the Ukrainian Secret Services. Why can't a fellow –
even though admittedly phony – Slav like me feel proud of the accomplishments of a
Slavic country that I look upon to for inspiration and guidance?
Interesting argument but it hinges on something that is not a part of it, i.e, what is
special about the 458 letter sonnet? Your argument only demonstrates that if another world
began 10^18 seconds ago it most likely would not produce the same 458 letter sonnet but it
would produce some other sonnet which could have a meaning in this different world.
You could create similarly fallacious argument 'proving' that you cannot possibly exist.
Assign probabilities p<<1 of an event that two of your ancestors met and procreated.
What was a chance that your parent met and then go back to grandparents and so on. And soon
you will obtain cumulative probability close to zero stating exactly what? That your life
could not have happened?
I think it is east to be confused and tricked by probabilities. And this happens when we
are sloppy in defining the space of events on which the probability function must be defined.
When you are heating up water at some point there will me one molecule of H2O that will break
free and evaporate. If this molecule asked the Nancy Kerrigan's question "Why me?" and began
calculating the probability of this event soon it would have to conclude the even was
impossible. The problem is with the question "Why me?"
Thanks man, I am really trying. If I may confide in you, you know what I find the most
admiring about the Ukrainians? Your keen sense of democracy.
I mean, it took you what – barely 4 years to figure out that Yanukovych was not
democratic enough – and then boom – revolution. I mean you guys are sharp. Look
at the Russians, they have been electing Putin since 2000 and they still haven't figured out
that he is not democratic enough. You are way ahead of the game.
You know what I think? I think that one good coup is worth at least 5-6 regular elections.
So if you guys were to stage another coup within – let's say the next couple of years
– it's like you've gone through 12 regular elections of 4 years each. You know what
– if I was you I wouldn't even bother with elections, elections are for dummies, just
stick with coups and soon you'll overtake even Western Europe – democracy and economic
development wise, so you won't even need their stinking EU.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
I can't help it if you don't know the specifics about Litrvinenko's aforementioned Italian
friend. Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid
they are. Then again, part of you might recognize that, seeing your cowardly anonymous empty
calories insults.
Opposite to your shooting blanks is this precision reply:
Thek ind of Russian-American views not getting propped in US mass media. Similar to the PC
Ukrainian views getting the nod over Ukrainians thinking differently.
You're on the right track, buddy! I don't know why AP tries to continually put you in
place by pointing out that you're not really a Slav, but some sort of Balkanized Turk. Who
cares? Your last two comments indicate that you're capable of evolving your thinking patterns
much higher that the typical 97 or 98. Heck, I'd guess that you're a solid 99! Keep it
up!
Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid they
are.
I see that you're still babbling on Mickey. Isn't it time for you to do a few
rounds of kumbaya in front of your icon of Herr Putler and go to sleep yet?
As La Russophobe imagines it, Averko then sits down in the lotus position, the room lit
by a single candle beneath a large photo of Stalin, and intones his mantra several thousand
times: "I am a journalist I am a journalist I am a journalist " until he falls asleep. When
he wakes up, he heads out to his day job flipping hamburgers at Wendy's
"Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.) If
we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random combinations. So
if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose a
Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so."
The above just shows that the author is just completely ignorant of scientific, statistics
and computing principles.
First in English the occurance of letters do not have random frequencies, the frequencies
range from 0.074% for letter z to 12.702% for letter e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency
Incidentally sonnet 27 only has 80 unique words, many of which are not random but closely
related, e.g. blind, old, sight, tired, sightless, see, ghastly, shadow, darkness, expired,
eyelids, drooping, weary, bed, toil, view, night, etc. A task simple enough for markov text
sonnet generators,
I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X,
Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me
wrong.
What's the "it" in your post, exactly? Darwinism? The problem with Darwinism is
that it's not a scientific theory. It's not even formulated correctly. The problem itself is
framed by biologists in handwavey terms on a "monkeys and typewriters" level.
When one tries putting some sort of numbers to the idea, the whole thing falls apart. See
my post above, for example, where it turns out you need a Universe about 10^300 larger than
ours to make random selection work.
And before you charge to M'Lady Science's defense: note this isn't a "disproof", it's just
a demonstration that nobody bothered to frame the question properly yet. There's nothing
there that can be proved or disproved.
The actual point is that biologists framed a problem in a way that doesn't match the scale
of our Universe as we observe it.
Feel free to correct the numbers I made; maybe the correct factor is 10^100 instead of
10^300. So what? The processes biologists postulate are so asymptotic that they require an
infinite Universe, which doesn't exist in real life.
There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small
time scales (which have not been reached by experiment).
We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you
pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.
Good point, but no. You missed the point again.
Any theory that requires time or space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding
of physics isn't Darwinism. It wouldn't even be biology, because biologists don't (and can't)
deal with stuff like that.
I never assigned any special meaning to a sonnet. I merely demonstrated that the size of
the probability spaces we're traversing are unimaginable orders of magnitude larger than the
Universe we observe.
Formulating the probability spaces and functions should be step one of any biological
theory of evolution. Only then we can start talking about meanings and other philosophy.
Good point, but unfortunately Markov chains (and evolutionary algorithms) are intelligent
design, not random evolution.
They are tools for getting an answer when you know the result you want, but don't know the
steps to get it. The better you understand the result you want, the faster you arrive at a
solution.
That's a framework postulated by 'intelligent design' proponents, and rejected by
conventional Darwinist biologists.
OK, so what is the big deal about generating random string of 458 letters? Any such string
can be easily generated with the same probability from a bag full of letters. Each string is
equivalent.
Continuing on AKarlin's conclusion how Russia's future economic and foreign policy
orientation lies on the EU's response to the US's inevitable Iran-style sanctions against
Russia, I'll walk through some situations, and also state that once sanctions and adversaries
with unfriendly relations escalate to embargo and enemies with no relations on the US side,
the EU's decision at that point will be able to determine its fate for a long time to come.
1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own
whatsoever, follows US policy. This is more likely to happen if the US threatens third party
trade ties with Russia. This means that EU imposes Iran-style sanctions, and gradually turns
to more expensive US LNG for energy. This would put the EU under incredible strain, and a
large amount of state coffers would be shaved off due to these purchases; the citizens
disposable income would plunge too. On the other hand, Europe won't really collapse if the US
agrees to subsidize gas sales to the EU in exchange for joining the ideological crusade
against Russia.
In the Kissinger thread where I mentioned how a blackpilled possibility of Russia's future
lies as a vassal state, or junior partner, of China, while I may have exaggerated a little
regarding permanent PLA bases on Russia soil, it still is a slight possibility if the
oligarchs become more powerful again and also get a little desperate. However, PLA bases
aside, if the EU joins in the US on an embargo against Russia, Russia would still be cut off
from trade and other ties to its west, and inevitably having to completely rely on its east
for trade and political ties. Since even Japan/Korea trade can be a little difficult due to
their strong US ties and India doesn't really offer Russia much, except as a place to export
some goods, this leaves us with China, rendering Russia's future as China's largest and most
important vassal state.
This would also enable the EU branch of neoliberalism.txt to show their true colors as an
American vassal. Outside of Poland and the Baltics, attitudes towards Russia vary directly on
how neoliberal they feel, so in order to prevent the people from voting in non-neoliberal
parties, some "checks and balances" aka non-democracy has to be implemented to make sure
neoliberalism.txt stays via "voting". In this case, shave off a good at least 10% to EU's
white percentage in the long run also; while its unlikely for Britain and France to ever dip
below 60% white but stabilize around that point instead, a quasi-neoliberal dictatorship
would mean Eastern and Southern Europe bearing a lot of this brunt, e.g. ghettos in Warsaw
might go from a fear to actual reality. And expect the EU's economic growth to be highly
stagnant, and China, with Russia as not just a friendly state but a vassal state, would take
advantage of this to end up becoming the other pole in a bipolar world along with the US.
Unless China changes the way it conducts trade and foreign policy, this means that Russia
will likely get taken advantage of and not get too much in return, especially with
non-patriotic and greedy oligarchs still having significant power. In this case, Russia-China
relations will resemble a more predatory version of UK/Canada-US relations and Russia will
find itself to be a largely China-oriented, with Chinese tourism, businesses, language, and
other ties etc. having a very broad, visible, and dominating presence.
Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran. China will gladly take
advantage of the situation.
2. The EU doesn't cave in and continues to maintain trade and political ties with Russia.
This is the better result for not just Russia, but also the entire world. A Europe that's
able to stand up to American foreign policy, especially if its more ideological hysteria than
based on realpolitik in the case with Russia, is one that would have taken its first step
towards significantly reasserting their sovereignties. This would've also been a huge blow to
the American establishment, if not THE nail in the coffin ending American unipolarity. And
China also needs more competitors instead of a bipolar world with just China and America.
2a). Europe continues to be ruled by neoliberalism.txt as America enforces the embargo.
Sanctions won't be lifted and the status quo remains. As China gets more powerful and
European relations still cold, Russia and China will end up in a full-blown alliance, but its
status quo trade and personal ties with Europe would ensure that Russia can continue to
maintain a somewhat multi-vectored approach instead of complete subservience to Beijing. And
Russia won't be as much of a "hot potato" if not embargoed by the EU, ties with countries
like Japan and South Korea will continue unabated if not upgraded. In this case, the EU can
still be a more sovereign entity, albeit just ruled by the neoliberalism.txt ideology;
demographically, slightly better than, but no significant differences from the EU caving to
US embargo case. In this case, Russia-China relations will resemble Japan-US relations,
albeit without the military bases.
Chance of this happening? 40%.
2b). Europe undergoing a right-wing wave as America enforces the embargo. Europe in this
case will lift sanctions against Russia and ties likely even upgrade to a strategic
partnership. While Russia will not become enemies with China since it is in its best interest
to not pick a fight with the world's #1 or #2 power, its relationship will stabilize as
non-adversarial but non-aligned, a renewed strategic partnership with Europe can stimulate
Russia's economy and will ensure a multipolar world emerges in the 21st century, with Russia
as a powerful 3rd or 4th most powerful country on good terms with everybody (minus the US and
parts of Eastern Europe). Such close ties to Russia will also be a boon for Europe's economy,
and the possibility to regain their sovereignties after a century-long occupation post-WW2.
America becomes more isolated and loses its unipolarity in this case.
An unrelated side effect of this tactic is that the nonwhite percentages of Europe will
probably stabilize at or just above or below (in the case of southern Europe) current
values.
In this case, Russia-China relations won't be any special, with close trade relations,
some military cooperation, and neutral détente but inevitable minor beefs that spring
up every once in a while, like a closer and better version US-China relations pre-Trump.
Russia in this case will truly be one of the smaller poles in a multipolar world.
Chance of this happening? 30%, but this is by far the best outcome for the entire
world.
* There are 27 words of one letter and 26 letters.
* There are 635 words of two letters and 676 two-letter combinations.
* There are 4710 words of three letters and 17576 three-letter combinations.
* There are 11169 four-letter words and 456976 four-letter combinations.
* There are 22950 words of five letters and 11 million five-letter combinations.
(Oops.)
* There are 61018 words of 8 letters, but 208 billion 8-letter combinations.
Now, these are words, not texts, but you get the idea. Letter combinations grow as c^n,
while the number of English texts clearly doesn't.
1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own
whatsoever, follows US policy.
Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran.
Eh, what? It is not EUropean rhetoric that suggests that, but the gap between their
rhetoric and reality.
Europeans talk about defending JCPOA yet European big business ditches Iran and European
banks stab Iran in the back.
In recent weeks, U.S. and European intelligence agencies flagged a European-Iranian
Trade Bank request to withdraw 300 million euros from the Deutsche Bundesbank. Iran claimed
the cash is necessary so that Iranian citizens can use foreign currency when they travel,
but Western governments warned that the cash would be used to fund Iran's terrorist
proxies.
Fearing repercussions from the U.S. Treasury, the German bank decided last week to
introduce the new rules to prevent the withdrawal. This move was likely coordinated with
the German government.
In recent months, the E.U. has said that it will try to salvage the Iranian nuclear
deal, despite the U.S. withdrawal and renewed sanctions.
Initially, the E.U. explored the possibility of compensating European firms that would
be affected by the new sanctions, using the European Investment Bank.
This effort was torpedoed by the EIB, which said it might be blacklisted by the U.S.
Treasury of it was part of a scheme to offset the sanctions. EIB President Werner Hoyer
said two weeks ago that "doing business in Iran is something that we cannot be actively
engaged in."
So my 3 predictions are essentially, Iran-style western embargo, status quo with embargo
only on US side, and normalization of relations with Europe. How would you recalibrate the
likelihoods?
Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.
Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order.
Followed by IMF and ECB.
Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get
their money back.
Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them),
especially not accountants.
You assume that Greece is the rational actor in this situation. It's a stupid crackwhore,
desperate for a bit of debt relief.
It is also fair to say that Western decisions on financial aid are not made by
accountants, ultimately they are made by politicians, who do consider geopolitics.
Surely Greece can see that IMF is dumping billions of dollars into the Ukraine for no
other reason than geopolitics. Ukrainian regime also got a nice debt relief a couple of years
back – to better resist "Russian aggression".
So it comes down to the meaning after all. You look for words that have meaning. But why?
Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not know
of. Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on
what has meaning in English language? There are some believers in the intelligent design like
yourself in Pentecostal church who speak all kind of tongues nobody heard of them but to them
they have some meaning. There are patients in psychiatric wards who write 458 letter sonnets
that have meaning only to them. So why did you pick up this particular Shakespeare sonnet to
calculate a number that suppose to prove something?
Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument?
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US
sanctions against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine
precisely how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to 1) develop its own international
settlements system based on a Euro reserve currency 2) redirect trade and investment towards
the ROW (rest of the world), if necessary, excluding the US 3) become a reliable
non-political trade partner to these countries 4) make a unilateral decision to terminate
NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism.
The place to start would be the termination of NATO, but it would be better to implement
the policies simultaneously. It would initially be very costly to European corporations, but
ultimately worth it, with new more predictable international relationships.
This is exactly what I meant by my response. Not only will EU's response to the upcoming
US embargo be instrumental in writing Russia's role and development in the 21st century
world, but also if the EU ever wants to transform from a neoliberalism.txt US vassal
experiment to either an independent "Great Power" quasi-federation (essentially USSR 2.0
after the revolutionary phase died down, Communism replaced by neoliberalism.txt), or to
break up as wholly sovereign states, a continuation if not strengthening of relations with
Russia will be a pivotal first step for that to happen.
There is no reason to look at any further steps in your calculations when you begin with
false premises.
[MORE]
Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago
as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No. The
earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity. Even if you somehow managed
to argue that the complexity of life on earth is too high to emerge in 13 billion years, it
would still be of no consequence to Darwinism since we don't need it to emerge in that time
– 13 billion years ago is not some patternless zero state of complexity.
In fact, for all we know the emergence of life on earth could have already been determined
in the earlier state of the universe 13 billion years ago. That's implausible to me but a lot
of people believe in an intelligent creator and you can easily just postulate that he baked
the emergence of man in the design of the early universe and then you're in no contradiction
with modern science whatsoever.
Where did the patterns and complexity in the early universe come from? We don't know since
the current theories of physics can't probe that far. In fact, as I said before, the whole
"age of the universe" thing is a false notion that unfortunately some physicists peddle as a
simplification of cosmology. What we can do is trace back the development of the universe
from this point in time and we can go back 13 billion years and conclude that the universe
back then was a very different place, in a very dense state that gradually "expanded" into
the current one.
However in this process we run into a dead end as to study such dense states we'd need to
make the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics work together and we can't do that
currently. Hence, everything "earlier" than that is pure speculation, in fact we don't even
know for sure whether there was a "before". This state beyond current theories has been
dubbed the "big bang", "the beginning" and such but that's all just popularization. This has
the unfortunate side effect that some people now believe physics to somehow have proven that
the universe emerged from "nothing" 13 billion years ago and that's just not true.
And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding
of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe is X seconds
old". You are the one who began with assumptions that require physics well beyond Newtonian
mechanics.
Most likely is "status quo with embargo only on US side" with limited shift towards
"Iran-style western embargo". EUropean elites do not show much willingness to oppose
Russophobia, but on the other hand Russia is much more integrated in the EU economy than the
Iran.
For instance, the value of the trade in 2017 between Russia and Germany was 57,3 billion
Euro (rank 14th), the number for the Iran-Germany trade was only 3,4 billion Euro (rank
58th).
From 2009 to 2011, Syria supplied almost a fifth of EU imports of phosphate, but those
sales collapsed during the war.
Official EU import data shows that phosphate shipments to Europe -- heading almost
exclusively to Greece -- are resuming and more than tripled between December 2017 to April
2018. The volumes remain small compared to the pre-war heyday, but Syria is making a clear
push to return to the EU market and its giant farm sector.
Syrian data show that total phosphate exports were more than $200 million in 2010.
Three people either working in the phosphate industry or involved with trading the
commodity said Syria is able to export again because Russian investors have resurrected the
Palmyra mines, which Islamic State militia captured in 2015. Assad awarded these reserves
to the Russians last year after Moscow helped him turn the tide against ISIS.
No, it actually doesn't. The probabilities grow as c^n, while the Universe doesn't. No
matter how big it is, it's still a fixed size due to the laws of conservation of mass and
energy.
Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not
know of.
Even if every atom in the observable Universe had its own language, the number of possible
letter combinations would still be vastly bigger.
Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on
what has meaning in English language?
I'm not "disproving" anything. I'm demonstrating that the "monkeys and typewriters"
argument used by biologists (and its variants "the universe is really big" and "the Earth is
really old" arguments) violate basic mathematical logic.
The Universe isn't really big. In fact, it is infinitesimal compared to the
probabilities we're dealing with here.
Once biologists acknowledge this obvious fact, then we can formulate some sort of
theory, and maybe then there will be something to prove or disprove.
Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument
Do you? The point is that we're traversing probability spaces here that grow
exponentially, and yet nothing in nature can be exponential indefinitely. Somewhere in your
assumptions is a grave error.
What do you mean uncritically? I think that the citation is very critical of you.
If you're looking for something even more critical, just let me know?
Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago
as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No.
The earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity.
Very good point, and one I agree with. However, this is a variant of the Intelligent
Design hypothesis, and is considered to be pseudoscience by biologists.
Like I said, I'm not "disproving" anything, merely pointing out that the way Darwinian
evolution is framed by biologists is not science.
Maybe it can be reformulated in a way that makes sense, but don't hold your breath -- the
biologists don't even understand the objections and fall back to the "Earth is, like, really
old" argument.
And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian
understanding of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe
is X seconds old".
Again, the actual figure is irrelevant. The point is that we've posited an exponentially
exploding probability space, and yet nothing in nature is infinite and exponential. (I know
about the cosmology arguments about the finite/infinite universe, spare me. In any case, the
observable Universe is definitely finite, and science only deals with the observable.)
Now that Syria has all but won the war, I wonder when will rebuilding and eventually
re-emerging as a stable country good enough for FDI and tourism will start. By then, I also
wonder how it will be sanctioned.
My guess is that it will rebuild under Iran-style conditions back to more or less where it
was in the early 2000s politically, economically, socially, and sanctions-wise starting
around 2020 or so.
"For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to the US has a simple response – banning
US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia, period. It can resurrect a bill – first
raised this May, since sunken in the legislature – to impose fines and prison time on
individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window."
As an American, I think Russia should do this and for good reason: the people who run this
country are idiots; if this is allowed to stand, they'll continue to push this until we get a
war. Best to head it off now by making the US Ruling Class pay the price. I especially like
the last part. Russia should just host all Hollywood movies, books, and video games on a
server accessible to American pirates (hey, Red States won't have problem with this these
scum just voted to remove Trump's star on the walk of fame anyway).
"This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to make a unilateral decision to terminate
NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism."
Not going to happen for a variety of reasons. NATO is a good way to keep an incompetent,
belligerent U.S. bogged down so that it doesn't cause any serious trouble for advanced
nations. Take Germany for instance. The number of US troops there is quite small in an
absolute sense, not enough to cause trouble, but combined with troops all over the place, the
all-volunteer US military can't really marshall the numbers necessary to invade anyone
without support from Europe. NATO is actually a clever way to control the aggressive
tendencies of the United States; without it, there is no telling what the U.S. could do.
Europe also gets high-tech weapon systems in the process – and sold at a premium
considering the enormous R&D costs involved. That's why German industrialists were stupid
to provoke Trump and go around telling Europeans to not buy American weapons (those weapons
are in some cases FAR superior to what the Europeans have and someone is definitely going to
buy them considering the cost spent to develop them, either you or a potential enemy so it
might as well be you). In all, it's good deal for them. They aren't going to chunk that for
anything.
The real key here is for Russia to strike back in a way that doesn't galvanize the
American public against them. My suggestion: cancel all American copyright protections and
start hosting American movies and television programs. Conservative republicans won't oppose
this as these programs are made in Trump-hating California – a place that just voted to
remove Trump's star on the walk of fame.
In fact, his "conservative" predecessor Samaras was more pro-German than pro-American.
Tsipras is pro-American. He is leftist like Tony Blair is leftist.
But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil, our economy will
shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
It still makes Russia look pathetically weak. The U.S. actions are essentially an act of
war. If Russia just rolls over allows itself to get kicked then the U.S. is just going to
keep on kicking. Cowardice is rarely a good policy.
the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.
I bought into much of the criticism, and probably a somewhat better plane could've been
made cheaper, but all in all I think it'll be a fine enough weapon, and probably better than
any currently deployed Russian fighters. The Su-57 is not yet ready (and it's recently got
questioned if it ever will), so you cannot meaningfully compare it to it.
Altogether if you want the very best fighter jet available in the market, then you should
choose it, unless the costs are prohibitive for you. It's actually no longer much more
expensive than 4+ generation planes. I think Boeing is trying to market the F-15X, which
would be a newly produced version of the F-15 with all possible technologies (except stealth
which is impossible for this frame), and it's not going to be meaningfully cheaper than the
latest (and cheapest) F-35.
If buying Russian is politically possible for you, then the Su-35 might be a good cheaper
alternative, though countries which are allowed to buy it are usually not sold the F-35.
Maybe India (and perhaps soon Turkey?) is the only country where both could even be
considered.
If the Su-57 were ready, then maybe we could talk about whether it was better than the
F-35 (the answer would probably depend on a number of issues, e.g. the rest of the equipment
used by the military in question, and of course politics, which is to say, if there was a
chance of a political conflict with the supplier, because if yes, then obviously you'd need
to buy from the other).
For most (but not all) roles the F-35 is at least as good as any other American fighter
jet (except maybe the F-22, and maybe not even that).
Maybe that's why Israel uses its own software? (At least they rewrote part of the
software, or so I read.)
Anyway, I don't think it's a bad fighter jet for the job of fighting America's enemies.
Probably even against neutrals. It might be useless against America's friends, or America
itself, but no one buys it for that. And actually it's probably useful against America, too,
or else why is the US so reluctant to sell it to Turkey?
And probably the American idea that the Russians might use their S-400 to spy on other
Turkish weapon systems (including the F-35), when in fact it's the Americans who use weapons
they sell to do that. The Russians are probably too afraid to lose their reputations.
F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters
it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards.
Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft.
That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors.
Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates. And on a small
aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your stealth. F-35 stealth is
in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band. It will be easily detected by long
wavelength radars. In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft
and firing AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where
the F-35 will be dogmeat).
The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the
idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with
frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs.
As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical. Lots of air forces continuously
modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits, etc. Why exactly is a new airframe
needed for any of this?
That said it's not like the F-35 is awful , and as usual pilot skill and other
factors can overcome inappropriate technology.
The F-35 also now costs less to buy than the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale, which is an
important advantage. Gripen is much cheaper, but Sweden has no geopolitical clout and has a
very bad habit of finding moralistic reasons not to export armaments.
If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If
you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise. France is also
a reliable supplier. Worst choice is the Super Hornet. The F-16, while now quite an old
design, is still a very capable aircraft at a reasonable price as well.
Japan now has a stealth fighter technology demonstrator in the MHI X-2 Shinden. They
somehow built it, including with indigenous turbofans, for $360m. The airframe is very
interesting in that it's built of new materials which eliminate the need for RAM, which
should keep operating costs down and increase sortie rates. But this is only a technology
demonstrator at this time, probably as proof-of-concept for the new materials and an
indigenous low-bypass afterburning turbofan engine.
As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like
the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance. Russia's official reason for
delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate for existing threats, which is
probably true.
Who knows what the real reason is. Budgetary pressures perhaps? Russia wants to double
capital spending in rouble terms in 2024, and to do so without increasing debt. At the same
time it's continuing its import substitution efforts, and there are no moves to soaking the
rich. So the money has to come from somewhere, and presumably that makes mass production of
the Su-57 and T-14 Armata less attractive.
And actually it's probably useful against America, too, or else why is the US so
reluctant to sell it to Turkey?
>study F-35 and its data
> get better at detecting/fighting F-35
It is probably one of the main reasons why the RoC (Taiwan) won't get this jet despite
needing more than most. The risk that pro-PRC agents would have access to the F-35 is not
small.
I agree. However, let's not forget that Russia and USA have very different weight and role
in the international economy. USA effectively owns the system of international finance. That
is to say "international finance" is but an extention of US financial system. They can
exclude Russia, we can't exclude them (from the system they created and own).
If Russia is going to impose meaningful costs on the US, I think it can only be done
through non-economic means. Realistically, what action Russia could take that would
potentially match the disruptive power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central
American drug cartels?
Using your own software is common for technologically advanced powers concerned about
their sovereignty and their own military-industrial capabilities. Japan for instance (after
being bullied out of building its own indigenous fighter in the 80s) built its own upgraded
version of the F-16 which, among other things, included Japanese software. Like Israel, Japan
also fields its own air-to-air missiles which on paper are in the first rank.
The UK took a different route of becoming a Level 1 Partner on the F-35 program, so they
received privileged access to the source code which is not available to other powers.
The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most
anyone else. It actually could have some utility against America since America lags Russia
and China in low-frequency radar and infrared search and track, but probably the real
reluctance is safeguarding technology. In particular materials (e.g. the new RAM panels
instead of finicky coatings) and the engines.
Sun Tzu say avoid combat with superior force, bide time and wait till you are stronger. Of
course doesn't take Sun Tzu to work that out, even if he did say it.
IMF funded by a lot of countries though – Russia now one of the top ten important
creditors and more influential owners of the IMF (although it's proportion of ownership is
still multiples times smaller compared to US).
Russia is 8th largest shareholder of the IMF (out of 189 countries). US is largest
share-holder, and then Japan and China.
Decisions are based on member voting which is based on share in the organization, so
Russia has 8th largest vote in IMF, but behind USA, Japan, China, etc.
Part of the Greek debt is owned by Russia through the IMF, probably relative to Russian
ownership of IMF and the debt relief packages partly also funded from Russian loans.
Fortunately, IMF ownership of Greek debt is several times smaller than the eurozone
countries. But Russia's government share of Greece debt will probably be some billions of
dollars. That's how Greece can basically continue receiving money – so many countries
are owed money on their debt.
Thanks man, that's what I have been craving all my life – an approval from a
Ukrainian hick. You keep it up too buddy, your encouragement means the world to me.
VAT is not a "non-issue". When you raise from 18% to 20%, then you are taking
significantly more money from the whole population (including poor people) who want to buy
things in private sector, and transferring this money to state sector, where not all extra
money (to be "polite") is going to be used "wisely".
At the same time, a problem now is to have up to 50% of the federal budget from oil/gas
revenues – which is a volatile priced resource.
So it's typical dilemma with neither option looking good.
Of course, the solution to both, is to reduce unnecessary government expenditure, which
continues to grow all the time in many useless areas, to the extent that you can see
expressed in even unhidden ways of the luxurious buildings being constructed for all kinds of
different government offices who could really do their job just as well (or incompetently) in
a warehouse or a polyester and nylon tent.
You uncritically referenced an anonymous, lying coward (not too much different from
yourself BTW), who ducked a live one hours BBC World Service radio panel discussion, much
unlike the person who you've an obsession with.
Increasing taxation reduces private consumption, but I'm skeptical that it creates a
long-term output gap (short term is a different matter). The OECD has prosperous economies
with taxation at a share of GDP ranging from about one-third to three-fifths. Such a wide
divergence suggests that high taxes and prosperity are not incompatible. Money spent by the
state is still spent, and even if it's spent dubiously it continues to circulate.
Russia's official economic plan (besides import substitution) is to increase capital
spending. It intends to do with while retaining fiscal discipline and limiting offshore
borrowing. If you are unable or unwilling to borrow to finance investment, you must suppress
consumption.
Suppressing consumption to finance investment has a track record of success in East Asia
and for that matter Russia itself (~1928-1970).
The intent is to increase capital spending from one-fifth of GDP to one-quarter. A
reasonable goal.
The real issue here of course is that the intent is for this increase in investment to
come from the state and state-controlled companies, whose track records are dubious.
Still, perhaps something good could be done. Russia's nuclear industry is one bright spot,
and shifting to a more nuclear power mix would allow for more hydrocarbon exports and improve
public health. Russia is a growing agricultural exporter, and somehow I doubt Russia has the
ubiquitous farm roads like we have here in the American Midwest.
Perhaps it would be wiser to reduce Rouble borrowing costs for the business sector by
suppressing consumer credit and promoting higher household savings. Household savings rate in
Russia is only 8%. China is 38%.
"F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters
it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards.
Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft."
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is
really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely
won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy reduces
stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.
"That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors."
Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft –
and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There is
no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive sensor
suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as good, and
probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to the
contrary is wishful thinking.
"Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates."
The US can easily afford it.
"And on a small aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your
stealth."
Doesn't matter. The F-35 will be operating with many other F-35s. Combined, it will be a
formidable foe.
"F-35 stealth is in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band."
No, it's not. The F-35 is simply more stealthy frontal but still stealthy over all.
Further, X-band is the frequency required for a weapons lock. All stealth aircraft are
specialized for this radar band.
"It will be easily detected by long wavelength radars."
Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat.
Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already detect
stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the 90s.
"In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft and firing
AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where the F-35 will
be dogmeat)."
Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on
each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.
"The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the
idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with
frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs."
F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything
the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of
F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be
produced, that should work fine.
"As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical."
You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation weapons
that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be any
different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you have
displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be based on
anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
"Lots of air forces continuously modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits,
etc. Why exactly is a new airframe needed for any of this?"
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
"That said it's not like the F-35 is awful, and as usual pilot skill and other factors can
overcome inappropriate technology."
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.
"If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If
you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise."
Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter
aircraft.
"As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like
the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance."
Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in
an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.
"Russia's official reason for delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate
for existing threats, which is probably true."
Russia is delaying because 1. they can't afford to buy the aircraft 2. they are having
trouble constructing the aircraft as designed and in the quantity required 3. it probably
isn't as good as the F-35 anyway, so they don't see a point in building it.
The F-35 is for transferring US technology to Israel
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/israels-air-force-might-have-the-ultimate-weapon-custom-25983
Lockheed-Martin has mostly refused to allow major country-specific modifications to the
F-35, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars foreign F-35 operators contributed to the
aircraft's development. Israel, however, managed to carve out an exception. Though not an
investor in the F-35's development, Tel Aviv was nonetheless quick to sign on to the
program with an initial order of fifty. It also negotiated a favorable deal in which
billions of dollars worth of F-35 wings and sophisticated helmet sets would be manufactured
in Israel, paid for with U.S. military aid. Furthermore, depot-level maintenance will occur
in a facility operated by Israeli Aeronautics Industries rather than at a Lockheed facility
abroad.
The Lightning's sophisticated flight computer and ground-based logistics system has
become a matter of contention with many F-35 operators. Foreign air forces would like to
have greater access to the F-35's computer source codes to upgrade and modify them as they
see fit without needing to involve external parties -- but Lockheed doesn't want to hand
over full access for both commercial and security-based reasons. Israeli F-35Is uniquely
will have an overriding Israeli-built C4 program that runs "on top" of Lockheed's operating
system.
"Right, which is why Denmark bought the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.
Buying American weaponry is often a combination of tribute, corruption and paying protection
money."
Please. They bought the F-35 because it is the best aircraft they could get, and they
don't trust the Russians. If they wanted to offer tribute, they'd just write a check and buy
another aircraft.
Further, much of the so-called criticism of the F-35 came from non-experts in the subject
or older guys who worked with the now-outdated F-14. The F-35 has made enough progress for me
to believe that it will likely crush anything the Russians have now or in the future. Even if
the Russians could build the Su-57, the F-35 would still win in most contests because 1. its
sensor suite and over the horizon A2A capability + electronic warfare capability will be
appreciably superior 2. it will be built in far larger numbers.
"The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most
anyone else."
The F-35 will be quite effective against any aircraft those countries currently field. Any
belief to the contrary is either ignorance or delusion. The US isn't spending a trillion
dollars on this thing to fight Trinidad and Tobago.
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is
really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely
won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy
reduces stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.
"Over-the-horizon A2A capability" has existed for half a century. Previously structuring
our airpower around this concept resulted in high losses in Vietnam.
The real reason for the bubble canopy's elimination (note that the stealthier F-22 and
YF-23 both have bubble canopies) is the ridiculous insistence on the same platform being used
for a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan placed right in the middle of the fuselage.
If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s
design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area only and it
can't carry a large missile load.
Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a
flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more
powerful radar.
The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military
ones.
Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft –
and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There
is no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive
sensor suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as
good, and probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to
the contrary is wishful thinking.
I have no doubt in the capability to produce and field top-class avionics. What I do doubt
is the idea that we produce (and always will produce) superior avionics to anyone else.
Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and even tiny Israel all produce AESA radars. The US lagged
Russia (and Europe) in IRST for decades. The US is far behind on low-frequency radar.
The US can easily afford it.
You'll note that this was originally about F-35 exports . A solution with high
operating costs and low sortie rates is problematic for anyone, but especially undesirable
for a small power.
Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat.
Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already
detect stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the
90s.
Detection is not useless. It allows you to vector interceptors until they get close enough
for a radar lock or can identify the target with IRST or visual tracking.
Incompetent Arabalonians. Norman Scwhartzkopf stated that if you'd reversed the weapons on
each side but kept the personnel and training the same, the Allied coalition would've still
handily won. Serbia incidentally did successfully shoot down an F-117, which largely owed
itself to the skill of the operator in question and poor tactics on the part of NATO.
Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on
each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.
The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s.
F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything
the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of
F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be
produced, that should work fine.
F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite
persistent requests from Japan).
You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation
weapons that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be
any different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you
have displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be
based on anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
[...]
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
[...]
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.
This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are
guilty of.
Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter
aircraft.
Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I
contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this moot.
Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in
an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.
Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat
incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a
decisive edge in WVR combat.
The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to
an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps
STOVL requirement.
The Kremlin would have killed the organ grinder (Boris Abramovich Berezovsky) not the
monkey. Litvinenko virtually committed suicide. People become depressed when they are
exiles.. Litvinenko publicly accused Putin of the apartment bombings by Chechens that killed
hundreds of Russians so he must have had some inkling that Putin could be dangerous.
If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing
you, and if they have the means and opportunity then it is not the biggest surprise in the
world if you give them the motive and you are killed by a method that is as good as a signed
confession they did it. Putin wanted Litvinenko to know who had put an end to him.
That was the whole point of using alpha radiation; nice and slow all the while knowing who
did it. Putin is very like another famous Vlad.
If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing
you
I have fantasized about killing people who had seriously harmed me or the public. But I
have never fantasized about killing a clown, nor can I ever imagine fantasizing about it. I
cannot imagine anyone who is not a psychopath fantasizing about killing a clown. By accusing
Putin of the house explosions and converting to Islam etc. Litvinenko totally jumped the
shark. He was a clown, a tool used by others.
Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you have
just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on that
assumption.
Litvinenko was a poor devil, incapable of harming Putin. If anyone harmed Putin, it's
Berezovsky or the western media which gave a platform to poor devils like Litvinenko. Do you
think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful people wielding
them?
That is pretty incredible, however, because of your reputation perhaps she was
afraid of some sort of retribution for being critical of you? I notice that you often like to
taunt me on by calling me a 'coward' for using a moniker instead of presenting you with my
true identity. Whether deserved or not, many feel that you're some sort of a Kremlin
Stooge nutcase, Mickey. From Srebrenica Genocide Denier to this:
friend of mike averko | April 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Reply
I have known mike averko for a very long time and wish to warn all of you who feel safe
mocking him and his rants this is not someone you want to get angry . HE IS
INSANE!!! I have seen how this man lives and it is not that of a healthy person, it is
that of someone insane. Make your comments but don't ever let this man into yuour life in
any way or you will end up being sorry.
This is why I choose to shield my true identity from you, Mickey. Who needs any grief from
a Kremlin Stooge wacko?
The machine that draws the numbers for a lottery manages to pick 7 winning numbers every
week. It never fails to pick the winning numbers. Is this an amazing feat? The numbers it
picks are the winning numbers while millions of lottery players have great difficulty to pick
the winning numbers and spend millions of dollar on it while the cost to the machine is just
few bucks.
Shakespeare picked 458 'winning' letters but if you would try to reproduce them in the
same sequence by random selections it becomes probabilistically impossible task.
Finding a winning sonnet by Shakespeare for the Universe was not a probabilistic feat just
as it is not for the lottery machine to pick the winning numbers. It all comes down to the
meaning and when that meaning is assigned. You assigned a special meaning to this particular
sequence of 458 letters just like lottery players assign special meaning to 7 numbers picked
by a machine.
Although you show a lot of promise, unfortunately there are still a few rough edges. Don't
concentrate so much on your less than honorable pedigree, but work on improving your
emotional dilemmas. AP is a medical doctor, and has diagnosed some of your ailments. Listen
to him, for he's a pure blood Slav. And you know how great the Slavic race is. (I know that
you can overcome!).
On the subject of of agriculture, it should be noted that Rostelmash has done ok for a big
sovok behemoth and has had at least some success exporting west. It's combines are
competitive with the American makes but not Claas, they've also been able to buy up
varsatile. This is quite surprising given the fact that rostov has a reputation for being a
rough and corrupt place. Ak, any thoughts?
You make it sound like being a Slav is like being a member of an exclusive club. How
exclusive can it be if you – the Ukrainians are in it? I would say that that is setting
the standards pretty low. Don't worry about my "emotional" dilemmas. I am happy with who I
am, which can't be said about you people. You seem quite torn between your Western European
heritage and your humble Slavic origin that gets in the way of being recognized as one of the
nations that are pillars of western civilization which everybody agrees that you are.
USSR engaged in intensive agricultural motorization earlier than any country other than
the USA and Canada. It was also fairly early to intensive chemicalization, mainly beaten out
by Germany and America.
In the postwar period the share of capital investment devoted to agriculture varied from
11.8% in 1946-1950 to a peak of 20.1% in 1971-1975.
Not surprising there is something of a positive legacy. Main failures of postwar Soviet
agriculture were distribution and processing. Not enough roads or trucks, inadequate cold
chain, too few food processing plants, etc.
Belarus also has a successful agricultural machinery sector as well.
Heavy transportation machinery was generally a Soviet success story, probably because not
only are they producer goods but they also require routine replacement. Thus unlike other
capital goods in centrally-planned economies they weren't kept in service long past the time
they ceased to be efficient. The irrational "development" of Siberia also increased the size
of this sector and the quality of its output.
Lastly, worth noting Rostelmash has been privately owned since 2000.
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it.
If this is the case then obviously its 'kinematic performance' is secondary. If you can
see the enemy before it can see you and you have weapons to engage the enemy then obviously
your top speed and acceleration are not that important. The missile you launch is faster than
your top speed and your enemy's top speed.
But there are doubts. How much the stealth technology is a hype? Is information about
radar cross sections of various planes credible?
I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was
either Western intelligence or Putin's orders. Western intelligence simply would not
dare frame Putin because the Russians would become too jumpy. Yeltsin almost started WW3
in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West was framing Putin repeatedly and
he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then something like the Black Brant
scare occurred.
Litvinenko was a poor devil.
I don't think he was a happy man.
Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you
have just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on
that assumption.
I happen to believe that Putin is deliberately trying to alienate the West with these
assassinations because he wants Russia to remain proudly independent after he is gone. Yet he
has to justify that policy to his close associates many of whom who love the Western
lifestyle and making money. It is like Hitler having to explain his attack on the USSR to his
generals and Goebbels by saying it was necessary to remove that threat from the east before
moving against Britain. Obviously Hitler really longed to conquer Russia, and it seems likely
to me that Putin wants to initiate schismogenesis with the West. He probably is not telling
his cronies that though, there will be some security pretext.
Do you think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful
people wielding them?
Putin has more power than anyone else on Earth, I should have thought that was obvious by
now. He wants to exert control when he is no longer there, and that means setting Russia on a
course that cannot be altered, and consulting/implicating the entire future leadership
cadre.
John Deere does very well in Russia because they own a local factory. They seem to be the
combine of choice because they have faster parts distribution than Class. Rostelmash does
better than it used to but the really big commercial farms and associated contractors buy the
best machines. The operators on the ex cooperatives, usually farmed under (corrupt) rental
arrangements tend to use Rostelmash, insofar as they buy new.
In BVR combat kinematic performance is indeed secondary to the performance of sensors,
electronic warfare equipment, and missiles.
But not irrelevant. Higher top speed allows for longer-ranged missile shots. Faster
acceleration (and, for that matter, turning performance) allows for faster escape from the
combat zone.
Note how BVR optimized interceptors like the F-102/106, MiG-25/31, F-4, F-111B, English
Electric Lightning, and so forth had great top speeds and excellent acceleration. They were
however lacking in maneuverability as it was not intended for them to dogfight (hence the bad
air combat performance over North Vietnam).
China's Chengdu J-20 is a modern stealth aircraft designed for this role. The F-35 is not.
It's basically a tactical strike fighter. Historical analogues would be the F-100, F-105,
SEPECAT Jaguar, Su-24, and so forth.
Tactical strike fighters of the classic style are dubious today since multi-mode radars
and PGMs have made fighters very capable of ground attack.
Stealth isn't hype unless you believe the maximalist fanboy nonsense from the 1990s.
If indeed F-22 and F-35 have several orders of magnitude smaller cross-sections (RCS) than
other jet fighters then obviously it is a huge advantage that if utilized will render small
differences (±10%) in speed and acceleration completely unimportant.
You're right about that, and I'm glad to be different from you. At least people aren't
leaving messages about me at blogs warning them that I might be dangerous to deal with.
'Sbrebrenica Genocide Denier' is nothing to be proud about, Mickey.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central American drug cartels?
I quite like that idea!
Provide sophisticated arms to everybody (no matter how crazy) with an ability to cause
grief to the U.S.
The U.S. objective is not to punish Russia or weaken Russia. The U.S. objective is to
destroy Russia as a sovereign nation. This is war to the death. There can be no negotiation
with the U.S. The only hope of forcing the Americans to adopt a sane policy is to make the
costs of their current policy catastrophically high.
The U.S. is obviously stronger but a strong man will usually back down if faced with
someone crazy and unpredictable. Putin needs to be crazy and unpredictable.
And Russia needs to target America's lapdogs, like the British. Perhaps let them know that
if it ever came to nuclear war London would be a priority target.
U.S. "public opinion" is literally the collective opinion of dumbed-down, amoral idiots.
In fact, the word "opinion" is too dignified for this – "braindead recantation of
MSM-fed government propaganda" would be a better description.
It's optimized for certain wavelengths and expected receiver locations.
Thus stealth aircraft can for instance be readily detected by low frequency radars.
Stealth is still useful as low frequency radars are too bulky to fly, and they indicate a
general location rather than a precise location.
Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually, acoustically, through their own electronic
emissions, and through their heat signatures. Employment of weapons, obviously, compromises
stealth as well.
There are also degrees of stealth. The F-22 for instance is considered an all-aspect
stealth design, at least in the higher frequency bands. The Have Blue, MBB Lampyridae, F-117,
B-2, and YF-23 were as well.
The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. This of
course reflects the fact that it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, but
incompetent American force planning is now pressing it into that role.
Lastly, while stealth is obviously a good capability (hence why everyone is following
America's lead on it), it's not without trade-offs. Stealth is lost if weapons are carried
externally. Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive (though the
Japanese may have solved this problem). Because stealth requires precision shaping of the
airframe, it is difficult to modify the airframe for future requirements.
"But it's not an invisibility cloak." – Nobody talks about invisibility. RCS
matters. You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.
"The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. " –
Presumably it will show its rear to its enemy only when the enemy will be already falling
down after being hit.
"Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually " – Nobody argues invisibility.
"it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter". – It all depend on
superiority over whom. Anyway this is a vague and pompous term.
"Stealth is lost if weapons are carried externally." – What good are those weapons
for if you are shot before you see your stealthy enemy?
"Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive". – Yes. That's why
Russians do not have it.
Listen. I do not really care about this issue and I do not know much about it. I just
responded to your arguments which are mostly rhetorical in nature among at diminishing
importance of the orders of magnitude lower RCS of F-22 and F-35 comparing to that of their
potential opponents.
I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was
either Western intelligence or Putin's orders.
Or something else neither of us thought of. It's a false dichotomy when we have no
information at all about the whole thing, the only thing we know is that the British are
lying.
Western intelligence simply would not dare frame Putin because the Russians would become
too jumpy.
But that's just your model. Maybe they wouldn't become jumpy, or maybe the Western
intelligence services would dare frame him anyway.
By the way it's interesting that you managed to draw a psychological profile of Putin
based on just two cases a decade apart, and Putin only did it twice in his whole reign. Sure
if he enjoyed torturing his critics he'd do it more, wouldn't he?
Yeltsin almost started WW3 in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West
was framing Putin repeatedly and he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then
something like the Black Brant scare occurred.
Risk management is my job. People don't think about risks that way. They assign a very low
probability to events like the Black Brant scare, and anyway probably Putin would just
realize it was only one rocket. There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to
launch than Yeltsin.
Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air
superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very
obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just
telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures.
However, ground sites lack many countermeasures against incoming missile launches and
cannot lock onto low-visibility planes from the front, so even if its general location is
known, there's not much that a SAM site can do to it in theory. Thus, it has a very
effective, but limited role.
This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using
ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any
number of third world countries.
I wish I could say the same thing about the Ukrainians. You are showing nothing but
regress since 1991, but I don't expect that you'll agree with that. It's one of the side
effects of having a thick head.
You know how the Ukrainians got their name? It's from the Latin Cranium for scull.
Basically, what it means is that when any new idea (or old one for that matter) tries to
penetrate the thick Ukrainian sculls – it has to make a U turn when it reaches their
fortified cranial structures – U Cranium – therefore Ukraine. Get it? It's pretty
discouraging actually.
A good case could be made that we don't know how these jets would perform under the
conditions of a real world war. But I think it's always the best bet that it will be the
American weapons which perform the best. That's simply the way to bet.
It's possible that many of their weapons systems wouldn't perform as advertised. Some
would perform better than thought or for roles they weren't designed for.
It's a very safe decision to buy the F-35, which is now not even that expensive. It's
possible that it won't be worth much in a real war against comparable opponents, but this
could be true of any other platform: these weapons are only tried out against vastly inferior
opponents.
You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.
He will usually have a vague idea where you are. Currently it's not possible to launch a
missile based on that vague knowledge, but will it stay like that forever? A lot depends on
other systems like air defense and AWACS.
Anyway, my original point was that probably buying the F-35 is not based on politics, it's
a safe decision for those with deep enough pockets to buy the best available fighter jet.
Even if under the circumstances of a real war it turned out to be bad: it could happen to a
number of other weapons systems anyway, and you cannot really tell in advance which ones.
The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier
But wouldn't the idea be that you get closer to the enemy without being detected? Your
argument might work against BVR combat in general, but more against non-stealth BVR combat
than against stealth: stealthy planes will probably employ their BVR weapons from closer
range than non-stealthy planes.
If BVR air-to-air missiles work at all, they work much better with stealthy planes.
Regardless of whether against peer or non-peer opponents.
Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air
superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very
obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just
telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures.
If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do not
understand) I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o
being detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time
for the enemy to deploy countermeasures.
I realize this is a complex game with many possible strategies and tactics with many
parameters involved. For each strategy there are decision regions where the different
parameters dominate what will be the optimal tactic. Furthermore we really do not know how
effective various countermeasures are but I suspect that they might be decisive. But if they
fail and planes get close to each other within the visual range then obvious completely
different parameters might be decisive including the human factor.
I won't argue with you on this subject because I know you were raised by video games so
you now better at least in the realm of video games model. I would not argue with Mowgli
about the purpose and efficacy of howling at the moon. Perhaps it was a sophisticated
countermeasure.
I actually have never played a flight simulator within recent memory. As far as I'm aware,
none of them really calculate the issues of missile flight with any degree of accuracy and
treat guidance systems like some sort of magic. My comments are actually speculations from
conversations with military pilots.
If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do
not understand)
Missiles have extremely limited flight times and their flight characteristics degrade
after launch. Disrupting either their guidance or their flight negates the kill chain.
I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o being
detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time for
the enemy to deploy countermeasures.
This is possible, but ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond
visual range. Its possible that this is the idea, coupled with the Block III Sidewinders
which are designed against a number of countermeasures, but that seems to have been cancelled
for some reason.
If you don't know the composite materials used, you can not give a correct RCS, and you
can not tell just by looking, the physics don't work like that!
So at least we have the word of the US Air Force and Lockheed regarding the stealthiness
of their planes (these are probably not outright lies, but might differ from reality in
either direction: they might be modest to hide their true capabilities, or, more likely,
exaggerate and give a number only true under ideal conditions for a specific type of radar
etc. ), but regarding the supposedly 5th generation Chinese or Russian jets we have just very
rough estimates based on the shape and some assumptions about their coating.
So many US sanctions and interdictions , to friends and foes alike , will end up isolating
the US .
The US pressure to the EU not to trade with Russia , Iran and other countries has provoked
a deep resentment in the EU and has turned the US into a very unreliable partner , and even a
dangerous " friend " .
The better part of four decades ago, President Reagan made a joke about outlawing the Soviet
Union and the press and the left went apeshit. Now Congress seriously proposes legislation
that would essentially outlaw Russia, and the press and the left are all for it.
ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond visual range
How many seconds will the stealth pilot have to identify the target and fire its missiles?
Sixty? Hundred-twenty? Thirty? Even thirty seconds must be enough for a well enough trained
pilot.
There might be issues with how to leave the scene after having killed an opponent, if
other enemies are still there, because it's less stealthy from other angles. I guess we're
not the first to think about it, so probably there's some solution. At the very least, I
wouldn't expect them to perform worse than the 4th gen planes.
I think even the production of the F-16 is about to end.
Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the
western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though that's
not saying much, considering the price differential.
Hungary also has Gripens, though we didn't fully equip them until recently, and I don't
think we spend enough on training the pilots.
These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia
after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war. The whole
slow-motion drama, with all its attendant false flags (MH17, the Skripals, gassings in Syria,
etc), numerous rounds of sanctions and specious rhetoric including accusations of "stealing
the election" from Hillary, since Putin checked Obama's attempt to seize Russia's Crimean
base and recruit another hostile NATO member on that country's frontier has been meant to
convince the American public that Russia is our country's blood enemy, that it is run by an
insane dictator the equal of Hitler, and that the consequent world war will have been all
Putin's fault in spite of America bending over backwards to make peace with those vicious
mongrels from the steppes.
As a commentor above said, I'd hate to be killed by a Russian nuke directed at my city
only because of an insane American leadership, but I'd equally hate for tens of millions of
Russians (and others) to be exterminated by our weapons simply to further an agenda being
promoted by the likes of Jeff Bezos, Sheldon Adelson and the other plutocrats who really pull
all the strings in Washington to benefit themselves plus their Saudi and Israeli
co-conspirators in some great game to rule the world. I'd say that Washington is about poised
to commit the greatest crime in the history of the human race, and chances are good that it
will be the last.
"Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air superiority
fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very obviously
telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just telegraphs
their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures."
That's not quite true. The ability to shoot a barrage of sophisticated missiles at an
opponent that can't shoot back beyond visual range should be quite useful in combat; these
missiles will also close the gap much sooner than you would think, so it's not like an enemy
is going to have all day to deal with incoming threats. Further, electronic countermeasures
won't be perfect as most A2A missiles fielded by the US will have systems designed to defeat
them. The F-35 will also be fielded in large enough numbers such that they'll just overwhelm
opponents with their stealth ability. Combine the F-35 with the F-18 or F-22, and you'll have
a very effective air dominance force.
"This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using
ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any
number of third world countries."
I expect the F-35 to do quite well against both Russia and China in helping to establish
air dominance. The F-35 will additionally have utility against surface S2A units. The navy
could overwhelm Russian and Chinese air defenses – even assuming they are quite
effective – by coordinating strikes with F-22s and F-35s. Those air defenses will go
active, and the F-35 will then be able to hit many of them with a degree of survivability +
coordinate with surface ships to smoke them out, mobile or not.
These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to
Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war.
I have never put much thought into these issues. But now after reading comments and some
articles I realized that this is a fascinating topic and that there are many people somewhere
who study it, write simulations and developed optimal algorithms for all possible situations
where they have input data on all plane and missile characteristics except with only partial
knowledge of enemy characteristics and efficacy of countermeasures. So I think that
everything has been already calculated. When and what to shoot and when and where to turn and
when to retreat and so on. And as new data are flowing in with the outcome of the first
missile or the arrival of another enemy plane the master program is just bringing in
pre-calculated solutions for each new situations. And then every geometric configuration must
have been analyzed and optimal actions has been found. Furthermore optimal configuration were
found about how to fly , in what formations, with what speeds and so on. Mathematically this
problem might not be harder than a chess game on multiple boards and thus I think a
completely autonomous AI system must exist where pilot is really not needed. The only big
unknown are countermeasures. You do not have them in chess. Can pilot be better in making
some decisions in the present of countermeasure than computer? I doubt it.
Now the question is who is better in this game? Russians or Americans? It all comes down
to money. How many good mathematicians, computer programmers and physicists I can employ? In
USSR at secret sites like Arzamas-16 they had departments where 1000 or so PhDs in math
(many, many women) worked. In Yeltsin times and probably before they mostly drank tea and
coffee, organized birthday celebrations and send designated ones to stand in lines to do
shopping. And it all fell apart. But in the US DARPA and Aerospace R&D continued w/o a
break. So I would not hesitate to bet on Americans that they have significantly better
systems. Another question is about spying. Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D
and no longer enamored with the Soviet Union, so it is more likely that India and China has
know more about it and obviously Israel but through more official channels. But the fact that
F-22 was not donated to Israel yet may suggest that there are still some boundaries within
American MIC that are off limits even to our beloved Jews.
Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the
western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though
that's not saying much, considering the price differential.
You don't ask for the "best", you ask for the right system.
Unless you need a stealth strike fighter (and don't mind Lockheed's involvement), the F-35
does not have to be the right one.
In Hungary's case, it is more important to have enough jets for air patrol duty.
Can pilot be better in making some decisions in the present of countermeasure than
computer? I doubt it.
I doubt it. It's open ended, and the number of variations practically infinite. The
computer can do most things way better than a human, but then could succumb to stupidity in
some unknown situation, like the Tesla charging at full speed into the firetruck. Is the
Tesla autopilot better than a well trained professional human, like a rally race driver? I
don't think so, especially in unexpected (for the computer) situations, where the human would
just do the easy and sensible thing, but not the computer.
Anyway, the US warplanes are still flown by human pilots. Of course, most things which
could be automated are automated, and the logical conclusion is fully autonomous drones
flying without much input from their handlers in underground bunkers.
Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D and no longer enamored with the Soviet
Union, so it is more likely that India and China has know more about it and obviously
Israel but through more official channels.
Do you think that one of the things Israel pays Putin for being so friendly to him is US
military tech? They did sell Russia some drones back in the Medvedev days, but nothing more
recent can be found. But I'd be surprised if Putin didn't think about it. I also think it's
not above Netanyahu to sell Russia American secrets. They gave such secrets to the USSR, and
they also helped China more recently. I'm sure that if there's anything going on, the MSM
wouldn't be reporting much on it. They also rarely wrote about the extent of the Israel-South
Africa arms trade, and things only got worse recently.
"The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s."
I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which
artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In a
real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it,
especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.
"F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite
persistent requests from Japan)."
That's irrelevant for three reasons:
1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to
produce in the near term.
2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to sell
the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.
3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an
appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35 should
be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any other
country save perhaps Israel.
"This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are
guilty of."
Please. Extrapolation from a set of known facts and historical precedent is hardly
projection. What you've done is classic deflection.
"Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I
contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this
moot."
The aircraft you quoted are certainly not superior, so the issue is hardly moot.
"Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat
incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a
decisive edge in WVR combat."
Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that you
can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance. Kinematic
performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a decisive
advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any issues with
the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm opponents +
combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.
"The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to
an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps
STOVL requirement."
That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less
than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other
aircraft."
Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these craft
– thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad idea after
all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a program.
I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In
any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a
larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the
asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are
hard to hit or detect.
"If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s
design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area "
That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the
craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in
radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It
also has IR reduction measures.
"Small number of missiles."
Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?
"Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a
flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more
powerful radar."
No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite
well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American
aircraft.
"Flying wing."
1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing
stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in
coordination with the F-35.
2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability and
maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or in a
variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role fighter.
It will do BVR just fine.
"The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military
ones."
The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by pointing
out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when building the
craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.
You don't need to convince me. You'll need to convince Russian kleptocrats, who've been
sending their kids to live in the West since 1991, and who have kept their (stolen) money in
the West.
And reiner Tor , you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom,
but getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?
The fact is asserting dominance in Eastern Europe will be a lot easier for Russia to
accomplish, than confronting USA directly, and it is something I would probably do before I
started threatening New York and London with nuclear devastation. You gotta make your threats
credible you know. Credibility doesn't come from making scary faces and shouting loudly, it's
earned.
Your Croatian neighbors are still operating Mig-21 and will get second-hand
((((F-16)))).
And your Austrian neighbors are unhappy with their Eurofighters.
Gripens are better than alternatives and nothing.
No, I don't. In fact, I think the American Deep State is nuts. I have great respect for
Russians and their military. I am simply pointing out facts: the F-35 isn't the chump some
think it is; do not believe any random internet poster when he says this thing won't work.
I've seen enough to know that it will and that you should be afraid of what it can do in
large numbers.
As I said earlier, the Russians should just dump all Hollywood movies and video games onto
a server and call it MegaUpload 2. Hurt an industry most Trump voters despise anyway and you
might be able to turn republicans against their warmongering representatives in congress who
are pushing for sanctions, etc.
Actually, it means "pure fool," "reines Tor" would be "pure gate" (not door), and it comes
from the Wagner opera Parsifal, where the protagonist is a pure fool, enlightened by
compassion. I'd probably choose a funnier handle today, but ultimately it doesn't matter.
This point of false dichotomy is very important. Everything at this point, points to the
fact that there was no nerve agent employed against the Skripals and that they were simply
knocked out by some chloroform like substance. The fact that they survived, and recovered
without any problems, is irrefutable proof of this.
Therefore a false dichotomy is employed in order to, we can say mentally sodomise people
into believing that the only option is that the Kremlin did it.
I see people stating in comments sections in British newspapers that the official story is
bullshit but that they simply can't believe that their own government would disperse CWs
throughout their country, however this is a mute point as it has been disproven that CWs were
used at all and that the obvious conclusion is that they were simply drugged and held against
their will while their oh so benevolent government spun an endlessly shifting fairytale,
growing ever more convoluted and self contradictory by the day.
Even if both NATO and the EU collapsed, and a war broke out with one or some of our
neighbors, neither Austria nor Croatia would be likely enemies. Of our NATO allies, both
Romania and Slovakia were more likely enemies. I hope it won't happen, because both are
seriously stronger than us.
The F-16 is no longer in production (though maybe a restart is planned?), but most
operators are happy enough with it.
Here, locally, I find it interesting that the commenter "Sean" got sodomized himself or is
just trying to sodomize us. There is one recurring almost below the radar theme in his
comments: war with Iran and the opportunity of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians it will
bring. He might be right about it though I still hope this will be prevented while he seems
to be welcoming it. And for some reason he seems to need Putin dead or compromised for this
scenario to happen.
Public opinion in Russia is a lot like this actually. It seems that state-tv interrupted
its anti-Western programming during World Cup, which caused approval of both US and EU to
spike into positive territory for the first time since 2014.
Somebody SHOULD investigate: Michael McFaul, Samantha Power, Robert Mueller, Peter
Strzok, George Soros, William Browder, Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, Christopher
Steele, John Podesta, Barack Obama, and John Brennan.
Congress has done a SHlTTY Job of it. Perhaps Vladimir Putin SHOULD be allowed to
publicly question these traitors, in the USA.
And reiner Tor, you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom, but
getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?
I don't fear it much, it'd simply be a stupid policy. I also don't like ethnic cleansing
and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a requirement if you were to occupy
Ukraine.
The predictable result would be a state of emergency in Central Europe and a strong
mobilization against Russia. Military expenditures would quickly rise to 5% of GDP in Central
Europe, but it'd rise around Europe.
But actually some kind of military action in Ukraine as a direct response to American
sanctions might make sense. Just don't expect Ukrainians or neighboring peoples to greet you
with flowers. So you might bomb some military targets recently installed by the
Americans.
But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make
it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about
conquest.
There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which
you wouldn't even be able to finish.
AK: In the future, please unite your multiple low effort one-sentence posts into one. Since
they aren't very high quality, fill up valuable screen real estate, and splicing them
together takes too much time on my part, I will otherwise have to just start deleting them.
Captain Albert Ball, VC, DSO & Two Bars, MC (14 August 1896 – 7 May 1917) was an
English fighter pilot during the First World War. At the time of his death he was the United
Kingdom's leading flying ace, with 44 victories.
These sanctions are complex, well thought out, most probably not by Goyim.
Now We can see that Scripal affair was definitely false flag.
These sanctions are obviously not a punishment.
..
These sanctions are telling Mother Russia to get on her knees, or die.
.
These are not really sanctions. This is Ultimatum.
.
Everybody should understand that.
Putin cannot be read like a book, but we can be confident that he is capable of deceiving
even his closest confidants, for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin .
There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to launch than Yeltsin.
All other things being equal, but Yeltsin was never framed for murder by the West even
once, so he never had Russian forces on red alert; never had the safety catches off
. Yet in the Black Brant scare Yeltsin actually activated the nuclear keys , something
that never happened even in the Cuban Missile crisis. In circumstances where there was
already a hair trigger because of some misunderstanding and Yeltsin had a too much of a
hangover to think clearly and recognize bad advice, he might well have launched. Putin would
never knowingly launch first, but the opening of move of a nuclear first strike would
be a high altitude air burst to blind the victim's radar so waiting for the first nuclear
detonation would not be an option.
If he and his country had been framed for murder twice in a row, Putin would take the some
of the safeties off of the Russian nuclear deterrent because it was not working at the normal
settings. All it would then take is someone, possibly at a low level, to get careless and we
are in the danger zone. The Russians do not think America is likely to attack them out of the
blue, but they do not rule out the possibility (Reagan said that was what most surprised him
about the Soviet leadership once he came to know them).
Wealthy Russians put their money in offshore British accounts, you seriously think anyone
in their right mind would do that if the British Deep State was capable of deliberately
framing Russia for assassinations. Dirty money from all over the world comes to offshore
British accounts because Britain has the rule of law and the ill gotten gains are safe. It
simply would not pay Britain to behave like a banana republic in the way you are suggesting.
What you are suggesting is like MI5 & 6 stealing the gold out of the Bank of England,
except it would be more plausible because there would be something in it for them. South
Korean had the death penalty for capital flight. Putin is less crude, he is using the British
sanctions against his circle (and you must be associated with circle to get rich in Russia)
to force dodgy Russians and their money to stay put .
Putin's long term objective is to nullify foreign influences, which boils down to Western
soft power and money. The Russian and Western elite were growing together before he started
the high profile assassinations, now the divergence is gaining a momentum of its own. The
more the West retaliates the better Putin likes it, hence arrest of Maria Butina and the
heavy boots of the bots are grist to Putin's mill, the more amateurish the espionage against
the West, the better. That is why the
OPSEC–oblivious GRU suit his purpose so much
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/06/the-gru-the-russian-intelligence-agency-behind-the-headlines
"The GRU regards itself as a war-fighting instrument. Yes, it gathers conventional
intelligence but its culture is much more military," said Mark Galeotti, an expert on
Russian security issues and the country's intelligence agencies. "Although only a minority
of GRU officers are Spetsnaz, it has an impact when part of your service are
commandos."
Putin sacked the vast majority of the old GRU; the new commander Sergun was low
ranking (although he was to be promoted to Colonel General after he designed the Donbass
uprising) and was keen on contacts with the US, but died mysteriously in 2016, and the ones
left know better than to ask questions about the ultimate purpose or ulterior motive of
goading the US. Anyway, Putins's objectives in all this are not to get away with anything, he
wants the bad public relations, he wants the West to reject Russia and all its works,
all the better to keep Russian away from Western influence. I just think the idea of the West
deliberately pushing a proud nuclear armed power into confusion such as Andropov was in
during Able Archer would be foolhardy beyond belief.
Brilliant. And I like how you are able to weave in your almost non-existent knowledge of
Latin too! This definitely proves that your IQ is in the 99* range. Like I say, you're
showing real progress each and every day. Soon, I suspect that readers of this blog will be
giving you 'agreements' each and every time you write something here, like your buddy
Janissary !
On the other hand, the more such crises there will be between nuclear armed states, the
more likely that one of those will result in a nuclear war. Humans (or machines, for that
matter) will inevitably miscalculate once in a while, and those might result in one side
believing it's about to be obliterated, so that it can "use it or lose it." All kinds of
stupid (or seemingly stupid) factors might get into this, like sleep deprivation, extreme
stress, fear of shame or loss of face, etc. People have committed murder-suicide under all
kinds of circumstances, starting a nuclear war as an act of final desperation is certainly
not out of the realm of possibilities.
So while nuclear weapons greatly diminish the likelihood of a world war, it certainly
doesn't make it impossible, and, on a long enough timeline, its likelihood will approach
1.
Their armies are certainly much stronger, in terms of artillery or armored forces for
example. Their air forces are not, but with the very low number of planes, it wouldn't be
decisive anyway. And they're both in the process of buying F-16s, unless I'm mistaken. I
think once these are over, the Slovakian Air Force will be roughly as strong as the Hungarian
one, or somewhat stronger, while the Romanian will be multiple times stronger.
The Slovak military is somewhat smaller on paper (in terms of troop numbers) than the
Hungarian, but even that might be just a paper advantage. At least Slovakia is a smaller
country (roughly half the size of Hungary), but Romania is vastly bigger, and its military is
even larger than would be proportional.
Anyway, I don't think any Hungarian government would have the appetite to wage war against
either of these.
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and the
world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even
Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory. I don't see EU Member States
raising any objection to further sanctions. Quite the contrary, in fact. The EU is the
principal victim of Putin's actions and is therefore the principal beneficiary of sanctions.
Don't forget that the fight with Putin began over an attempt by him to prevent Ukraine
signing an association agreement with the EU. The idea that the EU Member States are just
dying to resume trade with Russia is a US internet myth (like so much else about Europe!).
OK the GRU did not use deadly nerve gas on the traitor Skripal because he survived, but by
the same token the GRU did not use knockout gas in the Dubrovka Theater because they killed
hundreds of innocent Russian hostages. At least we can agree GRU did use flamethrowers and
heavy machine guns in the Beslan school, because they shot and burned hundreds of Ossetian
children to death.
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and
the world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even
Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory.
Look I know you are another dim witted Ukrainian pretending to be an Anglo Saxon, but even
for you this logic is beyond ridiculous.
President Trump has not dismissed the idea that Russian investigators meet with, and
question, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. President Trump has said that
Vladimir Putin tendered him an "incredible offer": that, in exchange for letting Robert
Mueller's team question the twelve indicted Russian intelligence officers thought to have
participated in the cyber-meddling in the 2016 election, Russian counterparts would get the
chance to question McFaul, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama years. Rather than
dismiss this idea out of hand, Trump, according to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is "going to work
with his team, and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on this front."
At a summit in Helsinki, Finland, with President Trump, Putin floated the idea of inviting
U.S. special counsel investigators to Russia for the questioning of a dozen Russian
intelligence officials indicted last week as part of the special counsel's inquiry into
Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. In return, Putin wanted Russian authorities to be
allowed to interrogate a roughly equal number of Americans, including McFaul, for supposed
illicit activities. At Monday's post-summit news conference with Putin at his side, Trump --
sounding intrigued rather than indignant -- called that an "incredible" offer.
What is the problem with a joint investigation of Michael McFALL, on American Soil.
I have no idea what is going on in Putin's mind, but I can see what he is doing and if he
wants closer relations with the West, his way of showing it seems odd. Do I need to read
Dostoevsky to understand Putin?
But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make
it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about
conquest.
There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which
you wouldn't even be able to finish.
But the sanctions are happening anyway. We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of
whether or not we are going to invade. Actually, as an economist, I don't think we need a
law. What we need is to make sure that the vital sectors of the economy do not rely on US
financial system, by converting oil trade into non-dollar currencies for example.
Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a
country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern
Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more. Doing so will impose costs on the USA.
Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking
tensions in Eastern Europe.
And if USA suddenly grows a brain and declines to play along, Eastern NATO members will
begin re-orienting their foreign relations towards appeasement of Russia instead. That's what
weak people do.
I also don't like ethnic cleansing and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a
requirement if you were to occupy Ukraine.
Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine! I would drive Galicia
population into Poland and other neighboring countries. There would be millions of refugees.
This by itself will seriously destabilise NATO's "Eastern flank". There could be Russian
agents among the refugees, allowing us to seamlessly move from the invasion of the Ukraine to
a campaign of hybrid warfare against Eastern NATO members.
NATO will react to invasion of the Ukraine by positioning to support an insurgency in the
Western part of the country. Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern
Poland – wouldn't that be fun?
Probably better than trying to understand things by reading comic books (Hollywood movies
are the same), which is pretty much what the US establishment uses for their thinking.
for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin "
Doesn't that apply to Obama? Will that not apply to future presidents? Doesn't it apply to
the sitting US senators and congress ? Doesn't this "fooling" apply every time US senators
and congress apply more sanction on Iran and justify their earlier "fooling" when they failed
to stop Trump get out of JCPOA?
It does because majority of Americans supported the deal and wanted to keep the deal.
"fooling" is a little more complex in America that it is in Papua NewGuinea . But fooling
it is.
It is like cries against "fake news ' charges leveled against Facebook infowar or
intercept or antiwar or common dreams by WaPo and NYT and FOX/CNN – being bad because
those lead to violences.
The violences perpetrated against Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Syria are based on lies and
been made possible by Fake News of CNN NYT . The latest servile and sinsiter attempt by NYT
to start talking of banned CW use by Syrians to kill more Syrians is nothing but 'fooling and
lying" fakery of news what they accuse Putin and Russian bot of but without proof.
Congress did not do their job when the CIA, DOJ & FBI ILLEGALLY:
Surveiled citizens. Investigated the Trump Presidential Campaign. Paid Christopher Steele to fabricate a pack of God Damned Lies. Told the FISA Court a pack of God Damned Lies. Obstructed a congressional investigation, into that pack of God Damned Lies. Fabricated ANOTHER pack of lies about Civil-Wars in Georgia & Ukraine. Fabricated YET ANOTHER pack of lies about the Syrian Civil War & ISIS. Fabricated STILL ANOTHER pack of lies about Russia President Putin.
Don't confuse Ukrainians with Ukies. Ukrainians are humans, with their stronger and weaker
points, like all humans, whereas Ukies are the scum of the Earth.
Trump has to thread a fine line with the Neocons and outright JOO firsters in his cabinet who
HATE Putin and the Russians. Push back against these vermin would be good but he probably
wont do it until after the mid terms, we shall see.
I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which
artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In
a real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it,
especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.
The basic assumption is that over the horizon UHF radar (like Australia's Jindalee system)
detects the F-35, allowing Flankers to use their IRST.
Of course some have disputed the study, as well they should. A major problem with IRST is
its very limited field of view, though pairing this with low frequency radar mitigates
that.
In a real world situation the Su-35 would detect the AMRAAMs before impact rather than be
surprised. Whether or not the AMRAAMs destroy the Su-35 would depend on many factors such
as:
• Number of AMRAAMs fired
• Distance from which AMRAAMs are fired
• Quality of Su-35 countermeasures
• Pilot skill (duh)
Should also be pointed out that the Russians are now fielding L-band AESA radars embedded
in wingtips specifically for counter-VLO purposes. See here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
That's irrelevant for three reasons:
1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to
produce in the near term.
2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to
sell the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.
3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an
appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35
should be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any
other country save perhaps Israel.
Chengdu J-20 and J-31 units will most certainly not be capped at 187 units. Fifth
generation fighters will almost certainly proliferate beyond China and Russia as well.
No, the US didn't "need" to sell the F-22 to Japan. But the sale would've strengthened
Allied forces in the Pacific theater, kept the F-22 production line open and cut unit costs,
reduced the American trade deficit, and provided jobs and profits to Americans. The F-22
export ban was an own goal.
Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that
you can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance.
Kinematic performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a
decisive advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any
issues with the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm
opponents + combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.
This decisive advantage depends on two assumptions:
• Counter-VLO sensors will not be effective (or fielded in adequate numbers), or at
least won't be enough to vector interceptors (whether aircraft or missiles) to the target
• Kill probability of BVR missile shots has improved by two orders of magnitude since
the last air war against a near peer
Obviously, overwhelming the opponent with numbers is always a war winning strategy. NATO
can thus be expected to prevail in any air war against Russia, though not without a bloody
nose.
That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less
than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other
aircraft."
Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these
craft – thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad
idea after all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a
program.
I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In
any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a
larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the
asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are
hard to hit or detect.
The airframe is inferior to what the US could have done otherwise, and is inferior to
contemporary aircraft. This inferiority was not driven by the stealth does requirement and
thus counts as an own goal.
The B model stems from the Marine Corps remember some battle in the Pacific War where Navy
air support didn't show up. Therefore they must have their own fighters, a logic which
strangely wouldn't apply to the Army.
If our doctrine or experience dictates that a STOVL aircraft is desirable, fine. But given
the limitations of STOVL aircraft, it ought to be a separate design.
Dealing with Chinese strikes at Pacific bases is probably better dealt with by buying more
heavy equipment and training more Seabees. You can patch holes pretty quickly.
That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the
craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in
radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It
also has IR reduction measures.
Here's a thermal image of an F-35 from a modern IR camera:
No IR reduction in the world is going to disguise 45,000 pounds of thrust from a single
nozzle.
Yes, the F-35 has substantially reduced RCS compared to non-VLO aircraft. News at 11. It
has, however, inferior stealth compared to the F-22 (let alone the YF-23).
RAM is useful, but the largest reductions in RCS come from airframe shaping. F-35 is not
optimized in the lower or aft areas. The original X-35 is quite decent here, but this was
changed for the F-35 in order to increase internal weapons load out. Given the original
intention of employing it as a tactical strike fighter, this wasn't unreasonable.
Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?
This originally concerned exports. Any damn fool can tell you that numerical superiority
is very powerful.
No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite
well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American
aircraft.
In a 1v1 engagement with no supporting elements where the rival fighters approach each
other head on, I agree. But this isn't reflective of actual combat.
1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing
stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in
coordination with the F-35.
B-2 is unsuitable for this role owing to the location of its radar:
That said it has been proposed to use the B-1 for this role, which I think is a good
idea.
Drone idea is worth trying, though I'm skeptical of the ability to retain datalinks in an
electromagnetically challenged environment. And drones autonomously launching missiles could
be dubious–but this could be solved by wargaming (if its proven autonomous drones ID
targets better than human pilots, have at it).
2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability
and maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or
in a variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role
fighter. It will do BVR just fine.
Stability not a concern with fly-by-wire and thrust vectoring (which the B-2 doesn't have
incidentally, yet is a stable bombing platform).
There is incidentally a trade-off between stability and maneuverability, hence why
fighters from the F-16 on have been designed to be inherently unstable.
But in any case you've been pooh poohing maneuverability here, citing the superiority of
BVR combat. If BVR is your goal, then you want a larger missile load, more powerful/sensitive
sensors, and increased stealth. A flying wing eliminates the issue with resonant effects (if
a vertical surface is less than eight times the size of a radar wavelength, it produces a
resonant effect).
The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by
pointing out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when
building the craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.
Well I suppose that's true, but whole JSF program would've been better if:
1 – STOVL had been left out
2 – Kinematic performance had been considered important
Have to agree with you: Soros, Browder, MSM owners, Pentagon contractors, and all other
sorts of scum are much bigger threat to the US than Putin, Un, Iranian Ayatollahs, Assad, and
many others. The enemy within is always more dangerous. Especially when that enemy has only
one loyalty: to his/her/its money.
Interesting, a few years ago Algeria had to have Russia redo the electronics in the Su
30′s that it bought because there was some Izraeli electronics in it.
You are forgetting thievery and corruption that provides cover for that thievery. Out of
every dollar spent in the U on "defense", at least 90 cents are stolen, some of the money is
used to buy "patriotic" politicians who pretend not to see the thievery.
No they don't pluck books off shelf . They watch the snippet cribbed from some internet
site on Fox TV /CNN and use it as evidence. That were the sources of evidences they offered
on Syrian using sarin gas.
Last air war between near peers was Vietnam. BVR combat was a total failure.
Radars and missiles have improved a lot since then of course, but so have
countermeasures.
There were BVR kills in Operation Mole Cricket 19 and Desert Storm, but fighting
incompetent Arabalonians doesn't count as near peer. And there were still WVR kills in those
campaigns.
Depending on ROE in a conflict or confused airspace, there will be a need to visually ID
targets on occasion.
The main thing that's changed about dogfighting is that heat seeking missiles can now lock
onto an aircraft from any angle (instead of just behind) and launch from high off boresight.
This makes instantaneous turning performance more importance than sustained turning
performance.
But like I said, if BVR missiles are now truly as miraculous as you think, then the F-35
is an improper design. In fact, so is the F-22 and more or less all other existing fighters.
The idea "fighter" of existing aircraft would be the Airbus A380 launching thousands of
missiles at once
BVR missiles also work just as well from the ground as the air (with some kinematic
disadvantages, and of course can't deal with attackers on the deck). Magical BVR missiles
suggest we should be building a lot more SAM systems.
I bring you the air superiority force of the future:
These senators may or may not be lunatics themselves. This does not change the fact that
they are bought and paid for puppets of lunatics, the US moneyed elites that dangerously
degenerated after 1991. The US used to be a decent country. Not anymore.
There was a joke about Czechoslovakia in the USSR: Czechoslovakia is the most peaceful
country on Earth, it does not interfere even in its own internal affairs. Puppet masters
change (Hitler, USSR, the US), but the policy stands.
i lived in the russian federation for several years (yuzhno sakhalinsk, 2011-2012). i don't
claim to be a russian expert, however, i did not detect any virulent comintern intent amongst
the russians with whom i was privileged to interact. for the most part, they seemed like
everyone else i have come across in my travels on this pitiable orb; they were simply trying
to get by, and were as capitalistic as any crony capitalist in america.
maybe someone with more foreign relations erudition, and experience than i could pen an
expositive on why there exists such animosity betwixt our nations, other than the all to well
known need for a bogeyman so as to facilitate u.s. world hegemony.
for a country which is broke, and which depends upon martial, and venal, intimidation to
achieve/sustain its aims, the impending comeuppance could be very humbling, and decisive.
As Ben Aris notes, the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions
against Oleg Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals
market.
Aluminum has a unique market dynamic which other products with more fungible supply chains
don't share. Sanctions are a work in progress. Treasury has learned from the Rusal matter.
Henceforth it can collapse even bigger Russian companies like Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil
without much fear of a concomitant contagion. Oil and gas are the ultimate fungible
commodities.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly punish Russia
is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the economic
output
This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound
up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls. Russia's economic
output, measured in GDP, is the same size as New York City's. It has always been a question
of how far the US was willing to go to punish Russia. There are nuclear options in the US
quiver that can pretty much destroy the Russian economy. But so far the US has been applying
relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not
making a value judgement). But the perception that Trump has somehow been captured by Russian
intelligence has ratcheted things up.
Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
It's not a question of trade between Russian and the US. It's a question of trade between
Russia and the world since the US controls the global economy.
Mr Fack , your ukraruina , your jojolistan , is the black hole of Europe , you want to set
Europe on ( atomic ) fire fot the benefit of the usa , and of your corrupted oligarcs .
No real country in Europe respects ukraruina , a very inmoral and stupid pseudocountry .
Ukraruina could have been a golden bridge between the EU and Russia ,and choosed instead to
be a blood trench for the benefit of the oligarcs of the usa . You are a cursed land .
Swarms of missiles? What? With the F-35 capacity of 4 AMRAAM? The ones that haven't been
upgraded, have been unreliable since at least 2016, and would be vulnerable to manuever
anyway? The twenty five plus year old missiles?
Stealth is only stealth to high fidelity radar, as in versus missile locks. That's great,
but low frequency radar will still reveal the location of aircraft for the purpose of general
location. So it's not really a "bolt from blue," which is much more of a ground to air
concept since IR missiles don't telegraph themselves like radar locks do.
Goodness, you are one thick POS.
As I have said before Cyrano is a serious intellectual .you on the other hand are a serious
cretin.
Seeing as it's that part of your menstruation cycle, I thought I would add another proof
of how fake "Ukrainian" history and language is. From a company yet again threatening the
collapse of Ukrainian infrastructure due to an oligarchic dispute:
As you can see the Ukrainian version is a waste of time, when the Russian version exists
..the whole fake language is a fabrication by lowlife scum Banderite tossers who escaped
bestiality charges in the 1940′s/50′s and fled to America/Canada
If Putin wants to retaliate by creating a destabilizing crisis in the USA, he could simply
admit that he has proofs that Trump COLLUDED with Russians operatives to affect the
election.
Trump will be removed and Mike Pence will take over throwing the USA in a deeper crisis.
Is Trump aware of this Damocles sword if he does not stop the Congress for escalating
sanctions?
There are theories, but the mass bueaucracy made some really strange results. In Vietnam,
ROE required visual confirmation of targets to use beyond visual range weapons. Weapons that
homed into flares because they produced "heat."
Well, that worked about as well as could be expected.
Well, no, Austria-Hungary gave an ultimatum: "do these in 48 hours or we'll go to war".
These demands are also unrealistic, but they are just pretext for new sanctions. It is very
unlikely that the US will take any military action against Russia. Russia responding to more
sanctions/economic warfare with attacking the West with nukes is also very unlikely.
It is also very unlikely that the people pulling the strings want WW3 with Russia. They just
found a convenient scapegoat and want to ramp up tensions with Russia not independently of
the game to bring down Trump for "colluding with Russia".
Face it, Russia is bound to lose an economic war, they cannot really retaliate without
hurting themselves. They could close the gas taps, but then they lose a lot of money. They
could close Russian airspace, but then they lose a lot of money too. They could deny Soyuz
seats to American astronauts, but the US has other options (not ready yet but they could get
them ready if really needed) etc. Russia is not a big economic player and never was one.
Regarding the sanctions the question is whether the EU will follow the US, probably yes, EU
companies are going to lose a lot of money, but they would lose much more if they are
punished by the US govt.
The US hawks think that they can bankrupt Russia like they did with the Soviet Union. The
question is how viable is Russian economy if mostly cut from the world economy including
finance and how tolerant will be the Russian people with the hardships. Looking at Iran, if
they could manage then Russia should be able to, but more hardships must be expected. Also
the government may do away with democratic pretensions and go full autocracy in the case of
popular unrest. And of course Russia will be dependent on China more than now. Why is it good
for the US if Russia becomes China's little bitch instead of a strategic ally against Chinese
expansion is another question. Rationally thinking China is the future geopolitical rival of
America and not Russia. But the people pulling the strings want to screw Russia bad, that is
their first goal, obviously, they feel ideologically fueled hatred for Russia beyond
strategic calculations.
Somehow a lot of comments here were deflected into a discussion of F-35 vs other fighters,
including Russian. I am not a technical expert, so I can comment only in general terms.
Overall, the technology in the US is more advanced. However, there is one huge difference
between Russian and American weapons: Russian ones are designed for the battlefield, whereas
American ones are design to maximize manufacturers' profits. To what extent does this
difference cancel technological potential in fighter planes, I don't know.
Why would Russia do that? The US is destroying itself more efficiently than any of its
enemies could ever achieve. Reminds me of a dark joke "if you see your enemy committing
suicide, do not interfere".
As a matter of fact, the USSR was not bankrupted. It was destroyed because the Party
elites wanted to steal a lot more than the Soviet system allowed. They succeeded, now they
are oligarchs, whereas the great majority of the population got screwed.
This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound
up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls
For now yes, but if forced to, it could leave those structures and survive without them.
Of course it wouldn't be pretty especially the transitional period.
But so far the US has been applying relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that
Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not making a value judgement).
The idea that Russia would i.e. abandon the Crimea if sanctioned hard enough and such
"hopes" are delusional. A country that still sees itself as a great power and has a lot of
national pride is not going to make such concessions to the US. If Putin looks a wuss to the
Russian people he will fall more quickly than because of any sanctions. But I doubt that
there were even such hopes for real. The aim was always just to ratchet the hostility up with
Russia more and more, until a full blown cold war.
Here's the Video of Schoolchildren Just Moments Before Being Massacred by U.S.-Backed Saudi
Bombing
"This blood is on America's hands, as long as we keep sending the bombs that kill so many
Yemenis."
"... "Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed." ..."
"... "Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in." ..."
"... "In reality, Saudi Arabia's and the United States' rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess." ..."
"... Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC. ..."
"... "Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed." ..."
"... "By backing the Saudi coalition's war in Yemen with weapons, aerial refueling, and targeting assistance, the United States is complicit in the atrocities taking place there." -- Sen. Bernie Sanders ..."
ya right.
Like all wars, most media, including Common Dreams, either sugarcoat them or obfuscate the
real purpose. And of course the politicians do that even better, like Sanders, who just a few
years ago was begging Saudi Arabia to "get their hands dirty", just at the time that the U.S.
proxy war in Yemen heated up with their lapdog Saudi Arabia getting their hands dirty indeed.
The problem of course is that it's not just the U.S. supplying the bombs and military
guidance, it's that it's actually another U.S. proxy war using it's favorite terrorists and
terrorist supporting countries for it's imperialist agenda.
"Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in
Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need
for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This
means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they
were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed."
"Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say,
but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its
unfortunate stand-in."
"In reality, Saudi Arabia's and the United States' rhetoric aside, a brutal regional
regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from
abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess."
Actually it's larger than that, it's part of the larger imperialist struggle against China
and Russia, control of the Bab-el-Mandeb oil chokepoint and control of oil and other
resources in the MENA.
Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons
but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC.
@Big Al
don't get the why/when for if they
ever do amerika won't be amerika anymore
and that could go both ways, for better
or for worse
and you're correct in Sanders won't say
it but Bernie shouldn't be the one stop
cure all, their need to be many more voices
but the crickets are most abundant.
Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons
but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC.
ya right.
Like all wars, most media, including Common Dreams, either sugarcoat them or obfuscate
the real purpose. And of course the politicians do that even better, like Sanders, who
just a few years ago was begging Saudi Arabia to "get their hands dirty", just at the
time that the U.S. proxy war in Yemen heated up with their lapdog Saudi Arabia getting
their hands dirty indeed. The problem of course is that it's not just the U.S. supplying
the bombs and military guidance, it's that it's actually another U.S. proxy war using
it's favorite terrorists and terrorist supporting countries for it's imperialist
agenda.
"Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda
in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so
the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be
necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after
the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up
collapsed."
"Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per
say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia
as its unfortunate stand-in."
"In reality, Saudi Arabia's and the United States' rhetoric aside, a brutal regional
regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from
abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess."
Actually it's larger than that, it's part of the larger imperialist struggle against
China and Russia, control of the Bab-el-Mandeb oil chokepoint and control of oil and
other resources in the MENA.
Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying
weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the
MIC.
#4 don't get the
why/when for if they
ever do amerika won't be amerika anymore
and that could go both ways, for better
or for worse
and you're correct in Sanders won't say
it but Bernie shouldn't be the one stop
cure all, their need to be many more voices
but the crickets are most abundant.
Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying
weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the
MIC.
(the other so called progressive heroes) are saying,
"By backing the Saudi coalition's war in Yemen with weapons, aerial refueling, and
targeting assistance, the United States is complicit in the atrocities taking place
there."
-- Sen. Bernie Sanders
is basically propaganda. Clearly he's making it sound like the U.S. is supplying weapons
and some military assistance and therefore is complicit in the atrocities that Saudi Arabia
and it's "coalition" are perpetrating in "their" war, which in turn leads people to believe
(and the progressive hero politicians to propose) the U.S. simply needs to stop supplying
those weapons and military assistance, i.e., get out of Saudi's war. But that misses the
history of U.S. interest and involvement in Yemen, it's real role in the near genocide
happening there and the overall agenda of those controlling our government. And that is why
most Americans, including most progressives, don't know what is really going on in Yemen. Our
political "representatives" and the 90% owned by six rich bastard corporations oligarchy
media won't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's why people still
believe the war in Syria is a civil war. It's why people believe the Russia cold war
propaganda. That's all they hear and the only way to get the real truth is to dig for it and
try to make sense of the big picture along with the true history of this country and our
government and political system.
Not to mention he's a fucking hypocrite.
"Even worse, after the Saudis started bombing Yemen with U.S. government backing earlier
this year, killing thousands and leading to what the UN is now calling a "humanitarian
catastrophe," and suffering that is "almost incomprehensible," Sanders continued. In another
interview, again with Wolf Blitzer in May, Sanders did correctly note that as a result of the
Iraq invasion, "we've destabilized the region, we've given rise to Al-Qaeda, ISIS." But then
he actually called for more intervention: "What we need now, and this is not easy stuff, I
think the President is trying, you need to bring together an international coalition, Wolf,
led by the Muslim countries themselves! Saudi Arabia is the third largest military budget in
the world, they're going to have to get their hands dirty in this fight. We should be
supporting, but at the end of the day this is [a] fight over what Islam is about, the soul of
Islam, we should support those countries taking on ISIS."
(Note on Truthdig article: also propaganda inserted by both Sanders and the author by
insinuating the U.S. wars in the MENA "gave rise" to ISIS. That is not true, ISIS was
created, aided and abetted FOR the wars in the MENA and beyond.)
WASHINGTON -- Saying he just wants to fit in with his colleagues, shy Rep. Harold Olsen confided to reporters Wednesday that he often
feels left out of all the illegal activities going on in Congress and wishes his fellow lawmakers would include him in their crimes.
"I see everyone around me committing these...
The key problem is technological dependence on the West and the fact thet there no viable alternative to neoliberalism yet. Resotration
of New Deal is impossible as management and professional classes are now allied with capital owners. So while those Philippics are entertaining,
in reality Russian needs to suffer and try to grow its economics and raise the standard of living of people without rocking the boat
too much. China too.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian and Chinese governments are puzzling. They hold all the cards in the sanction wars and sit there with no wits whatsoever as to how to play them. ..."
"... The Russians are also convinced that they should freely trade their currency, thereby subjecting the ruble to manipulation on foreign exchange markets. If Washington wants to bring a currency crisis to Russia, all the Federal Reserve, its vassal Japanese, EU, and UK central banks have to do is to short the ruble. Hedge funds and speculators join in for the profits. ..."
"... Why don't the Russian and Chinese play their winning hands? The reason is that neither government has any advisers who are not brainwashed by neoliberalism. The brainwashing that Americans gave Russia during the Yeltsin years has been institutionalized in Russian institutions. Trapped in this box, Russia is a sitting duck for Washington. ..."
The Russian and Chinese governments are puzzling. They hold all the cards in the sanction wars and sit there with no wits
whatsoever as to how to play them.
The Russians won't get any help from the Western media which obscures the issue by stressing that the Russian government doesn't
want to deprive its citizens of consumer goods from the West, which is precisely what Washington's sanctions intend to do.
The Russian and Chinese governments are in Washington's hands because Russia and China, thinking that capitalism had won, quickly
adopted American neoliberal economics, which is a propaganda device that serves only American interests. For years NASA has been
unable to function without Russian rocket engines. Despite all the sanctions, insults, military provocations, the Russian government
still sends NASA the engines. Why? Because the Russian economists tell the government that foreign exchange is essential to Russia's
development.
Europe is dependent on Russian energy to run its factories and to keep warm in winter. But Russia does not turn off the energy
in response to Europe's participation in Washington's sanctions, because the Russian economists tell the government that foreign
exchange is essential to Russia's development.
As Michael Hudson and I explained on a number of occasions, this is nonsense. Russia's development is dependent in no way on the
acquisition of foreign currencies.
The Russians are also convinced that they need foreign investment, which serves only to drain profits out of their economy.
The Russians are also convinced that they should freely trade their currency, thereby subjecting the ruble to manipulation
on foreign exchange markets. If Washington wants to bring a currency crisis to Russia, all the Federal Reserve, its vassal Japanese,
EU, and UK central banks have to do is to short the ruble. Hedge funds and speculators join in for the profits.
Neoliberal economics is a hoax, and the Russians have fallen for it.
So have the Chinese.
Suppose that when all these accusations against Russia began -- take the alleged attack on the Skirpals for example -- Putin had
stood up and said:
"The British government is lying through its teeth and so is every government including that of Washington that echoes this
lie. Russia regards this lie as highly provocative and as a part of a propaganda campaign to prepare Western peoples for military
attack on Russia. The constant stream of gratuitous lies and military exercises on our border have convinced Russia that the West
intends war. The consequence will be the total destruction of the United States and its puppets."
That would have been the end of the gratuitous provocations, military exercises, and sanctions.
Instead, we heard about "misunderstandings" with out "American partners," which encouraged more lies and more provocations.
Or, for a more mild response, Putin could have announced:
"As Washington and its servile European puppets have sanctioned us, we are turning off the rocket engines, all energy to Europe,
titanium to US aircraft companies, banning overflights of US cargo and passenger aircraft, and putting in place punitive measures
against all US firms operating in Russia."
One reason, perhaps, that Russia does not do this in addition to Russia's mistaken belief that it needs Western money and good
will is that Russia mistakenly thinks that Washington will steal their European energy market and ship natural gas to Europe. No
such infrastructure exists. It would take several years to develop the infrastructure. By then Europe would have mass unemployment
and would have frozen in several winters.
What about China? China hosts a large number of major US corporations, including Apple, the largest capitalized corporation in
the world. China can simply nationalize without compensation, as South Africa is doing to white South African farmers without any
Western protest, all global corporations operating in China. Washington would be overwhelmed with global corporations demanding removal
of every sanction on China and complete subservience of Washington to the Chinese government.
Or, or in addition, China could dump all $1.2 trillion of its US Treasuries. The Federal Reserve would quickly print the money
to buy the bonds so that the price did not collapse. China could then dump the dollars that the Fed printed in order to redeem the
bonds. The Fed cannot print the foreign currencies with which to purchase the dollars. The dollar would plummet and not be worth
a Venezuelan bolivar unless Washington could order its pupper foreign central banks in Japan, UK, and EU to print their currencies
in order to purchase the dollars. This, even if complied with, would cause a great deal of stress in what is called "the Western
alliance," but what is really Washington's Empire.
Why don't the Russian and Chinese play their winning hands? The reason is that neither government has any advisers who are not
brainwashed by neoliberalism. The brainwashing that Americans gave Russia during the Yeltsin years has been institutionalized in
Russian institutions. Trapped in this box, Russia is a sitting duck for Washington.
Turkey is a perfect opportunity for Russia and China to step forward and remove Turkey from NATO. The two countries could offer
Turkey membership in BRICS, trade deals, and mutual security treaties. China could easily buy up the Turkish currency off foreign
exchange markets. The same could be done for Iran. Yet neither Russia nor China appear capable of decisive action. The two countries,
both under attack as Turkey is from Washington, sit there sucking their thumbs. (See
this )
This article was originally published on the author's blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... "The currency of our country is targeted directly by the US president," ..."
"... "This attack, initiated by the biggest player in the global financial system, reveals a similar situation in all developing countries." ..."
"... "All of our action plan and measures are ready," ..."
"... "Together with our banks, we prepared our action plan regarding the situation with our real sector companies, including Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the sector that is affected by the fluctuation the most," ..."
"... "Together with our banks and the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), we will take the necessary measures quickly." ..."
"... "It is making an operation against Turkey Its aim is to force Turkey to surrender in every field from finance to politics, to make Turkey and the Turkish nation kneel down," ..."
"... "We have seen your play and we challenge you." ..."
Turkey has accused Donald Trump of leading an attack on its national currency. The lira lost
about 40 percent of its value against the US dollar this year and, to reduce its volatility,
Ankara has prepared an urgent action plan. "The currency of our country is targeted
directly by the US president," Finance Minister Berat Albayrak told the Hurriyet.
"This attack, initiated by the biggest player in the global financial system, reveals a
similar situation in all developing countries."
The Turkish lira took a massive hit against the dollar on Friday following Trump's decision
to double tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Turkey to 20 percent and 50 percent.
Overall, the national currency lost roughly about 40 percent of its value this year.
To calm down the markets, the government instructed its institutions to implement a series
of actions on Monday. "All of our action plan and measures are ready," Albayrak said,
without elaborating.
"Together with our banks, we prepared our action plan regarding the situation with our
real sector companies, including Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the sector
that is affected by the fluctuation the most," the minister
said . "Together with our banks and the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency
(BRSA), we will take the necessary measures quickly."
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan meanwhile slammed the US decision to impose new tariffs on
steel and aluminum imports.
"It is making an operation against Turkey Its aim is to force Turkey to surrender in
every field from finance to politics, to make Turkey and the Turkish nation kneel down,"
Erdogan said
in Trabzon on Sunday. "We have seen your play and we challenge you."
The word "bagman" has fallen out of common usage over the years, which is a damned
shame. It's a perfect word for the era: According to Merriam-Webster, a "bagman" is defined as "a person who on
behalf of another collects or distributes illicitly gained money; an intermediary in an illicit or unethical
transaction."
Sound like anyone you've seen in the news lately?
So long as corruption has existed in the human hive, there have been bagmen to do the dirty work and move the
money. If you were a contractor in ancient Rome looking to get a piece of the action on that new Coliseum deal,
some version for the age -- a
hominis bulgae,
if you will –would grease the skids to the doorstep of an
influential senator on the take.
Juicy historical parallels are, to me, better than a cold peach on a hot day. This one is especially sweet and
twice as timely. Back in the wildly corrupt 19
th
-century days of
Tammany Hall
, dirty money was often carried from person
to person in actual bags, hence the name. Tammany's top bagman was a chair-maker named James H. Ingersoll, who was
business partners with the Hall's most notorious leader, William "Boss" Tweed.
Ingersoll helped Tweed and his Tammany cohorts steal millions of dollars for the purposes of bribery and
personal enrichment, often siphoning the cash through shady real estate deals and properties that did not actually
exist. The money would find its way into Ingersoll's account, whereupon it was disbursed in various bags to
various swells in various parts of the city.
The New York Times and Harper's Weekly eventually blew the lid off the Tammany machine, and James Ingersoll's
lucrative bagman career was over. He was convicted on two counts of forgery in 1872 and spent two and a half years
in jail. He was pardoned in 1875 on the condition that he testify for the state in the second corruption trial of
Tweed; the first had ended in a hung jury. Ingersoll did exactly that, and "Boss" Tweed ultimately died of
pneumonia in the Ludlow Street Jail in 1878.
We don't say "bagman" anymore; the papers today would call James Ingersoll an "embezzler," a "fixer" or a
"money-launderer." Ingersoll was all those things, but language has a tendency to drift over time, especially in
matters of the law. "Graft" becomes "corruption," "grifter" becomes "politician,"
It is not only George Soros is losing. Neoliberalism is losing some of its fights too, despite recent revenge in sev eral Latin
American countries. Deep state was always an alliance of Wall Street sharks with intelligence agencies and Soros is a true representative
of this breed. He is connected and acted in sync with them in xUSSR space. In this sense he can be viewed as a part of Harvard
Mafia which economically raped Russia in 1990th...
Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, correctly called Soros and other speculators "unscrupulous profiteers" whose immoral
work served no social value. That actually aptly characterize all members of Harvard mafia not just George Soros.
BTW, if Victoria Nuland (of EuroMaydan putch fame) praises a particular person, you can be sure that his person serves US
imperial interests...
Notable quotes:
"... ...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark against him. ..."
"... In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that "we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world." ..."
"... I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has created around the world it has been confirmed. ..."
"... Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. ..."
"... I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening. ..."
"... As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best. But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the rest of us. ..."
"... I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate power to effect political outcomes because of their money. ..."
"... Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. ..."
"... Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used in that context by those who have it. ..."
"... What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights. ..."
"... Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity. ..."
"... Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous. ..."
"... George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that "philanthropy". ..."
"... What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple. ..."
"... What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth ..."
"... What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent among which are these two: ..."
"... Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism. ..."
"... The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe. ..."
"... Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals. ..."
Yet the political realm is where Soros has made his most audacious wager. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, he poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the former Soviet-bloc countries to promote civil society and [neo]liberal democracy. It was
a one-man Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, a private initiative without historical precedent. It was also a gamble that a part of
the world that had mostly known tyranny would embrace ideas like government accountability and ethnic tolerance. In London in the
1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an "open society," in
which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper's concept became Soros's cause.
... ... ...
...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal
agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark
against him.
Last autumn, he signaled that same sense of defiance when he announced that he was in the process of transferring the bulk of
his remaining wealth, $18 billion in total at the time, to the O.S.F. That will potentially make it the second-largest philanthropic
organization in the United States, in assets, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is already a sprawling entity, with some
1,800 employees in 35 countries, a global advisory board, eight regional boards and 17 issue-oriented boards. Its annual budget of
around $1 billion finances projects in education, public health, independent media, immigration and criminal-justice reform and other
areas
... ... ...
He decided that his goal would be opening closed societies. He created a philanthropic organization, then called the Open Society
Fund, in 1979 and began sponsoring college scholarships for black South African students. But he soon turned his attention to Eastern
Europe, where he started financing dissident groups. He funneled money to the Solidarity strikers in Poland in 1981 and to Charter
77 in Czechoslovakia. In one especially ingenious move, he sent hundreds of Xerox copiers to Hungary to make it easier for underground
publications to disseminate their newsletters. In the late 1980s, he provided dozens of Eastern European students with scholarships
to study in the West, with the aim of fostering a generation of [neo]liberal democratic leaders. One of those students was Viktor
Orban, who studied civil society at Oxford. From his Manhattan trading desk, Soros became a strange sort of expat anticommunist revolutionary.
... ... ...
In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that
"we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not
national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns
the world." Along with the fiery speeches, there were the billboards, which featured a picture of a smiling Soros and the message,
"Let's not let George Soros have the last laugh."
... ... ...
Orban's coalition won 49 percent of the vote, enough to give it a supermajority in Parliament. But the anti-Soros campaign didn't
end with the election. Days after the vote, a magazine owned by a pro-Orban businesswoman published the names of more than 200 people
in Hungary that it claimed were Soros "mercenaries."
... ... ...
There have been mistakes; by his own admission, Soros erred in championing Mikheil Saakashvili, the mercurial former president
of Georgia, and also became too directly involved in the country's politics in the early 2000s. He clearly misjudged Orban. But as
Victoria Nuland, a former American diplomat who worked for both Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, put it when I spoke to her recently,
"George is a freedom fighter."
"Billionaire philanthropist?" Really? Does that make the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelstein "philanthropists" too, or does
that label apply only to left-leaning individuals seeking political leverage many times that of the average citizen?
One citizen, 1 vote. ALL citizens should be limited to $100 contributions for their senators, representatives and the President.
NO citizen should be able to contribute to a campaign in a state where he/she is not a full-time permanent resident.
And NO citizen should be able to contribute more than $100 to his/her own campaign. We don't need more Kennedys, Clintons,
Bloombergs, Trumps, Perots or Forbes buying (or trying to buy) their way into public office, using their millions.
Of the people, by the people, for the people. That's the model, folks. Depart from it at your peril.
Soros--a "European at heart." Must have brought some much-needed smiles to the UK following the recent Trump Tour of Destruction.
How soon we forget--in the 90s, Soros broke the pound as the Brits were trying to unify European currencies--with unfortunate
conditions that weakened the effort and Soros smartly exploited.
Who can blame a globalist from crashing a poorly devised govt scheme and walking away with a cool $1B--back when a billion
dollars was a lot of money? I am not the person to say whether Soros may qualify as an honest proponent of democracy, but I strongly
suspect that he is a poster boy of the ultra-nationalists as they battle globalization.
In a way, Soros epitomizes the failure of globalization, which may or may not benefit the classic, labor-intensive industries
of manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and mining, but always benefits, sometimes wildly, the financial "industry."
As far as I'm concerned, Soros is merely making reparations. And, sorry to say, George, it's prob too little, too late.
I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has
created around the world it has been confirmed. Nigel Farage, the British politician, recently said on television that Mr.
Soros is out to destroy the world. It certainly appears to be the case when you see what he did to the British and Thai economies.
He was so concerned with helping immigrants and refugees that he had little regard for the citizens that actually lived in those
countries that are being affected. People lost their livelihoods but that did not matter to him.
Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. He ... does not care who he hurts as
long as he promotes his progressive agenda. He wants to allow as many immigrants to enter a nation as possible even if it adversely
affects that country while he lives in luxury and is not inconvenienced by this invasion. He has billions and will probably never
be touched by massive immigration.
I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they
can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations
are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected
and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening.
As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best.
But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the
rest of us.
I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal
democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate
power to effect political outcomes because of their money.
The making of such huge amounts of money is not done with any charitable purpose. Only later, does charity come to mind.
Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. Yes, a billion people around the world are better
off because of the forces of "globalization" (this total most definitely includes Soros himself), but millions of Americans have
suffered economically as a result. GATT, NAFTA and the entire alphabet soup of trade deals have lined the pockets of the globalists,
while grinding the fortunes of U.S. working and middle class laborers into dust.
Great article. Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used
in that context by those who have it. At this juncture, I think the American people deserve to see an expose of all those
millionaires and billionaires who have and continue to support Trump. It's only fair, to lay the money trail on the table, on
all sides, for everyone to see.
What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the
world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and
move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights.
Immigration policies are also sometimes used in ways to suppress wages, and even more worse, enacted with very little thought
given to assimilation. Most of the poorer areas, or ghettoes surrounding Paris for example are populated with huge numbers of
Muslim immigrants that face extremely daunting odds of fully assimilating into French culture.
While the wealthier (sometimes elite [neo]liberals) Parisians almost certainly live in gated or posh neighborhoods with hardly
any immigrants as their neighbors. Despite the generous financial support Soros (and some other elites) gives to human rights
causes, he rarely outright discusses some of these problems associated with free trade, globalization and mass immigration. These
seeming hypocrisies and inconsistencies then become much easier fodder for those of Orban's ilk to manipulate and ultimately consolidate
power.
Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the
take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity.
First, Hungary is not xenophobic, they merely want to protect their culture. Second, George Soros wants plenty of wealth for
him and his family, yet he wants those of us in the middle class to dive up our meager assets with the world's poorest. Third,
his personal wealth has often been generated by destroying currencies and the middle class who owns those currencies. Fourth,
he promotes open borders without consulting the citizenry of said borders as to their opinion regarding their own national sovereignty.
Our world would be a much better place without George Soros.
Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions
by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians
and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous.
Soros employs his vast wealth to create the society he dreams of, regardless of what the rest of us want. When the democratic
process veers away from his vision, he uses the power of his wealth to steer it back.
So he's just another wealthy and powerful elite trying to remake the world as he prefers it. Such arrogance!
Sucking money out of the world's economies so that he can direct it as HE sees fit does not make a man great. Rather, I would
argue that such actions contributed to the rise of both Brexiteers and Trumpsters.
If Soros really wants to contribute to society, he would lobby for financial industry reform - less favorable tax treatment
for hedge funds (what value do they really provide to society) and a transaction tax on trades to reduce speculation. Then fight
for minimum wage increases.
This is a horrifying interview and does not improve the image of George Soros. "My ideology is nonideological," he says while
spending billions on politics, which he defines as "In politics, you are spinning the truth, not discovering it." He describes
Obama as his greatest disappointment because Obama "closed the door on me," as in he expected Obama should work with him and take
his advice. Soros uses his billions to fund politicians and meddle in elections... this is a man who enjoys influencing and manipulating
politics and becomes frustrated when his efforts backfire or are not successful.
This man is the absolute worst! His no borders policy has done more to hurt Europe then Russia ever could. The Soros gang has
zero respect and tolerance for nation-state sovereignty and local governance. Talk about a global elite! He and his gang epitomize
that arrogance.
George Soros bet big on open borders,one world governance and destroying the working class through unfair trade agreements.
Yes he appears to be losing. Thank God for small favors.
It cracks me up to read these type of article in the NYT and then read another story in the NYT about how if you can pay the
money you can have yourself a private waiting area in a major airport to separate yourself from the chaos of the masses in the
public waiting areas. Maybe democracy wouldn't be in trouble around the world if it worked as well for the "slobs" in the public
waiting areas as it did for those in the exclusive waiting rooms. This is globalization in a nutshell. It works great for the
rich, not so well for the rest of us slobs. This is a government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people.
The slobs realise their government doesn't really care that their jobs are disapearing and their standard of living is going down.
To say that George Soros is funding [neo]liberal democracy is a misnomer. What Soros is funding is open borders. Where national
interests are set aside, global interests prevail. This is precisely what George Soros is advocating. Tired of having to face
multitude regulatory systems in his effort to build a global financial empire, Soros is quite right in discerning that a borderless,
global regulatory system would increase his financial power exponentially. Nations are right to resist the encroachment of Soros
because global interests, by definition, are not local interests. Nationalism, so loathed by Soros and his open border lackeys,
serves as a check and balance on men like Soros who would be god and would dictate to the world from some point of central governance
what their truth and value should be. George Soros and his globalist kin should be resisted. The true threat to global interests
is not nationalism, it is globalism.
Soros, and American [neo]liberalism, economic and social [neo]liberalism championed by Soros and the NYT, is in its death throes.
Call us fascists, totalitarians, racists--- understand clearly: we do not care. Europe is waking up. [neo]liberalism is close
to being dead. No spectres or phantoms are haunting Europe. Blood is standing up and answering our ancestors.We are not commodoties,
consumers, meat for your wars. You have attacked us, belittled us, turned our queen of continents into latrines of filth. You,
American [neo]liberalism, have destroyed us.Now, we take our nations back.
It's amusing to read phrases like "nationalism and tribalism are resurgent". It never does to underestimate tribalism; as long
as groups feel safe they are tolerant. But when groups feel threatened, tribalism rears up in what is not so much a resurgence
but more like an awakening from a nap.
The older cultures of Europe are waking up from a nap and realizing that unless they reassess a few long-held assumptions,
they will eventually be ethnically diminished and culturally pressured.
Denmark has banned the burka and legislated some of the harshest migration, immigration, asylum, and naturalization laws in
Europe. It is implementing laws to ensure integration, including stopping benefits to families whose children are not integrating.
Do the author and Mr. Soros think that Denmark exercising control over its future demographics and preserving its culture are
malign?
The Danes some years ago elected the Danish People's Party to significant power; the DPP is often referred to as a far right
party, but is a typical left-wing party in everything except pushing Denmark toward "multiculturalism".
Sweden's centre-left government, on the other hand, brought in hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants and then refused
even to admit, let alone discuss, the glaring problems with integration within its immigrant community.
Result: the Sweden Democrats, a bona fide neo-Nazi party, are set to do extremely and alarmingly well in Sweden's September
elections.
This super-rich elitist from Hungary is trying to buy American democracy and reshape it in his image regardless of what We
The People want. And the Democrats are on his payroll and totally owned by this foreign agent!
Soros' flaw is that he only tolerates centralized socialist democracy. He cannot stand the idea of democracy in the form of
a federal republic with a weak central government. Interestingly, he made his billions as a predatory capitalist now he turns
on capitalism. He also exhibits a particularly vicious elitism: No one should be allowed to own guns except his private security
guards. He knows that umarmed men are always someone's slaves.
Soros is a hypocrite who did one thing and is now out to create a legacy. All is shows is he is driven by both greed and ego.
His blatant hypocrisy probably did more harm than good - common denominator, it's always about him. Hey Soros, don't do us plebes
any more favors, ok?
Democracy is alive and well, regardless of what Soros thinks. He does not represent democracy, he was never been elected to
any public office. He represents open borders mass migration, as the name of one of his NGOs implies, Open Society Foundation.
Brexit voters, and other voters across the west are increasingly voting against his philosophy. Voters in the US, Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, etc, have democratically chosen as their leaders conservative controlled borders leaders, and
to underscore, all were elected via the democratic process.
Open Borders and globalism that Soros is pushing is increasingly being rejected in voting booths in the EU and the US.
It is hardly undemocratic to increasingly vote against what Soros is selling – chaotic mass migration made possible by open
borders.
He represents [neo]liberal democracy, and voters increasingly favor conservative democracy.
George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does
not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that
"philanthropy".
Red Cross and Salvation Army is philanthropy. What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas
on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple.
Sure, he is not the only one doing that, but he is the one doing that most overtly and blatantly. He seems to relish being
the face of the elitist disregard for the masses. What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy
destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort.
Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth, just as leftists predicted.
Soros benefitted financially, which has increased his privilege to participate in governance voters cannot achieve. Despite Soros'
wealth, successfully manipulating currency markets does not easily transfer to manipulating electorates. Even if Soros believes
his projects would produce good governance, he lacks the ability to convince voters what is in their best interests.
I am elated to hear that George Soros might be losing.
What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent
among which are these two:
1). Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism.
2). The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe.
Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over
the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals.
"... Coalition attacks on Yemeni markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never call them out for what they do. ..."
There was another Saudi coalition airstrike on a
crowded market in northern Yemen today. Dozens of civilians have been killed and dozens more
injured. Many of the dead and injured were children whose school bus was hit in the attack:
Coalition attacks on Yemeni
markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike
civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never
call them out for what they do. The U.S. continues to arm and refuel coalition planes
despite ample evidence that the coalition has been deliberately attacking civilian targets. At
the very least, the coalition hits civilian targets with such regularity that they are
ignoring whatever
procedures they are supposed to be following to prevent that. The weapons that the U.S.,
Britain, and other arms suppliers provide them are being used to slaughter wedding-goers,
hospital patients, and schoolchildren, and U.S. refueling of coalition planes allows them to
carry out more of these attacks than they otherwise could. Today's attack ranks as one of the
worst.
Saada has come under some of the most intense attacks from the coalition bombing campaign.
The coalition illegally
declared the entire area a military target three years ago, and ever since they have been
blowing up
homes ,
markets ,
schools ,
water treatment systems, and
hospitals without any regard for the innocent civilians that are killed and injured.
The official U.S. line on support for the war is that even more civilians would be killed if
the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition. Our government has never provided any evidence to
support this, and the record shows that civilian casualties from Saudi coalition airstrikes
have
increased over the last year. The Saudis and their allies either don't listen to any of the
advice they're receiving, or they know they won't pay any price for ignoring it. As long as the
U.S. arms and refuels coalition planes while they slaughter Yemeni civilians in attacks like
this one, our government is implicated in the war crimes enabled by our unstinting military
assistance. Congress can and must halt that assistance immediately.
Update: CNN reports on the
aftermath of the airstrike:
The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said that a hospital it supports in
Saada had received 29 dead bodies of "mainly children" under 15 years of age, and 40 injured,
including 30 children.
"(The hospital) is very busy. They've been receiving wounded and dead since the morning
and it is non-stop ," ICRC head of communications and spokesperson Mirella Hodeib told
CNN.
Second Update: The Associated Press
reports that the death toll stands at 43 with another 63 injured.
Third Update: The death toll has reportedly risen to 50 . 77 were
injured.
Of course I have no right to surprise or shock. They've already targeted hospitals,
foreign doctors and nurses, first responders, wedding parties, and funerals.
School buses.
We used to make movies about killing people who do things like this. Now we help them do
it.
The repetitive frequency and intensity of these attacks on hospitals, schools, markets and
other civilian gatherings, coupled with the indifference of the guilty national governments
and their international enablers, signals that the world and human species is passing through
a mass psychosis. This psychosis is playing itself out at all levels. Fascism, which is very
current as a national psychology, is generally speaking, a coping strategy for dealing with
nasty chaos. This coping strategy is designed around generating even more chaos, since that
is a familiar and therefore more comfortable pattern of behavior; and that does provide a
delusion of stability. A good example would be the sanctions just declared by the Trump
Administration on Iranian commerce. In an intrinsically connected global market, these
sanctions are so thorough that they qualify as a blockade, within a contingency plan for
greater global conflict. But those who destroy hospitals, schools, school buses and public
celebrations are not, otherwise, forward looking nice people. We are descending into a nasty
fascist war psychosis. Just shake it. Live. Long and well.
"even more civilians would be killed if the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition"
If we did not hand them satellite images, did not service, repair and refuel their planes,
and did not sell them the bombs, then they would . kill more civilians how? They could not
even reach their targets, let alone drop explosives they do not have.
What Would Mohammad Do? Buy bombs from the Russians? Who have better quality control and
fewer duds, hence more victims?
What Would Mohammad Do? Get the UAE to hire Blackwater to poison the wells across
Yemen?
How exactly do the profiteers in our country, that get counted out blood money for every
single Yemeni killed, propose that the Saudis and Emiratis would make this worse?
But, good to know that our "smart" and "precise" munitions can still hit a school bus.
Made In America!
The coverage in the media has been predictably cowardly and contemptible in the aftermath of
this story. I read articles from CNN and MSNBC and they were variations on "school bus
bombed", in the passive tense – with no mention of who did it or who is supporting them
in the headline, ad if the bombings were natural disasters.
Fox, predictably, was even worse and led with "Biblical relics endangered by war", which
speaks volumes about the presumed priorities of their viewership.
This, and not anything to do with red meat domestic politics, is the worst media
malpractice of our time. "Stop directly helping the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks drop
bombs on school children" should be the absolute easiest possible moral issue for our media
to take a stand on and yet they treat it like it's radioactive.
Speaking as someone who considers themselves a liberal I am infuriated by the Democrats
response. How can the party leadership not see that if they keep flogging the horse of
Russian trolls and shrugging their shoulders over American given (not sold – *given*)
bombs being dropped on schools and hospitals, no one is ever going to take the supposed
Democratic anti-war platform seriously again. The Republicans can afford to be tarde by
association with these atrocities. The Democrats can't.
I wonder how many Democrats are in the same boat as me right now: I may not like Trump or
the Christian conservatives but fights over the Supreme Court or coal plants or a healthcare
law look terribly petty compared to the apparent decision by Saudi Arabia to kill literally
millions. For the first time in my life I'm seriously wishing there was a third-party
candidate I could support and the congressional elections just so I could send a message on
this.
@Hunter C
Vote Libertarian Party. You won't agree with a lot of their domestic agenda, but they're not
going to win, so it doesn't matter. The noninterventionist foreign policy is your message.
"Following an attack this morning on a bus driving children in Dahyan Market, northern
Saada, (an ICRC-supported) hospital has received dozens of dead and wounded," the
organisation said on Twitter without giving more details.
In a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, the coalition called the strike
a "legitimate military action"
The Comment section:
"The US provides the in-flight refueling that makes these bombing sorties possible. The
"Five Eyes" provides the surveillance that picks the targets, and the navigation to hit
them.
KSA is doing precisely what the AZ Empire requires of it. Just as the British Royals and
their banker sponsors dictated over a century ago, so does the Empire direct these heinous
crimes today.
If the Saud Royals ever did go "rogue," they'd be taken out just as the AZ [American
Zionist] Empire has done time and time again."
"There is also the documented presence of American forces and officers in the operations room
of the Saudi coalition." https://twitter.com/abcdaee198/status/1027649243568386055
"Why is it that the Zionist media were up in arms every time White Helmets were digging
Syrian children out of rubble or dousing them with hoses? Dozens of children were slaughtered
in Yemen, and many more maimed and injured and hundreds of thousands are being subjected to
famine but there's only deafening silence on the Zionist-run media."
"Imagine the reaction if the Russians or Syrians had blown up a busload of kids."
-- On the same topic: Israel demanded -- and BBC changed its headline. In a headline, BBC
claimed that "Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby.'" After some time, BBC
changed its title to "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/250275
Obama spoke about mothers sending their children to school in his acceptance speech for
the
Nobel Peace Prize.
He contrasted reality vs hope
and we learned which one he would deliver.
Obama in Oslo, December 10, 2009,:
"Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty
still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what
few coins she has to send that child to school
-- because she believes that
a cruel world still
has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example.
We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us,
and still strive for justice .
We can admit the intractability of deprivation,
and still strive for dignity.
Clear-eyed,
we can understand that there will be war,
and still strive for peace.
We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the
hope
of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
One week later Obama shredded dozens of women and children in Yemen
and covered it up.
I've written many times Obama was Bush II - BUT F...KING TRUMP IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!
So why are you giving us the ancient history deflection???????????
The pic provides an example of how the Outlaw US Empire implements its global population
control policy--all bombs, no kids. Twitterverse is madder than a wet hen. One went to
Trump's twitter to ask where's his outrage over these kid's real deaths, not the staged ones
he launched missiles at Syria over. It deserves to be retweeted millions of times.
Unfortunately, sadists are incapable of being shamed; they just grin at such pics while
congratulating themselves. Betcha the Trump dossier got it backwards--It was Trump who pissed
all over the Russian women.
Almasdarnews. Com. Are reporting a massive Israile army convoy heading for Gaza bigger than
enything seen since 2014 ! This looks serious ! The whole dam world picture is looking way
beyond serious !!!
kudos the exceptional nation in support of those other exceptional nations - ksa and
israel...
everyone else on the planet want to know when this horror will end...
Ahh, thats why. The Saudis are incompetent and vile, but trust the us to be
even more incompetent and even more vile and putrid.
This is horrible! I see it and can not really do much. It is a never ending story of innocent
people being killed off. But it does nurture a solid and hot hate to those people who are
architects of this. They feel safe and secured, but they are sitting on a volcano, and when it
goes, they will go too. Maybe a Gadaffi end.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe , Aug 9, 2018 4:42:25 PM |
13
Ahh, thats why. The Saudis are incompetent and vile, but trust the us to be even more
incompetent and even more vile and putrid.
This is horrible! I see it and can not really do much. It is a never ending story of innocent
people being killed off. But it does nurture a solid and hot hate to those people who are
architects of this. They feel safe and secured, but they are sitting on a volcano, and when
it goes, they will go too. Maybe a Gadaffi end.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Aug 9, 2018 4:42:25 PM |
13 /div
Hate is a hefty spice; it can make you blind to reason, it can make you oblivious to truth,
and make you inoculated against love. But hate controlled, is also a drug that is powerful
and useful, hate nurtured and fed can move mountains and empires. Hate is good in manageable
doses and wrecking in large ones. But take it at own risk.
They are claiming these are legitimate military targets, they targeted 'militants', the
Houthis use 'child soldiers', and use human shields. I bet Nikki Haley still thinks they are
the most wonderful people ever, on the front lines, fighting against the real monsters,
Iran.
What's that supposed to mean??? Trump is President! Aren't you excusing Trump by dredging
up Obama's shet? That excuse not to criticize Trump is getting real old.
@15 Nah, Christian, you are clearly wrong. Nikki would consider KSA to have the 2nd most
wonderful people ever, with the USA holding the Bronze Medal position. There is no doubt who
she holds as The Chosen People.
Don't let this stuff get normalised ! That's why they do it in plain site. It desensitises
the dumb public
i e trump supporters in u s, torys in uk. We should be feeling outrage and hatered towards
the people that
do this . Including our own governments.
No one is excusing Trump. The point that needs to be emphasized is that the War Party has
two wings: repubs and dems. Every last president since WWII has put the interests of imperial
conquest over the interests of the American people. Bill Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump
(as well as all of their wannabes Gore, Kerry, McCain HRC) were and are war mongers. They are
united in their lust for killing children (don't forget Madeline Albright with her "it was
worth it" over the 500,000 babies Clinton killed through sanctions).
This evening #switch off bbc is trending number one on Twitter and number four world wide!
Time we all pushback. on the net,on the streets, everywhere we can.no justice no peace !
Mark2 opines It desensitises the dumb public i e trump supporters
Are you serious? You should listen to my college educated colleagues (more than half with
professional degrees) most of whom are democrats and not one who voted for Trump. When it
comes to war against Syria, Libya, threats against Russia they are true blooded war mongers.
Actually worse than Trump supporters because they in general oppose those wars or war
threats.
Toivos @ 23
Dumb is as dumb does! They come in all shapes sizes and political party's . Trumps a greedy
pig puts children in cages and is a kkk racist don't make excuses he's a monster full
stop!
Don't give me eny of that o but, o but blah blah.!!!
It already is normalized. Go look at many of the comments on MSM (left and right) and so
called progressive sites. Hopefully those are all astroturfers but I suspect many are real
folks. Its luny tunes. They live in the Matrix and are blissfully unaware. Like something out
of 1984 during the 2 minute hate but its 24/7 , or maybe walking dead if the WD could type or
talk.
Another sterling example of how the US teaches its allies to be incompetent, vicious and
cowardly in targeting and killing those least able to fight back.
O Canada! Recently, I praised them as "New Trumpland". But why did they forget that silence
can be golden? Apparently, it dawned on PM that his party is called "liberal" and thus it
must make "liberal calls"*. But what cause should be selected? Massacres and starvation of
cute emaciated children? Conservative predecessor of current PM got ca. 7 G USD contract for
"vehicles" (motorized infantly?) for KSA, and Trudeau will not endanger precious Canadian
jobs. After leaving the task to the Foreign Minister (Freedland, Feminazi**), the plight of
women right activists in KSA with family members in Canada.
Canada cannot yield to Saudi Arabia's deranged overreaction
The regime's reaction to a couple of tweets is more about snuffing out its own country's
voices of dissent
Iyad El-Baghdadi, Amarnath Amarasingam · for CBC News · Posted: Aug 09, 2018
4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: August 9
If Canada folds, some fear that a line would be drawn in the sand, and behind that line,
petty Arab dictators could do what they want with their activist communities, without as much
as a complaint from the world. (Cliff Owen/Associated Press)
=====
Of course Canada cannot yield. For starters, it is unclear what would appease the irate
Crown Prince. Perhaps Trudeau and Friedland coming together to KSA to submit to a public
flogging. But judging from the titles I have seen, Canadians cherish "delicate balance", and
they though that an occasional complaint that is not 100% aligned with USA and principal
customers of Canadian products should be safe.
Agreed. When it comes to knowing the Truth of the Outlaw US Empire's overseas deeds, most
people are illiterate/ignorant. They hang the flag aside their front porch and feel
righteous. The only reason we don't have multitudes of people saluting whoever's POTUS and
chanting Sieg Heil is because in the back of their tiny minds they somehow know that's
incorrect behavior but don't know why. Some provided feedback on Michael Hudson's going
autobiographical saying his upbringing seemed unreal--faked--thus showing how little they
know of WW2 Home Front US history when people were much more informed and politically
savvy.
It seems safe to say that Animal Farm & 1984 have both put down
extensive roots within the Outlaw US Empire to the point where digging up and destroying
those weeds will cause major social damage. Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs is how
the saying goes. But a positive outcome isn't the only possibility.
We need to remember this' the about left or right ! That's just devide and rule. This about
the 1% killing off the 99%
Agend 21.what they are doing to Yemen people now they will do to you next.
The deliberate targeting of civilians is Outlaw US Empire policy since WW2 despite it
being a War Crime. Guernica was an outrage, but Powell had it covered up since spoke directly
to US actions since the paint dried in 1937. The School Bus was yet another of all too many
Guernicas that have occurred since. Someone mentioned desensitized. Yes, on an International
Scale. It was an act of Terror, but how many are describing it as such? BigLie Media? Not a
chance if they show/mention it at all.
I'm not sure we should generalize about Canadians. Trudeau is trying to satisfy his base
and presumably staying true to his own liberal convictions. But I've met Canadians who
dislike him intensely. They do not think gender politics, welcoming refugees, settling native
land claims, lecturing Saudi Arabia etc. is the best way to maintain a high standard of
living.
Israel demanded - and BBC changed its headline. In a headline, BBC claimed that "Israeli air
strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby.'" After some time, BBC changed its title to "Gaza air
strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/250275
A good comment from HistoryHacker (Guardian web page), I thought I share it:
"Let's see: in 1913 the British grabbed Iranian oil and made it their property. Six
years later, Britain imposed another agreement and took over Iran's treasury and the army.
During the Second World War, Britain's requisitioning of food led to famine and widespread
disease. Shortly after that war, Iran's own efforts to establish its nascent democracy and
nationalize the oil industry were thwarted. And by whom? Eisenhower joined the systematic
British looting, and, sadly, by 1953, the blossoming Iranian democracy was completely
destroyed by the covert operation of the American CIA and British MI6, known as Operation
Ajax. In place of the democracy was installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a US-British puppet, a
despot deeply hated by his own people.
America picked up the baton, and here's Trump going bat crazy!
What could Iranians possibly think?! What do you think?"
@36 I knew that PB. Excuse my inadequate attempt to emulate your tone.
But I think it's true that Canadians enjoy a high standard of living mainly because of
things like water, oil, minerals, wheat, lumber etc. and most prefer not to get involved in
Saudi Arabian politics.
I hope that Canada will finally lead heavy public condemnation of the Saudi-UAE coalition
murderous actions in Yemen. Canada has nothing to loose anymore, it is high time it take a
serious stand on the 3 years human rights abuse of the Yemenis.
It should indirectly send a dissaproval message to the USA on its complicity in these war
crimes...
Maybe it is time for Canada, to reinstate diplomatic relation with Iran to snub the Saudis
and the USA, but I am dreaming...
.
"But I think it's true that Canadians enjoy a high standard of living mainly because of
things like water, oil, minerals, wheat, lumber etc. "
Not quite. It's because of water, oil, minerals, wheat lumber, etc., AND they don't breed
like rodents.
India has plenty of resources - adjusting for the cold climate in Canada, probably about
as much as Canada, effectively. It's just that these resources don't go that far split up 1.4
billion ways and counting.
And Yemen? With very little water, and one of the highest fertility rates in the world,
what do you expect?
What to make of the new sanctions put in place by the State Dept against Russia?
What about those on Iran?
Are these implemented to generate WAR?
Whether it be against Russia, Iran or China, The US attitude is orchestrated by
Zion/Israel.
Why deal with the US when Israel is the culprit?
Wiping out Israel is the solution. Obliterating Israel will certainly ease
the World's woes.
Of course, targeted assassinations should be carried out.
Short of this, Netanyahu should be kept waiting for days whitout being able
to meet Putin. His ambassador should be expelled and the Russian Ambassador to Israel
recalled.
Sanction Israel in every way possible. Break the Gaza Siege. Wipe out Israel's
Navy. Down its jets over Lebanon. Kill its Jericho rockets at lift off.
There is also the documented presence of American forces and officers in the operations
room of the Saudi coalition....These guys have not been sent there by Obama...I guess....
But what most makes me feel sick is not that American commenters out there, well payed or
volunteer, insist after two years already on this cantinele, what takes me out of my nerves
is that the Russians insist...in throwing balls out with certain issues....
But what could have really happened? Just yesterday or the day before I was reading that
Israel and Hamas were in negotiations...From that to this...I wonder what could be the
breaking point...
Talks
were a ruse as usual . Supposedly, a cease fire was in place but was broken as reported
at the link. Ongoing protests against the "Nationality Law" continue and go unreported as
usual. The continuing murder of Gazans serves as cover.
@37, "But I think it's true that Canadians enjoy a high standard of living mainly because of
things like water, oil, minerals, wheat, lumber etc. and most prefer not to get involved in
Saudi Arabian politics."
As a lifelong Canuckistani, my view is that Canada is the world's largest mine - and it is
not mine.
@45 But I understand it's not as easy to get mining permits as it used to be. Lot of
environmentalists and first nations lawyers involved. Which is why Canadian mining companies
move to Africa.
the USA will perhaps suffer blowback, both at home and in many places 'strategic' to its
Empire, for generation or two to come, for all the horrible and savage war crimes perpetuated
by it and its allies on the poor people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia,
Palestine, and especially now Yemen, the poorest of the poor - the sorrows of Empire
The US provides the in-flight refueling that makes these bombing sorties possible. The "Five
Eyes" provides the surveillance that picks the targets, and the navigation to hit them.
KSA is doing precisely what the AZ Empire requires of it. Just as the British Royals and
their banker sponsors dictated over a century ago, so does the Empire direct these heinous
crimes today.
If the Saud Royals ever did go "rogue," they'd be taken out just as the AZ Empire has done
time and time again.
CarlD, the purpose of sanctions is to hurt the citizens of a country enough that they will
rise up and revolt against their ruling class.
The AZ Empire has been striving for complete global dominance for a long time, and that
means either destroying Russia and China or at least installing "friendly" governments.
Hence, sanctions, "trade wars," and infiltration to foment "color revolutions."
Pence's new Space Command is a blatant telltale that the twice-hacked and never-audited
Pentagon has a massive hemorrhage of funds and Trump will be demanding ANOTHER $40B budget
increase for Pentagon to paper over a huge Deep Purple Hole in the Bucket.
So Saudis sanction Canada but will still let the oil flow to them (2billion a year) and the
US sanctions Russia but will still buy space rockets from them , and they will still sell
them to us. Trade war with China but they still buy US Treasuries to finance US debt. British
owned BBC rents out their studios to RT to help Russia with their propaganda
Woodrow Wilson : "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me
privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and
manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized,
so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak
above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Today some call them ruling or power elites, global elites for the most part. Elites is an
interesting word whose origins come from the french word for chosen and latin word for
elect.
1. Wealth from natural resources. This is a bit of mixed blessing, because with some
exceptions, mining is very capital intensive, so the profit margins are so-so, and job
creation is also so-so. Canada is blessed with nice mix of extracting industries,
agriculture, "normal" manufacturing, financial centers etc. They also have somewhat
reasonable spending in terms value for money in health and military sectors, saving ca. 10%
of GDP between the two compared with the less rational southern neighbor Perhaps this is
still short of 10%, but USA also wastes money and human resources on prison complex and other
inanities.
2. Liberal Canada. Domestically, I do not know enough, but "harmonizing with USA" could
please some conservatives while being too expensive to implement. On foreign policy they
stick to the worst of liberalism, not standing much for anything, even for their beloved
Vilna Ukrayina, although converting Ukraine to land of milk and honey with capable military
and a reasonable level of corruption is beyond capacity of any foreign power. But they
implemented what used to be totally unjustifiable insult, "feminazi". That said,
conservatives learned from Trump to raise mind boggling issue and gain in polls, lately, how
to stop hordes of "deplorables" crossing the border. I guess a cheapish solution would be to
create a network of recreational trails with very confusing mapping (even GPS) and totally
confusing signage, and plant some smilax = green briar or other thorny plants to impede
hiking according to compass directions. A note on GPS maps based on satellite pictures:
software has very hard time telling dead ends from actually passable trail connections.
3. Populist-progressive Canada of my dreams. Declare the conflicts with KSA and Trump to
be matters of national dignity, punish KSA by stopping delivery of military vehicles per
Harper's contract and purchases of oil, replace the latter with Iranian. Would Trump dare to
impose secondary sanctions, fine American companies in Canada.
Why is it that the Zionist media were up in arms every time White Helmets were digging Syrian
children out of rubble or dousing them with hoses?
Dozens of children were slaughtered in Yemen, and many more maimed and injured and
hundreds of thousands are being subjected to famine but there's only deafening silence on the
Zionist-run media.
Syrian children had propaganda value; Yemeni children have no value at all. Americans,
Zionists and Saudis are sick and depraved.
A little correction to Circe, Aug 9 11:18:38 PM. SELECTED Syrian children were newsworthy, a
recent massacre by ISIS in Sweida was newsworthy only as an example of a failure by "the
regime". An earlier example, when majority of people of Greater Aleppo lived in the western
part controlled by Damascus, "Aleppo" meant only the eastern part, controlled by the
"moderate" rebels, and victims of moderate massacres and shelling were totally un-newsworthy.
Natural resources drive 20 per cent of the economy -- and about 10 per cent of all the
jobs in Canada. These natural resources also help Canada attract manufacturing and value
added business that utilize domestically produced metals, fuel and timber (as opposed to more
expensive imports) Profit motive is overstated, large companies are focused more on income
growth and market share. The jobs that are produced are good paying jobs as well
I'd rather have more good paying capital intensive industries than low pay labour
intensive service and manufacturing industries that may generate more profits but which end
up mostly in CEO and top managements bank accounts
Frankly, the mystery is why America has not invaded Canada and taken over since we last
tried in 1812. :>)
Mark2 @ 31 said:"We need to remember this' the about left or right ! That's just devide and
rule. This about the 1% killing off the 99% "
Yep, bottom line statement. From austerity to all neoliberal policies, and the world-wide
wars now going on, are basically nothing more than class warfare directed at the 99% to
enrich the already rich.
Frankly, the mystery is why America has not invaded Canada and taken over since we last tried
in 1812. :>)
Posted by: Pft | Aug 10, 2018 12:06:44 AM | 61
Absorbing Canada could undermine political balance in USA leading to such calamities like
socialized medicine, legal marijuana etc. Keeping them on Puerto Rico status is not tenable
given the ethnic composition -- too many English speaking whites. If we could just annex
Alberta...
Bang on cue, TG @ 39 uses a comment about Canada's standard of living (brought about in part
by its governments' spending on transport infrastructure - in particular, transcontinental
railways - that stimulated job growth and enabled the agricultural and manufactured wealth of
the provinces to be spread across the nation and to be exported overseas) to push a racist
opinion about how poor countries are at fault for being poor because their people don't have
access to birth control measures made in rich countries.
...
..for all the horrible and savage war crimes perpetuated by it and its allies on the poor
people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and especially now Yemen, the
poorest of the poor - the sorrows of Empire.
Posted by: michaelj72 | Aug 9, 2018 9:12:39 PM | 47
White man's burden...
A phrase used to justify European imperialism in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries; it is the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling. The phrase implies that imperialism
was motivated by a high-minded desire of whites to uplift people of color.
Part of the targeting assurance happens by looking at unexpected "gaps" in electronic
communication signals. When there is a lot of cellphone communication noise" where is is
suddenly absent, despite presence of humans, indicated an interesting anomaly for target
acquisitions.
To confuse the enemy, these "silent spots" should be mirrored in different locations. They
counter The selectief bias.
During WWII, RAF lost planes to German AAA. They wondered where armor them up?
Counterintuitively, the mathematician Abraham Wald explained that, if a plane makes it back
safely despite a bunch of bullet holes in its wings, it means that bullet holes in the wings
aren't very dangerous.
Where you really need the armor, are the areas that, on average, don't have any bullet
holes.
Why? Because planes with bullet holes in those places never made it back. That's why you
don't see any bullet holes there on the ones that do return.
Posted by: CarlD @ 51 "And who is behind all of this?"
Wouldn't you agree that the PTSB are, as Paul Simon wrote, A Loose Affiliation of
Billionaires?
The way I see it, the pinnacle of the pyramid are members of the dynasties that have
controlled the finance system for centuries. Rothschilds, Warburgs, the Vatican, the European
Royal Families and such. They profit off of everything, since all revenues generated by all
industries pass through their sticky fingers, in addition to their Central Banking cabal that
almost every country on earth is fully beholden to.
They are not a monolith, in that they compete with one another, but they all share
interest in keeping this system in place.
Then, at the next level down there are the members of the Nouveau Riche, like the
Rockefellers and Carneigies whose wealth was only generated a couple generations ago, and the
even newer rich who do not have dynastic power (yet), but do wield enough wealth to influence
the actions of the Empire, like the MIC "Daddy Warbucks" and tech industry newcomers.
And of course, there are the upper-level managers of Empire like Kissinger, Brzezenski,
Soros, etc.
We have seen images of dead children of warfare before. I am not sure if it helps the antiwar
cause. I will have to go read Susan Sontag's "The Pain of Others." In any case, thanks for
posting it, b.
Will DJT order a retaliatory strike on KSA after being so moved by these photos like he
was when the children of the fake gas attacks in Syria were being paraded around on the msm?
I think not. Sad!
Posted by: Pft | Aug 10, 2018 12:06:44 AM | 61:
"Frankly, the mystery is why America has not invaded Canada and taken over since we last
tried in 1812. :>)"
Canada and the US are both members of the Five Eyes. Clearly, their roles in the great
chessboard are different. But the way I see it, the nation-states are fictions that serve the
charade of representative democratic self-rule.
This is not so much about Israel as about Neoconservatism and neoliberal globalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they required to disclose such dual citizenship. ..."
"... Dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their second country. ..."
Most Americans
would be shocked if they knew how many foreign citizens are in our federal government -- and at
what levels. They don't know because the mainstream media (or the conservative media, for that
matter) almost never talks about it. It is one of the biggest secrets in Washington, D.C.
Back in 2015, Michael Hager wrote a very important missive that appeared in
The Hill . Hager said:
The Biblical injunction that "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) doesn't apply to
nations. Almost half of the world's countries, including the U.S., recognize dual citizenship
-- even when they don't encourage it for the complicated legal issues it often raises.
For example, one who obeys a requirement to give allegiance to a country or votes in a
foreign election may be regarded as having renounced citizenship in the other country. What
happens when the legal claims of one country conflict with those of the second country? Which
of the two countries has an obligation to assist a dual national in distress?
Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk , a U.S.
citizen who voted in a political election in a foreign state would forfeit his or her U.S.
citizenship. From that point on, dual citizens have maintained their right to vote and hold
public office without penalty.
Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top
officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they
required to disclose such dual citizenship.
So what's the problem?
Dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for policy-level
members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national loyalties of
dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such legislators, judges
or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their second country.
The potential damage to our democracy is the greater when such potential conflicts of
interest are concealed in undisclosed dual citizenship.
The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising
credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest
to continue undetected.
When a senator, representative or senior U.S. official speaks out, submits bills or
determines policy on an issue of importance to a foreign country of which that member or
official (or judge) has the tie of citizenship, their constituents and the U.S. public at large
should at least be able to assess whether such views or actions are influenced by the divided
loyalty.
Since they don't involve national loyalty, religion and ethnicity seldom raise conflict
issues. Moreover, they are generally matters of public record.
By contrast, dual citizenship creates conflict of interest through divided loyalties. Thus
it would seem reasonable to require that dual citizen members of Congress, the judiciary and
the executive be required to renounce citizenship in another country as a condition of public
service.
Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential
conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't
members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to
disclose their citizenship in another country?
Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the
U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or
policy debates that relate to their second country.
As a first step, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress should begin
to include citizenship (along with the current listings of party breakdown, age, occupations,
education, Congressional service, religion, gender, ethnicity and military service) in its
published profiles of each new Congress.
Americans can then decide whether our legislators (and possibly federal judges and senior
government officials as well) should be required to renounce their citizenship in another
country as a condition of public service.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are
required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its
laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other
countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to
one country are in conflict with the laws of the other.
Yet, there are probably hundreds (we really don't know the true number, because as Hager
notes, they are not required by law to declare their foreign citizenship) of foreign citizens
serving in our federal government. And will you be shocked to learn that almost all of them --
if not ALL of them -- are citizens of ONE foreign country? Take a wild guess which country that
is. You're right. ISRAEL.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
In my research for this column (which was not exhaustive), I found over 100 members of the
U.S. government who are known to be dual U.S.-Israeli citizens. Here is a short sample list
(compiled from public documents):
Michael Chertoff
He was the 2nd United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2005 – 2009), serving
under G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. He was co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, Federal Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2003 – 2005) and United States
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (2001 – 2003).
Chertoff's father was Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff (a Talmud scholar and the former leader
of the Congregation B'nai Israel in Elizabeth, New Jersey). His mother was Livia Chertoff
(née Eisen), an Israeli citizen who worked for the Mossad.
As Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Dept. of Justice,
Chertoff personally supervised and controlled the entire FBI non-investigation of 9-11.
Chertoff is the responsible person for the obstruction of justice and blocking access to the
evidence since September 11, 2001.
Chertoff is the co-author, along with Viet Dinh, of the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law on
October 26, 2001. As head of the Justice Department's criminal division, he advised the Central
Intelligence Agency on the legality of torture techniques in coercive interrogation
sessions.
From 2001 to 2003, he headed the criminal division of the Department of Justice, leading the
prosecution against terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui. In this role, Chertoff was central in
creating the 9-11 myth by providing the list of the 19 Arab suspects and supervising the FBI's
confiscation of evidence and the non-investigation of 9-11.
Michael Mukasey
He served as the 81st Attorney General of the United States (2007 – 2009) under
President G.W. Bush; he was the 2nd Jewish U.S. Attorney General. He served for 18 years as a
judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1987 –
2006), 6 of those years as Chief Judge (2000 – 2006).
Mukasey was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several
insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center. He was a major
proponent of G.W. Bush's efforts to expand executive powers in the name of national security.
He was especially outspoken in his support for the USA Patriot Act.
Richard Perle
Perle served as the 1st Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under
President Ronald Reagan. He began his political career as a senior staff member to Senator
Henry "Scoop" Jackson on the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 1970s. He served on the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004 (chairman 2001 –
2003) under the Bush Administration before resigning due to conflicts of interest.
A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Jackson's office in
the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing highly-classified
(National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy.
He has been involved with neocon think tanks including:
·The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Board of Advisors
·The Center for Security Policy (CSP)
·The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
·The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
Perle was a member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group until December 2015. He
is a self-described neoconservative. He co-authored the book An End To Evil: How To Win The War
On Terror with fellow neoconservative David Frum in 2004. The book is regularly used as a
defense of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and outlines important neoconservative ideas, including
ways to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria and implement strict US
domestic surveillance.
Perle is also "an ardent Zionist, a personal friend of [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel]
Sharon, head of Hollinger Digital, part of the group that publishes the Daily Telegraph in
Britain, a board member of the Jerusalem Post, a resident 'fellow' of the American Enterprise
Institute and ex-employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam." Jensen, H. (2002,
October 7). Pre-Emption, Disarmament Or Regime Change? Part III. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from
www.antiwar.com/orig/jensen1b.html .
Over the years, Perle has been known by the nickname "Prince of Darkness." He is a major
player in the Israel lobby.
Perle's connections with former Vice President Dick Cheney run deep, as both are members of
the board of advisors to JINSA, along with National Security Adviser John Bolton and Douglas
Feith. Under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Perle
and Feith worked together in 1996 as advisers to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
There they devised the war to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq and the removal of as many
Palestinians as possible from their homes and properties in the Israeli occupied
territories.
Paul Wolfowitz
Wolfowitz is a political scientist and diplomat who served as the 10th President of the
World Bank from 2005 to 2007 (and resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a
scandal involving his misuse of power), United States Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001 –
2005) under G.W. Bush and United States Ambassador to Indonesia (1986 – 1989) under
Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Like Perle, Wolfowitz came from the Jewish think tank JINSA. He
was the number two leader within the G.W. Bush administration, planning and implementing the
Iraq War.
Douglas Feith
Born to a Jewish family in Philadelphia, PA, Feith attended Harvard University and
Georgetown University Law Center. After graduation, he worked for three years as an attorney
with the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. Feith also came from the
Jewish think tank JINSA.
In the Reagan Administration, he worked at the White House as a Middle East specialist for
the National Security Council and then served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Negotiations Policy.
Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the G.W. Bush administration from
2001 to 2005. His appointment was facilitated by connections he had with other
neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. In that position, he helped
devise the U.S. government's strategy for the war on terrorism and contributed to the plans for
the Afghanistan and Iraq war campaigns.
He is closely associated with the extremist group the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA),
which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at
ZOA conferences.
Feith co-founded a small Washington DC law firm, Feith & Zell, which only has one
international office: in Israel. Feith supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group
of policy and intelligence analysts created to provide senior government officials with raw
intelligence, unvetted by the intelligence community. The office was responsible for hiring
Lawrence Franklin, who was later convicted along with AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs
Committee) employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman for passing classified national defense
information to an Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon.
Henry Kissinger
Kissinger was the 56th United States Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977 under Presidents
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
from January 1969 until November 1975 under Nixon and Ford. He was appointed by President
Reagan to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America in July 1983 until 1985.
He served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 1984 to 1990
under Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. He was a member of the Commission on Integrated Long-Term
Strategy of the National Security Council and Defense Department from 1986 to 1988. And he
served as a member of the Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2016 (under Richard Perle). Henry
Kissinger -- a prominent member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral
Commission -- has been a close personal advisor to every President from John F. Kennedy to
Donald Trump.
John Bolton
Bolton is the current National Security Advisor to President Trump. He was the interim U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations (2005 – 2006) under G.W. Bush. From 1989 to 1993, under
G.H.W. Bush, he was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. He
held positions in the United States Agency for International Development and as Assistant
Attorney General under Ronald Reagan (1985 – 1989). One of the most hawkish of war hawks,
he aggressively supported and helped plan military action and regime change in Iraq and Libya
and is now doing the same thing in Syria and Iran.
Additional Israeli citizens serving in high level U.S. government positions include:
Janet Yellen – Federal Reserve Chair
Stanley Fischer – Federal Reserve Vice-Chair
Lincoln Bloomfield – Assistant Secretary of State
Daniel Kurtzer – Ambassador to Israel
Cliff Sobel – Ambassador to the Netherlands
Stuart Bernstein – Ambassador to Denmark
Nancy Brinker – Ambassador to Hungary
Frank Lavin – Ambassador to Singapore
Ron Weiser – Ambassador to Slovakia
Martin Silverstein – Ambassador to Uruguay
Jay Lefkowitz – Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy
Council
Ken Melman – White House Political Director
Brad Blakeman – White House Director of Scheduling
I found 14 current and former U.S. senators who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens including:
Barbara Boxer
Russ Feingold
Dianne Feinstein
Frank Lautenberg
Joe Lieberman
Bernard Sanders
Charles Schumer
And I found 32 current or past members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are dual
U.S.-Israel citizens including:
Eric Cantor
Barney Frank
Gabrielle Giffords
Jerrold Nadler
Adam Schiff
Henry Waxman
Anthony Weiner
As I said, I have been able to identify well over 100 high-level members of the U.S.
government who are citizens of Israel. And for the sake of this column, I tried to find U.S.
government officials who were dual citizens with other countries, and I couldn't find any. Not
one! I am not saying there aren't any; I'm just saying I couldn't find any. (I am not including
those who were born on foreign soil to American parents. That is a completely different
category.)
Remember what the U.S. State Department official website under the category of "Dual
Citizenship" said:
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country .
They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to
enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims
of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their
obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. [Underlines
added]
The U.S. government is awash with foreign citizens -- Israeli citizens. And if you don't
think that Israel is exerting tremendous influence over the decisions, policies and wars of the
United States, you are hopelessly naïve.
It is absurd that people who are citizens of foreign nations would be allowed to hold public
office in the United States -- or, at the very least, would not be required by law to disclose
those foreign citizenships and recuse themselves from any vote or decision involving the
countries in which they hold citizenship, as Michael Hager opined above. Senator Ted Cruz and
Rep. Michele Bachmann were right to renounce their foreign citizenships (Canada and Switzerland
respectively), albeit they both served several years in Congress as dual citizens and both
surrendered their foreign citizenships only after receiving media backlash for it during their
respective presidential campaigns.
And the presence of a large network of Israeli citizens serving in the U.S. government
should also inspire people to read Christopher Bollyn's new book referenced above,
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East .
I guarantee you that once you read Bollyn's book, you will be able to better understand how
the presence of a large network of Israeli citizens serving as officials within the U.S.
government has been able to shape America's foreign policy and take our country into perpetual
war.
This quote is taken from the book's back cover:
The government and media have misled us about 9/11 in order to compel public opinion to
support the War on Terror.
Why have we gone along with it? Do we accept endless war as normal? Are we numb to the
suffering caused by our military interventions?
No. We have simply been propagandized into submission. We have been deceived into thinking
that the War on Terror is a good thing, a valiant struggle against terrorists who intend to
attack us as we were on 9/11.
Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of
the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the
military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to
understanding the deception that has changed our world.
This book is the one book you must read in 2018. It dispels the myths and destroys the
lies about 9/11 and America's "War on Terror." READ THIS BOOK!
Russian officials reacted with outrage and markets slumped on Thursday morning following
the announcement of tough new US sanctions over Russia's alleged use of a nerve agent in
the Salisbury attack.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the sanctions were "absolutely
unlawful and don't conform to international law", as politicians vowed to respond with
countermeasures, which could include bans on the exports of rockets or resources for
manufacturing.
"The theatre of the absurd continues," tweeted Dmitry Polyanskiy, first
deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN. "No proofs, no clues, no logic, no
presumption of innocence, just highly-likelies. Only one rule: blame everything on Russia, no
matter how absurd and fake it is. Let us welcome the United Sanctions of America!"
One senior Russian MP called the US a "police state".
A member of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, Leonid Slutsky, said Russia could block exports of RD-180 rocket
engines to the US as a potential countermeasure, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
The State Department said the new sanctions would come into effect on 22 August and would be
followed by much more sweeping measures, such as suspending diplomatic relations and revoking
Aeroflot landing rights, if Russia did not take "remedial" action within 90 days.
Moscow is not expected to agree to the response required by US legislation, which includes
opening up Russian scientific and security facilities to international inspections to assess
whether it is producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law.
"Certainly it is really up to Russia to make that decision, whether they meet this
criteria," a senior administration official said. "The second round of sanctions are in general
more draconian than the first round."
Another senior state department official said the US received in March "persuasive
information" from the UK that Russia was behind the attack. It made its own determination last
weekend and was now acting on the basis of "objective facts" and "legal requirements".
Russian markets took the news poorly. Stocks in Aeroflot, the country's national carrier,
fell by 12% in trading before lunchtime on Thursday over concerns that its direct flights
between Russia and the US could be halted entirely.
Russia's currency, the rouble, fell to below 66 to the US dollar, a 4% slide from Wednesday
morning that began with the leak of a separate draft sanctions bill that could see Russia named
a state sponsor of terror.
The US has already expelled 60 suspected Russian spies as part of a global response to the
March attack in Salisbury against
Sergei Skripal , a former colonel in Russian military intelligence, and his daughter,
Yulia , in which a rare and potent Russian-made nerve agent, novichok, was found to have
been used.
"... Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. ..."
"... Traders are particularly concerned by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank, Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed. ..."
"... The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of
legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the
nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions
of the nation's biggest lenders.
"The Kommersant publication was the straw that broke the camel's back,"
said Denis Davydov, an analyst at Nordea Bank in Moscow. "It's important to be able to read and assess the actual
bill."
Market Jitters
No action will be taken on the draft until the House is back from summer recess in September, leaving room for
more market jitters through the end of the month. But with President Donald Trump calling for closer ties with
Russia, and the U.S. Treasury warning earlier this year against sanctioning the sovereign debt market, it's
uncertain the bill will make it into law.
Traders are
particularly concerned
by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests
in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank,
Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed.
The draft also includes Bank of Moscow, which was merged into VTB in 2016, while Vnesheconombank is listed
twice in the text, without explanation.
'Crushing Russia'
"If you start crushing Russia by causing the banking system to collapse as a result of sanctions, it could
actually lead to worse political outcomes than what you have right now," Khan said. "The key rule of sanctions is
that you want to keep some in reserve because if you use your worst sanctions then what do you follow it up with?"
The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It
follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and
intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers from both parties have also been sharply critical of President Donald Trump's meeting with Putin in
Helsinki last month, saying Trump hasn't done enough to hold Russia accountable.
This is attack on ruble. Kind of Magnitsky II set of moves. Strange if view of Trump supposed
attempt to split Russia and China in Helsinki. You should chose a single target in such
cases.
Sanctions weaken the effect of Iranian sanctions. While the goal is to undermine the Russian
economy -- the effect of negative expectations is always stronger than a onetime action -- 90
days allow to avoid big financial losses for major banks. The requirement of inspection of Russia
objects is from Iraq war textbook.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to the dollar. ..."
"... This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the worst valuation since mid-November, 2016. ..."
"... For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK, which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , ..."
"... This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing intensity since 2013. ..."
sanctions was
apparently enough to create jitters on the Russian stock exchanges, and the Russian
Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to
the dollar.
This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the
worst valuation since mid-November, 2016.
This incident has not gone unanswered in Moscow. The Russian Embassy in the United States
called for documentation about the source and reasoning behind these new sanctions, as reported by TASS:
The Russian embassy in the United States has called on the US Department of State to
publish correspondence on the introduction of new sanctions on Moscow over the Skripal
incident, the embassy said in a statement.
" For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK,
which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We
confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of
the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , " the
statement reads.
"We suggested publishing our correspondence on this issue. No answer has followed so
far," the Russian embassy added.
This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity
for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing
intensity since 2013. It reveals the machinations of a very divided American government,
with the "deep State" or establishment politicians and foreign policy makers completely
unwilling to even give Russia a fair shake at representing itself. This policy is shared by the
United Kingdom, as this
piece by The Duran's Editor in Chief, Alexander Mercouris shows, with this summary of
violations of due process the British authorities are committing with regard to Russia:
(1) The British government is interfering in the conduct of a criminal investigation, with
Prime Minister Theresa May and especially Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pointing fingers at
who they say is guilty (Russia) whilst the criminal investigation is still underway;
(2) The British government has said that unless Russia proves itself innocent within a
specific time the British government will conclude that it is guilty. As I have explained
previously this
reverses the burden of proof : in a criminal case it is the prosecution which is supposed
to prove the defendant's guilt, not the defendant who must prove his innocence;
(3) The British government refuses to share with Russia -- the party it says is guilty --
the 'evidence' upon which it says it has concluded that Russia is guilty, the evidence in
this case being a sample of the chemical with which it says Sergey and Yulia Skripal was
poisoned.
This violates the fundamental principle that the defendant must be provided with all the
evidence against him so that he can properly prepare his defence;
(4) The British government is not following the procedure set out in Article IX (2) of the
Chemical Weapons
Convention to which both Britain and Russia are parties. This reads as follows
States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and
resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter
which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to
concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which
receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the
requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting
State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than ten days after the request,
with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation
of how the information provided resolves the matter.
(5) The British authorities are denying the Russians consular access to Yulia Skripal,
though she is a Russian citizen who the British authorities say was subjected to a criminal
assault on their territory.
This is a potentially serious matter since by preventing consular access to Yulia Skripal
the British authorities are not only violating the interstate consular arrangements which
exist between Britain and Russia, but they are preventing the Russian authorities from
learning more about the condition of one of their citizens who has been hospitalised
following a violent criminal assault, and are preventing the Russian authorities from
carrying out their own investigation into the assault on one of their citizens which the
British authorities say has taken place.
I would add that this obstruction of Russian consular access to Yulia Skripal has gone
almost entirely unreported in the British and Western media.
The Americans are playing the same game here, and, regrettably, President Trump's overtures
towards repairing this relationship are almost sure to be torn out from under him by the
actions of this virulent group of people. It is quite possible that this is the very reason for
these new sanctions.
The perspective of the American government as one divided, with a rabid force in favor of
continuing to isolate and vilify a great power in the world for no good reason, is sure to have
repercussions. However, given the gradual realignment of Russia and China to be in closer and
closer partnership, and Russia's increasing prominence in Asian and Eastern Hemisphere affairs,
the end result of this behavior is likely to damage the United States and its standing in the
world over the long run.
6. Focused on violence through brownshirt stormtroopers who beat up any who disagreed
7. Had an intelligence service which focused on crushing dissent and spying on its own
people
8. Placed more power in the central government and state then any Nation before it.
All of the above are things proposed or carried out by leftists. It is almost as if the true
parties espoused by people are those who support individualism and those who support
collectivism. Spoiler alert for the Leftist retards: Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Your Statist Sanders Utopia will never come to fruition. The "Kind Socialist
Politicians" will sell you out to the elite in a heartbeat.
All you are doing is focusing the
power of your society into one single glass for the Elite to sip as they assfuck you into
oblivion, Death toll of all of these Statist Nations, IE Imperial Japan, Soviet Union,
Communist China, the People's "Republic" of Korea, etc is over 200,000,000 and counting.
How is it that the acronym NAZI Literally has the word SOCIALIST in it and people still
think they were right wing??? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for the average
individual?
"... Although he was a brilliant orator, Hitler's failures are too innumerable to list. [Link] He was certainly a failure as a painter and his General staff considered him an incompetent military strategist (fortunately for the Allies.) However, Hitler was merely the right man at the right time and place to achieve power. As Ross explains, Hitler was , "the result of a large protest movement colliding with complex patterns of elite self-interest, in a culture increasingly prone to aggressive mythmaking and irrationality." That sounds all too close to home, doesn't it? ..."
"... Enter Donald Trump; the right man at the right time and place. He's a brute, a bully, and a demagogue, but he understands the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times and he adjusts his message to appeal to his base. ..."
"... I have known many bullies; on the playground and in the boardroom. A bully may achieve short-term gain, but for long-term pain. It is very easy to destroy corporate culture, but extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mend a toxic workplace after the bully was dismissed. Now, extrapolate this to the world under Donald Trump. ..."
"... After his first meeting with Trump, he wrote that Trump "saw every unknown person as a threat and that his first instinct was to annihilate that threat. 'He's like a velociraptor. He has to be boss, and if you don't show him deference he kills you.'" ..."
"... If everything is so awesome, why are Americans drinking themselves to death in record numbers?" [Link] ..."
We're told that great leaders make history. Like so much of what we are taught, that's a
load of bunk. Yes, great leaders make it into the history books, but they do not make history.
You make history. I make history. All we dirt people together make history. Government-run
schools don't teach us this because it makes us easier to control.
The "Great Man Theory" [Link] tells us that history can be
largely explained by the impact of great leaders. This theory was popularized in the 1800's by
the historian and social commentator Thomas Carlyle [Link] The Great Man Theory downplays the
importance of economic and practical explanations. It is an appealing theory because its
simplicity offers the path of least resistance. That should ring an alarm.
Herbert Spencer [Link] forcefully disagreed with the "Great
Man Theory." He believed that great leaders were merely products of their social environment.
"Before he can remake his society, his society must make him." Tolstoy went so far as to call
great leaders "history's slaves." However, this middle ground still misses the mark.
At the other extreme is "history from below" [Link] aka 'the people's history.'
"History from below" takes the perspective of common people rather than leaders. It emphasizes
the daily life of ordinary people that develop opinions and trends " as opposed to great people
introducing ideas or initiating events." Unfortunately, this too is only half the equation, and
it is no surprise that it appeals to Leftist and Marxist agendas.
Having studied politics and history ever since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963,
I determined that although history is partly the environments and individuals shaping each
other reciprocally, it is more than that. It is you and I who make history with every decision
we make, every dollar we spend, everything we learn, every vote we cast and every opinion we
voice. It's even what we don't do. It is mostly organic and cannot easily be explained in a
simple, linear fashion the way the aforementioned political philosophers tried.
Great leaders are merely the right person at the right time and place. However, they do not
lead so much as follow from the front. They stick their finger in the air to see which way the
wind blows. They may be brutes, bullies or demagogues, but they are sensitive enough to
understand the zeitgeist , the spirit of the times and so, they adjust their message
accordingly.
That is one reason Jimmy Carter was a failed President. He was a nice guy, but he did not
get an accurate reading of the times. Instead, he acted on the wishful thinking that is
characteristic of liberals.
One of the significant shortcomings of many political philosophers is their ignorance of
human nature. That is why Collectivism in all its forms appeals to the downtrodden. "Share and
share alike" is a beautiful ideal so long as you get other people's stuff, but the flip side of
the coin is not quite so appealing.
I heard a radio interview with a self-avowed Communist:
"So do you believe in 'share and share alike?"
"Yes, I do."
"And, if you had more than one house, you'd give them away and keep just one for
yourself?"
"Yes. I would."
"And, if you had more than one vehicle, you'd give them away and keep just one for
yourself?"
"Yes, I would."
"And, if you had more than one shirt "
"Whoa, wait a minute! I have more than one shirt."
I can't remember the rest of the interview as I was laughing too hard.
The Great Man Theory is one extreme, its critics are somewhere in the middle and 'the
history of the people' is at the other end of the spectrum. Despite this, we are still
fascinated by great leaders. That is human nature. Whether we are slaves at heart, or lack
self-confidence or some other explanation is endlessly debatable. However, the fact remains
that we are fascinated by great leaders and our inability to understand them further disproves
the accepted theories.
Adolph Hitler is the ultimate example of our fascination with a great man. According to Alex
Ross's "The Hitler Vortex," [Link]
tens of thousands of books have been written about Hitler. "Books have been written about
Hitler's youth, his years in Vienna and Munich, his service in the First World War, his
assumption of power, his library, his taste in art, his love of film, his relations with women,
and his predilections in interior design ('Hitler at Home')."
Tens of thousands of books failed to explain Hitler. Ross, too, does no better when he
writes, "What set Hitler apart from most authoritarian figures in history was his conception of
himself as an artist-genius who used politics as his métier. It is a mistake to call him
a failed artist; for him, politics and war were a continuation of art by other means." WTF? Are
we to believe Hitler was simply an artist who used the world as his canvas? Equally pointless
is the notion that, "Hitler debased the Romantic cult of genius to incarnate himself as a
transcendent leader hovering above the fray."
Although he was a brilliant orator, Hitler's failures are too innumerable to list.
[Link] He
was certainly a failure as a painter and his General staff considered him an incompetent
military strategist (fortunately for the Allies.) However, Hitler was merely the right man at
the right time and place to achieve power. As Ross explains, Hitler was , "the result of a
large protest movement colliding with complex patterns of elite self-interest, in a culture
increasingly prone to aggressive mythmaking and irrationality." That sounds all too close to
home, doesn't it?
Enter Donald Trump; the right man at the right time and place. He's a brute, a bully, and a
demagogue, but he understands the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times and he adjusts his message
to appeal to his base.
I have known many bullies; on the playground and in the boardroom. A bully may achieve
short-term gain, but for long-term pain. It is very easy to destroy corporate culture, but
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mend a toxic workplace after the bully was
dismissed. Now, extrapolate this to the world under Donald Trump.
John Feeley is the former U.S. Ambassador to Panama portrayed in The New Yorker magazine
article "The Diplomat Who Quit the Trump Administration." [Link]After his first meeting with Trump, he wrote that Trump "saw every unknown person as a threat
and that his first instinct was to annihilate that threat. 'He's like a velociraptor. He has to
be boss, and if you don't show him deference he kills you.'"
Feeley fears that "the country was embracing an attitude that was profoundly inimical to
diplomacy 'If we do that we will become weaker and less prosperous.'" He is correct in that
regard. China is building a large, new embassy at the mouth of the Panama Canal visible to
every ship "as they enter a waterway that once symbolized the global influence of the United
States."
Feeley is also correct in warning that the Trump administration's gutting the diplomatic
corps will have negative repercussions. Throughout Latin America, leftist leaders are in
retreat, and popular movements reject corrupt governance. Yet, America is losing "the greatest
opportunity to recoup the moral high ground that we have had in decades." Instead, the U.S. is
abandoning the region to China. Feeley calls it "a self-inflicted Pearl Harbor."
China is replacing U.S. influence in Latin America and Chinese banks "provided more than a
hundred and fifty billion dollars in loan commitments to the region In less than two decades,
trade between China and Latin America has increased twenty-seven-fold." Although that began
long before Trump, "We're not just walking off the field. We're taking the ball and throwing a
finger at the rest of the world."
Feeley says that he felt betrayed by what he regarded as "the traditional core values of the
United States." Sorry, Feeley, but America lost its core values long before Trump was elected.
Trump is not the cause; he is the symptom, the result of the declining American Empire.
Hunters know that one of the most dangerous animals is a wounded one. The same is correct
about failing empires because they are a danger not only to others but to their own citizens as
well. The elites are running out the clock in order to loot as much as they can before it hits
the fan.
We dirt people will continue to suffer from stagnant wage growth while the so-called
increase in national wealth goes to a tiny minority.
[link]
Moreover, nobody wins a trade war that raises consumer prices even if Trump eventually
triumphs.
The economy staggers under the weight of phony wars, fake finances, fake GDP, fake CPI, fake
employment, fake pensions and fake everything.
[Link] The national debt increases $1 trillion every year, consumer debt is at an all-time
high
[Link] while the tax cuts benefit only the ultra-wealthy. Also, the fake news tells us
everything is wonderful. Don't believe it. "If everything is so awesome, why are Americans
drinking themselves to death in record numbers?"
[Link]
It is said that every few generations, money returns to its rightful owners. That is what's
happening now.
America emerged relatively unscathed from the Second World War whereas many other countries
were bombed back into the Stone Age. The Marshal Plan helped rebuild countries that were to
become both America's future customers and its competitors. America's busy factories
transformed from war production to consumer goods, the demand for which was created by "the
Father of Spin" Edward Bernays' marketing propaganda. [Link]
As well, the U.S. stole the gold that the Nazis had stolen from others, [Link]
and that wealth in addition to robust, productive capacity temporarily propelled the U.S. far
ahead of other nations. However, it would not last. Eventually, the undeserved prosperity of
the 1950's and '60's began to run out of steam as other nations rebuilt and competed with the
U.S. President Nixon defaulting on the dollar in 1971 by "closing the gold window" signaled the
end of America's good times . The subsequent debt creation now unconstricted by a gold basis
helped to cushion the blow for several decades, but wealth was now flowing to Asia along with
factory jobs.
For 5,000 years, China was a world superpower with only a short, two-century hiatus that is
now ending as China again emerges as an economic superpower. Such a massive shift in wealth
cannot be attributed to either leadership or the people below. It is a painful reversion to the
mean. All the finger-pointing and wailing and gnashing of teeth not even bombastic Trump and
his tariffs can stem the tide and make America great again as money continues to flow back to
its rightful owners.
The USA is a declining, bankrupt, warmongering police state and most of its indoctrinated
citizens think they live in a free, peaceful country.
China is a corrupt police state, but most of its citizens know it.
We have met the enemy, and he is us. The future awaits.
Aug. 9 - Is Pompeo launching a coup against his boss? By kicking in sanctions on Russia -
invoking a 1991 US law on chemical weapons - the US State Department is further poisoning
President Trump's efforts to improve relations with his Russian counterpart. If President Trump
refuses to enforce the sanctions, he will hand a political gift to Democrats who believe their
election fortunes in November rest on endlessly screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia." And what
are these new sanctions all about? The totally unproven, full-of-holes claims that the Russian
government was behind the Skripal "poisoning" in the UK in March. We untangle some of this
madness in today's Liberty Report:
"... "When will you finally stop beating your wife?" ..."
"... "Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even show," ..."
"... "The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US –we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," ..."
"... "Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison him,'" ..."
"... "And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," ..."
"... "This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," ..."
"... "looking strong on Russia" ..."
"... "The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a campaign move," ..."
"... "As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now." ..."
"... "It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else. Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide this," ..."
Washington's latest sanctions have left no room for a constructive response from Moscow,
analysts explain, but opinions differ widely on how much the measures will affect relations
between the two countries. All interviewed by RT railed against the framing of the sanctions,
nominally prompted by the alleged use of chemical weapons against the Skripals in the UK back
in March. Russia will be punished with a first set of measures from August 22, and is given 90
days to assure Washington that it will no longer deploy chemical weapons, and to open up its
chemical production facilities to international inspectors.
One problem: Russia denies that it has used chemical weapons in the first place and says
that it had already disposed of its stockpile in accordance with international treaties. So, to
use the proverbial example, the US is asking Russia: "When will you finally stop beating
your wife?"
"Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us
your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even
show," Vladimir Kornilov, a political analyst for RIA news agency, told RT.
"The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US
–we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and
unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," said Andrey Kortunov, Director
General of the Russian International Affairs Council.
Leonid Polyakov, from the Higher School of Economics, says that Washington must be aware
that the Kremlin would never agree to its conditions, so setting them in the first place is a
cheap pretense at diplomacy.
"Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never
move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for
example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison
him,'" he told RT.
"And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any
previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," Polyakov pointed out,
citing the recent offer by the Russian president to allow the questioning of its citizens
involved in alleged election-meddling, but only in exchange for William Browder and others
being interviewed by Moscow's investigators.
US 'showing who's boss' or playing to home
audience?
All three experts agreed that not only will the sanctions be rejected, but they are unlikely
to have any indirect effect on Russia's international policies, or its economic outlook.
Kortunov says this is an attempt to claw back international prestige, particularly in the
wake of the US failure to impose its will in Syria, fraying relations with Europe and China,
and Donald Trump's perceived softness in negotiating with Putin in Helsinki last month.
"This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is
boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the
commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the
whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," Kortunov said.
For Polyakov, this is all about "looking strong on Russia" ahead of October's
mid-term elections.
"The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international
consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic
audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a
campaign move," he said to RT.
The professor of political science adds that a lack of ideas over how to corral a feisty
Russia is pushing American officials to press the sanctions button again and again.
"As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international
situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that
sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely
used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now."
Yet Kornilov believes that sanctions are not just a shield for a beleaguered establishment,
but an offensive weapon.
"It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else.
Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide
this," he said.
Can things get worse?
Since hostility between Moscow and Washington is at a post-war high as it is, Polyakov
believes it will be impractical for the two nuclear powers to escalate tensions still further,
beyond the headlines.
A new excerpt
from a book by
C.J. Chivers, a former U.S. infantry captain and New York Times war correspondent,
tells the story of a young man from New York City who joined the U.S. army and was send to the
Korengal Valley in Afghanistan. While the man, one Robert Soto, makes it out alive, several of
his comrades and many Afghans die during his time in Afghanistan to no avail.
The piece includes remarkably strong words about the strategic (in)abilities of U.S.
politicians, high ranking officers and pundits:
On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad,
with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures,
have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their
organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly
expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting slate of senior officers and
politicians and editorial-page hawks, the wars have continued in varied forms and under
different rationales each and every year since passenger jets struck the World Trade Center
in 2001. They continue today without an end in sight, reauthorized in Pentagon budgets almost
as if distant war is a presumed government action.
That description is right but it does not touche the underlying causes. The story of the
attempted U.S. occupation of the Korengal valley, which Civers again describes, has been the
theme of several books and movies. It demonstrates the futility of fighting a population that
does not welcome occupiers. But most of the authors, including Chivers, get one fact wrong. The
war with the people of the Korengal valley was started out of shear stupidity and
ignorance.
The main military outpost in the valley was build on a former sawmill. Chivers writes:
On a social level, it could not have been much worse. It was an unforced error of occupation,
a set of foreign military bunkers built on the grounds of a sawmill and lumber yard formerly
operated by Haji Mateen, a local timber baron. The American foothold put some of the valley's
toughest men out of work, the same Afghans who knew the mountain trails. Haji Mateen now
commanded many of the valley's fighters, under the banner of the Taliban.
Unfortunately Chivers does not explain why the saw mill was closed. Ten years ago a piece by
Elizabeth Rubin touched on this:
As the Afghans tell the story, from the moment the Americans arrived in 2001, the Pech Valley
timber lords and warlords had their ear. Early on, they led the Americans to drop bombs on
the mansion of their biggest rival -- Haji Matin. The air strikes killed several members of
his family, according to local residents, and the Americans arrested others and sent them to
the prison at Bagram Air Base. The Pech Valley fighters working alongside the Americans then
pillaged the mansion. And that was that. Haji Matin, already deeply religious, became
ideological and joined with Abu Ikhlas, a local Arab linked to the foreign jihadis.
Years before October 2004, before regular U.S. soldiers came into the Korengal valley, U.S.
special forces combed through the region looking for 'al-Qaeda'. They made friends with a
timber baron in Pech valley, a Pashtun of the Safi tribe, who claimed that his main competitor
in the (illegal) timber trade who lived in the nearby Korengal river valley was a Taliban and
'al-Qaeda'. That was not true. Haji Matin was a member of a Nuristani tribe that spoke
Pashai . These were a
distinct people with their own language who
were and are traditional hostile to any centralized government (pdf), even to the Taliban's
Islamic Emirate.
The U.S. special forces lacked any knowledge of the local society. But even worse was that
they lacked the curiosity to research and investigate the social terrain. They simply trusted
their new 'friend', the smooth talking Pashtun timber baron, and called in jets to destroy his
competitor's sawmill and home. This started a local war of attrition which defeated the U.S.
military. In 2010 the U.S. military, having achieved nothing, retreated from Korengal. (The
sawmill episode was described in detail in a 2005(?) blog post by a former special force
soldier who took part in it. It since seems to have been removed from the web.)
Back to Chivers' otherwise well written piece. He looks at the results two recent (and
ongoing) U.S. wars:
The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, each of which the United States spent hundreds of
billions of dollars to build and support, are fragile, brutal and uncertain. The nations they
struggle to rule harbor large contingents of irregular fighters and terrorists who have been
hardened and made savvy, trained by the experience of fighting the American military
machine.
...
Billions of dollars spent creating security partners also deputized pedophiles, torturers and
thieves. National police or army units that the Pentagon proclaimed essential to their
countries' futures have disbanded. The Islamic State has sponsored or encouraged terrorist
attacks across much of the world -- exactly the species of crime the global "war on terror"
was supposed to prevent.
The wars fail because they no reasonable strategic aim or achievable purpose. They are
planned by incompetent people. The most recent Pentagon ideas for the U.S. war on Afghanistan
depend on less restricted bombing rules. Yesterday one predictable and self defeating
consequence
was again visible:
An American airstrike killed at least a dozen Afghan security forces during intense fighting
with the Taliban near the Afghan capital, officials said Tuesday.
...
Shamshad Larawi, a spokesman for the governor, said that American airstrikes had been called
in for support, but that because of a misunderstanding, the planes mistakenly targeted an
Afghan police outpost.
...
Haji Abdul Satar, a tribal elder from Azra, said he counted 19 dead, among them 17 Afghan
police officers and pro-government militia members and two civilians.
...
In the first six months of this year, United States forces dropped nearly 3,000 bombs across
Afghanistan, nearly double the number for the same period last year and more than five times
the number for the first half of 2016. ... Civilian casualties from aerial bombardments have
increased considerably as a result, the United Nations says.
One argument made by the Pentagon generals when they pushed Trump to allow more airstrikes
was that these would cripple the Taliban's alleged opium trade and its financial resources.
But, as the Wall Street Journalreports
, that plan, like all others before it, did not work at all:
Nine months of targeted airstrikes on opium production sites across Afghanistan have failed
to put a significant dent in the illegal drug trade that provides the Taliban with hundreds
of millions of dollars, according to figures provided by the U.S. military.
...
So far, the air campaign has wiped out about $46 million in Taliban revenue, less than a
quarter of the money the U.S. estimates the insurgents get from the illegal drug trade. U.S.
military officials estimate the drug trade provides the Taliban with 60% of its revenue.
...
Poppy production hit record highs in Afghanistan last year , where they are the country's
largest cash crop, valued at between $1.5 billion and $3 billion.
More than 200 airstrikes on "drug-related targets" have hardly made a dent in the Taliban's
war chest. The military war planners again failed.
At the end of the Chivers piece its protagonist, Robert Soto, rightfully vents about the
unaccountability of such military 'leaders':
Still he wondered: Was there no accountability for the senior officer class? The war was
turning 17, and the services and the Pentagon seemed to have been given passes on all the
failures and the drift. Even if the Taliban were to sign a peace deal tomorrow, there would
be no rousing sense of victory, no parade. In Iraq, the Islamic State metastasized in the
wreckage of the war to spread terror around the world. The human costs were past counting,
and the whitewash was both institutional and personal, extended to one general after another,
including many of the same officers whose plans and orders had either fizzled or failed to
create lasting success, and yet who kept rising . Soto watched some of them as they were
revered and celebrated in Washington and by members of the press, even after past plans were
discredited and enemies retrenched.
Since World War II, during which the Soviets, not the U.S., defeated the Nazis, the U.S. won
no war. The only exception is the turkey shooting of the first Gulf war. But even that war
failed in its larger political aim of dethroning Saddam Hussein.
The U.S. population and its 'leaders' simply know too little about the world to prevail in
an international military campaign. They lack curiosity. The origin of the Korengal failure is
a good example for that.
U.S. wars
are rackets , run on the back of lowly soldiers and foreign civil populations. They enriche
few at the cost of everyone else.
Wars should not be 'a presumed government action', but the last resort to defend ones
country. We should do our utmost to end all of them.
you know, it is just as easy to influence a foreign society by making movies (Bollywood in
this case) with a certain bent, the one you want people to follow. After a few years of
seeing the Taliban as villains, there would be no fresh recruits and mass desertion. But, the
weapons manufacturers wouldn't be making their enormous profits. This same effect can be seen
in American society, where the movies coming out of Hollywood started becoming very
aggressive in tone around the time that Ronald Reagan became president. Movies went from The
Deer Hunter to Rambo and Wall Street. Is it any wonder that even the progressive Left in the
USA thinks it is ok to attack their political adversaries and that violence is justified?
This is the power of movies and the media.
Thank you 'b' this post as always is a true in depth education !
If you run for president of the United States of America enytime soon you'v got my vote !
bjd @1 highlights an important truth similar to that exposed by Joseph Heller in
Cache-22 and by Hudson's Balance-of-Payments revelation he revealed yet again
at
this link I posted yesterday . Most know the aggressive war against Afghanistan was
already planned and on the schedule prior to 911 and would have occurred regardless since
after Serbia the Outlaw US Empire felt it could do and get away with anything. 911 simply
provided BushCo with Carte-Blache, but it wasn't enough of a window to fulfill their desired
destruction of 7 nations in 5 years for their Zionist Patron.
IMO, as part of its plan to control the Heartland, those running the Outlaw US Empire
never had any plan to leave Afghanistan; rather once there, they'd stay and occupy it just as
the Empire's done everywhere since WW2. The Empire's very much like a leech; its occupations
are parasitic as Hudson demonstrated, and work at the behest of corporate interests as Smedly
Butler so eloquently illustrated.
As with Vietnam, the only way to get NATO forces to leave is for Afghanis to force them
out with their rifles. Hopefully, they will be assisted by SCO nations and Afghanistan will
cease being a broken nation by 2030.
The Wall Street Journal article on the Taliban's ties to the local drug trade also the
reveals deliberate omission practiced by the MSM, which keeps its readers actively
misinformed. Estimating illegal drug revenues contribute as much as $200 million to the
Taliban, the article fails to put that in proper context: that figure represents merely
7%-13% of total production receipts (estimated at 1.5 to 3 billion dollars). Most informed
persons know exactly who reaps the rewards of more than 80% of the Afghan drug products, and
why this much larger effort is not the focus of "targeted airstrikes."
1. "The wars fail because they no reasonable strategic aim or achievable purpose........
Since World War II, during which the Soviets, not the U.S., defeated the Nazis, the U.S. won
no war. The only exception is the turkey shooting of the first Gulf war."
2 "U.S. wars are rackets, run on the back of lowly soldiers and foreign civil populations.
They enriche few at the cost of everyone else"
Your points in 1 ignore the reality expressed by 2. The real strategic aims and purposes
are not those provided for public consumption. Winning wars is not the objective, the length
and cost of wars is far more important than results. Enriching and empowering the few over
the many is the entire point of it all
And lets put an end to "US " responsibility for all evils. Its a shared responsibility.
None of this is possible without the cooperation of Uk and its commonwealth nations, EU,
Japan and the various international organizations that allow the dollar to be weaponized such
as IMF/World Bank and BIS not to mention the various tax havens which support covert
operations and looting of assets obtained in these wars (military or economic).
Until the rest of the world is prepared to do something about it they are willing
accomplices in all of this.
The global elites are globalists, they dont think in national terms. Its a global elitist
cabal at work that is hiding behind the cover of US hegemony.
karlof1 @ 4 said:"The Empire's very much like a leech; its occupations are parasitic as
Hudson demonstrated, and work at the behest of corporate interests as Smedly Butler so
eloquently illustrated."
You bet.. The operative words being " work at the behest of corporate interests "
And so it goes around the globe. Question is; How to get this information to the herded
bovines the general public has become?
Without a major network to disseminate such info, we're all just spinning our wheels. Oh,
but, the therapy is good..
Very interesting stories - especially re: the timber mill warlord competition.
Defoliants are still used in warfare - especially "by accident". Carpet bombing is still
legal. If NATO wanted to wipe out the poppies, it surely could do so.
Pft at 6, reminded me of this zinger:
The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. -
The Brzez
jayc @5 implies it, and I'll say it more directly: US soldiers guard poppy fields in
Afghanistan. I'm also reminded of Alfred C McCoy's famous 1972 work The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia.
The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal
creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in
terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. - The Brzez
Posted by: fast freddy | Aug 8, 2018 6:18:02 PM | 9
This gem hides a deep truth. One has to replace "creative" and "far in advance", instead,
we have power relationships. And those power relationships resemble central planning of the
Communist states, concept that is attractive in abstraction, but centralization cannot cope
with complexities of societies and economies, in part because the central institutions are
inevitably beset by negative selection: people rise due to their adroit infighting skills
rather than superior understanding of what those institutions are supposed to control.
Ultimately, this proces leads to decay and fall. "Nation states" themselves are not immune to
such cycles and are at different stages of the cycle creative-decadent-falling. However,
international finance lacks observable "refreshing" mechanisms of nation states.
War as always is financial racket, $trillion stolen, MIC thrives, took over with CIA all
prerogatives of power and has million agents in US alone in every institution government and
corporate.
I call it success of ruling elite. B war would stop tomorrow if it was unsuccessful read
unprofitable for those who wage it. Nazi death camps were most profitable enterprises in
third Reich.
For some reason, when the US wars are admitted to be civil wars, no one questions whose side
did the US take until it is too late and so very few tune in. Incompetence is the excuse. It
reminds me of that adage to not blame on malice that which can be explained by stupidity but
stupidity has been used to excuse a lot of malice. It's one reason why "military
intelligence" resides at the top of oxymorons along with "congressional ethics" and
"humanitarian intervention."
It is amazing to think that the US has been in Afghanistan for 17 years and supposedly
knows where the opium and its processors are and yet could not take it out. (The pix of
soldiers patrolling poppy fields is rich.) The initial excuse years ago was that the US
needed to support the warlords who grew/sold it. What is the excuse now? Incompetence,
corruption, laziness?
The US likes the idea of opium products going into Iran and Russia ... who have protested
to no avail. A bit of indirect subversion.
The US likes opium products going into the US. It makes for broken citizens who lack zeal for
knowledge, and therefore, comprehension; and the will to organize against the PTB.
Importantly, being illegal, opiate use feeds the pigs who own the prison-industrial complex.
Given the current, longstanding dynamics within the Outlaw US Empire, I don't see any
possibility of the required reforms ever having an opportunity to get enacted. The
situation's very similar to Nazi Germany's internal dynamic--the coercive forces of the State
and its allies will not allow any diminution of their power. Within the Empire, thousands of
Hydra heads would need to be rapidly severed for any revolt to succeed, and that requires a
large, easily infiltrated organization to accomplish. Invasion by an allied group of nations
invites a nuclear holocaust I can't condone. I think the best the world can do is force the
Empire to retreat from its 800+ bases and sequester it behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
until it self-destructs or drastically reforms itself--Containment. But for that to work,
almost every comprador government would need to be changed and their personages imprisoned,
exiled or executed--another close to impossible task. Ideally, the ballot box would
work--ideally--but that requires deeply informed voters and highly idealistic, strongly
principled, creative, and fearless candidates, along with an honest media.
Yeah, writing can be good therapy. But I'm no more cheery than when I began. Must be time
for intoxicants.
The world does not need to force the Evil Empire to retreat from its 1,000 (and counting)
military bases around the planet.
All the world needs to do is trade with Iran, Venezuela or some other outsider nation. The
Evil Empire will be so busy trying to punish everyone who trades with these countries by
extending sanctions against the outsiders to their trading partners that the Empire
effectively ends up having sanctioned everyone away and it becomes the victim of its
sanctioning.
The 1,000+ military bases around the globe are then effectively on their own and the
soldiers and administrators inside can either stay there and starve, throw in their lot with
the host nation's citizenry or beg to be allowed to return home.
thanks b... as long as the americans support the troops, lol - all will be well apparently...
jesus.. meanwhile - the support for the 1% bomb makers and etc continues... maybe it is the
mutual fund money that folks are concerned about maintaining..
"In the first six months of this year, United States forces dropped nearly 3,000 bombs
across Afghanistan." what is that? about 17 or 18 bombs a day or something? what about the
drones? they have to be put to use too... best to get someone who is involved in their own
turf war in afgan to give out the targets.. brilliant... usa war planning is mostly destroy
and destroy and honour the troops and wave their stupid american flag and that is about it...
sorry, but that is what it looks like to me..
its not so much they want to end the war on terror or the war on drugs.........they just want
to say one thing to cover their asses and do another thing completely..
no matter what there should of been one general who got it right.....but we see it was
never about peace .... it was always about war and its profits. anyone who didn't take orders
or even had a hint of the right strategy would be Hung like dirty boots to dry.
what is the right strategy? leave. just as other empires did. before you call on your
faces
to be even more frank....its not even about the money as that is not as important than
having a nation of 300m regurgitate the news that they are there for 17 years to be the
police of the world. because USA are the good ones... that they need to buy the biggest
trucks which can't even fit in normal parking spaces because they have land mines(I mean
ieds...) to avoid and need to haul 5tons of cargo to their construction job all while
watching out for terrorists and trump Hillary divisions. is disorienting and it is
deliberate. just as having a war last without a reason is deliberate while they entertain the
masses with games..
@23dh... same deal here in canuckle head ville... people remain ignorant of what there money
is ''''invested'''' in... could be saudi arabia for all the canucks think... btw - thanks for
the laugh on the other thread... you made a couple of good jokes somewhere the past few days!
i don't have much free time to comment at the moment..
McCoy, in "The Politics of Heroin" gives a more complete picture:
In 1996, following four years of civil war among rival resistance factions, the Taliban's
victory caused further expansion of opium cultivation. After capturing Kabul in September,
the Taliban drove the Uzbek and Tajik warlords into the country's northeast, where they
formed the Northern Alliance and clung to some 10 percent of Afghanistan's territory. Over
the next three years, a seesaw battle for the Shamali plain north of Kabul raged until the
Taliban finally won control in 1999 by destroying the orchards and irrigation in a prime
food-producing region, generating over 100,000 refugees and increasing the country's
dependence on opium.
Once in power, the Taliban made opium its largest source of taxation. To raise revenues
estimated at $20-$25 million in 1997, the Taliban collected a 5 to 10 percent tax in kind on
all opium harvested, a share that they then sold to heroin laboratories; a flat tax of $70
per kilogram on heroin refiners; and a transport tax of $250 on every kilogram exported. The
head of the regime's anti-drug operations in Kandahar, Abdul Rashid, enforced a rigid ban on
hashish "because it is consumed by Afghans, Muslims." But, he explained, "Opium is
permissible because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or
Afghans." A Taliban governor, Mohammed Hassan, added: "Drugs are evil and we would like to
substitute poppies with another cash crop, but it's not possible at the moment because we do
not have international recognition."
More broadly, the Taliban's policies provided stimulus, both direct and indirect, for a
nationwide expansion of opium cultivation. . . Significantly, the regime's ban on the
employment and education of women created a vast pool of low-cost labor to sustain an
accelerated expansion of opium production. . . . In northern and eastern Afghanistan, women
of all ages played " a fundamental role in the cultivation of the opium poppy"---planting,
weeding, harvesting, cooking for laborers, and processing by-products such as oil. The
Taliban not only taxed and encouraged opium cultivation, they protected and promoted exports
to international markets.
In retrospect, however, the Taliban's most important contribution to the illicit traffic
was its support for large-scale heroin refining.
. . .
Instead of eradication, the UN's annual opium surveys showed that Taliban rule had doubled
Afghanistan's opium production from 2,250 tons in 1996 to 4,600 tons in 1999--equivalent to
75 percent of world illicit production. (508-509)
. . .
War on the Taliban
All this [heroin] traffic across Central Asia depended on high-volume heroin production in
politically volatile Afghanistan. In July 2000, as a devastating drought entered its second
year and mass starvation spread across Afghanistan, the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar ordered
a sudden ban on opium cultivation in a bid for international recognition. (p.517)
B's article assumes that the operative purpose of the US military is to win wars. This isn't
the case. The US military largely a business enterprise whose objective is to make money for
the plutocracy that largely controls them. That being the case, the Afghanistan war has been
a great success. If the US 'won' it, it would cease; if the Taliban conquered, it would
cease. In this form of military stagnation it continues, and the money roles in making the
ammunition, equipment, etc.
The military budget is largely an institution for transferring the tax money of the
population from the people to the plutocracy. Military stagnation serves this purpose better
than winning or losing.
If there is one standout factor which makes makes all this profitable mayhem possible then
it's the successful campaign by the Elites to persuade the Public that Secrecy is a
legitimate variation of Privacy.
It is not.
Impregnable Government Secrecy is ALWAYS a cover for erroneous interpretations of an
inconvenient Law - or straight-out cover for criminal activity.
It's preposterous to believe that a government elected by The People has a legitimate right
to create schemes which must be kept Secret from The People.
This is especially true in the case of Military/Defense. There wouldn't be a CIC on earth who
doesn't have up-to-date and regularly updated info on the hardware and capabilities of every
ally and every potential foe. The People have a legitimate right to know what the CIC, and
the rest of the world, already knows.
And that's just the most glaring example of the childish deception being perpetrated in
the name of Secrecy. If governments were to be stripped of the power to conduct Our affairs
in Secret then the scrutiny would oblige them to behave more competently. And we could weed
out the drones and nitwits before they did too much damage.
@30 Right. I notice they avoid mentioning the Badawis who are central to the issue. I guess
helping Justin out isn't very high on Donald's list of priorities.
i forget who said it and the exact phrasing, but the best explanation i've seen is
"why is the US there? it answers itself: to be there".
vast opium money for the deep state vermin.
profits for the bomb makers (you know, the respectable corporate ones as opposed to the
quaint do-it-yourselfers).
lithium deposits that probably rival those in bolivia as well as other untapped
profitable resources (probably, anyway; i could see oil and gas coming out of those ancient
valleys).
it's also an occupation as opposed to a "win and get out" war. these military welfare
queens think they can win a staring contest with the descendants of people who bitchslapped
every would-be conqueror since alexander the great. ask the russians how well that went for
them.
the west supports israel's 70+ years of colonizing palestine (plus the 3 or 4 decades of
dumbness before it with balfour and such) and still has troops in south goddamn korea. as
long as the tap flows they'll keep drinking that sweet tasty tax welfare.
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
"... Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work? ..."
Let me stipulate at the outset that the phrase, "Max Boot," should be consider
as a new synonym in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word inane moron or
imbecile are other plausible possibilities.
Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy have we witnessed such a bizarre,
vicious level of red-baiting and smearing. Max Boot, have you no decency?
You will understand the context of my introductory observations after you
view the following video. Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened
(Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a
country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work?
"... Of course, in the 21st century, we no longer torture and assassinate people as we used to, we simply discredit trouble-makers by way of the Press. Above all, there is no more Soviet Union, and consequently no more stay-behind network. But the personnel we used and who were replaced have had to be recycled. ..."
"... A number of elements attest to the fact that these agents first of all led the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then, today, against Russia [ 8 ], to the point where they are labelled by the FBI as Gladio B [ 9 ]. The efficiency of this network in the " Greater Middle East " over the last 17 years needs no further proof. ..."
Nonetheless, we may remember that during the Cold War, the United States and the United
Kingdom had created, in all of the allied states, a service designed to combat Soviet influence
– without the knowledge of the national institutions. This system is known to historians
as the stay-behind, and to the public by the name of its Italian branch, Gladio. All over the
world, it was under the joint command of the CIA and MI6, via the World Anti-Communist League
(WACL) [ 3 ],
except for Europe, where it was connected to NATO [ 4 ]
The main operational officials of this stay-behind network (in other words, capable of
becoming clandestine in the case of a Soviet invasion) were the ex-officials of the Nazi
repression. While the French people know that SS captain and head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Klaus
Barbie, became the official representative of the stay-behind network in Bolivia working
against Che Guevara, they do not know, for example, that the Police Prefect for Paris, the
collaborator Maurice Papon, who massacred a hundred Algerians on 17 October 1961, was one of
the leaders of the network in France, working against the FLN [ 5 ]. Here in Damascus where I live,
people remember another SS officer and director of the camp at Drancy, Alois Brunner, who was
placed as an advisor to the Syrian secret services by the CIA and MI6 in order to prevent the
country from swinging over into the Soviet camp. He was arrested by President Bachar el-Assad
as soon as he came to power.
In France, when the stay-behind turned against France, accused it of leaving Algeria to the
Soviets, organised the coup d'état in 1961 and financed the OAS (Organisation de
l'Armée Secrète), President De Gaulle recuperated certain of its agents in order
to form a militia to work against the militia - the SAC (Service d'Action Civique) [ 6 ].
Despite appearances, these stories are not as old as all that - the world of politics still
hosts personalities who were part of the stay-behind network. For example, the current
President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Junker, was the head of Gladio in Luxembourg
[ 7 ].
The first General Secretary of " En Marche ! ", Ludovic Chaker, is allegedly an agent of
the DGSE. He is said to have hired – by accident – a friend of Jawad Bendaoud, "
Daesh's landlord, " as a bodyguard for the candidate Macron. Today he works at the
Elysée where he " doubles " the anti-terrorist task force of Prefect Bousquet de
Florian.
Of course, in the 21st century, we no longer torture and assassinate people as we used to,
we simply discredit trouble-makers by way of the Press. Above all, there is no more Soviet
Union, and consequently no more stay-behind network. But the personnel we used and who were
replaced have had to be recycled.
A number of elements attest to the fact that these agents
first of all led the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then, today, against Russia
[ 8 ], to the
point where they are labelled by the FBI as Gladio B [ 9 ]. The efficiency of this network in
the " Greater Middle East " over the last 17 years needs no further proof.
Precisely, the question of the fight against terrorism – or its manipulation - was
handled by the United States secret service, which the Elysée was preparing to
replicate. Oddly enough, the Elysées anti-terrorist task force, directed by Prefect
Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, is already doubled by a " cell " entrusted to an executive of
the President's chief of staff, Admiral Bernard Rogel. According to L'Opinion , this
executive, Ludovic Chaker – who hired Benalla – is a " veteran " agent of the
Direction Générale de la Sécurite Exterieure (DGSE) [ 10 ]
We are not attempting to compare Alexandre Benalla with Maurice Papon, but to enquire
whether an element of an illegal force of repression is in the process of being (re)created in
Europe. Article
licensed under Creative Commons
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited,
their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND ).
Source : "The Elysée and " Gladio B " ", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete
Kimberley, Voltaire Network , 29 July 2018, www.voltairenet.org/article202201.html
"... A good hypothesis is, that Olof Palme was assassinated by a US stay-behind group, consisting of Nazi military and police. ..."
"... I think VG is quite correct in this: it was a test. And the test was of the neocon/humanitarian intervention marriage. Yes, the USA has doe a lot of this sort of thing in its history, but there has always been some opposition inside the USA. This time, they figured it out and "humanitarian bombing" was born. We have seen a lot more humanitarian bombing since. ..."
"... It was Gore, in consultation with Hillary Clinton, who decided to launch the criminal bombing of Serbia, informing PM Primakov after taking a phone call meant for the president. ..."
"... By launching an illegal attack on Russia's ally, the VP and the future Sec. of State, were offering a foreshadowing of the hawkish and belligerent anti-Russian policy that was to follow for the next 17 years. ..."
"... Western populations for the most part are so thoroughly brainwashed they still cling to the belief they live in civilized countries and their militaries keep them safe from barbarians. ..."
"... Gary I agree whole heartedly with every word you wrote. I would add to how intriguing it would be to learn of the high deception played during the passage of the Federal Reserve back in 1913. Then I'd push out of the way those who blocked Claude Pepper from endorsing Henry Wallace into the 1944 Democratic Convention. This alone may have changed the course of the establishment of the CIA, and avoided the disaster that is happening in Palestine to this day. ..."
"... I do believe the assassination era was the biggest turning point, as it sent a strong message to the would be seekers of sane government policies who would incur such tragedy if explored. Joe ..."
"... I believe there are many questions that need answering about NATO. For instance: July 14, 2018 The Diabolical "Work" of NATO and Its Allies: Why Are These War Criminals Still Free? ..."
By Vladimir Golstein in Belgrade Special to Consortium News
Right across the street from my hotel,
tucked behind tall office buildings, is the rather large Church of St. Mark. Hidden in St.
Mark's shadows is a tiny Russian Orthodox church. The Church of the Holy Trinity, known simply
as the Russian Church, is famous for holding the remains of Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel ,
the Russian Civil War leader of the Whites. It is hard to find, but luckily, a friend took me
there.
As we were looking around the church, not particularly interested in Wrangel, a couple of
Russians asked me to take their picture in front of his tomb. Trying to find a proper angle for
the picture, I noticed a small plaque on a wall nearby. It listed the names of Russians who
died fighting for Yugoslav Serbs during the conflict with separatist Albanians in Kosovo and
the subsequent NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999.
As we left the church, we took a small path toward the top of the park. There we observed
another brutal sign of that war: a destroyed building next to the TV center. It too had a
plaque. It screamed, " Zashto " (For What? Why?). Below it were the names of all the TV
people NATO killed during that attack. In all, as many as 2,500 civilians may have been killed
by NATO, according to the then Yugoslav government, though the real number may never
be known.
On the one hand, the question Zashto is both idle and provocative. It implies a
laceration of wounds, a refusal to forget and to start anew. On the other, there is an obvious
need to find an answer to this question simply to prevent future destruction and senseless
murders.
We won't find answers to this question in the official narratives, which tell us that the
noble Clinton administration decided to stop flagrant violations of human rights in the
extremely complex situation in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo by bombing
the Serbs into respecting minorities both on its own and on neighboring territories. (In fact
the large exodus of Kosovo Albanians to Albania proper only began after NATO bombs started to
fall.)
Testing the Limits
Russians who died fighting for Yugoslavia. (Photo by Vladimir Golstein)
Behind these official stories, a much sadder picture emerges. Why did these people die? Why
did this NATO operation go ahead without UN Security Council authorization
nor proof of self-defense, requirements of the UN Charter? Was it to satisfy the lust for power
of U.S. and NATO leaders, of liberal interventionists like Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton,
and Susan Rice? To assuage the Clinton administration's guilt over its failure to respond to the 1994 genocide
in Rwanda? Was it to set up America's largest military base in Europe since the
Vietnam War, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo? For American access to Kosovo's vast mineral wealth and
other business opportunities, including for
Ms. Albright ? Or was it to finally kill off a rather successful Yugoslav experiment in the
"third way" between the West and the Soviet Union?
It seems these people had to die for all those reasons and to put into practice the
doctrines of responsibility to protect ( R2P ) and
full spectrum dominance , doctrines cooked up by liberal interventionists and neocons in
Washington. Those who died were essentially guinea pigs of a New World Order experiment to see
how far the world could be pushed to implement R2P, a policy that could be used to mask
imperial ambitions.
And it worked. Yugoslavia was unable to stand up to the power of NATO operating outside the
mandate of its obsolete charter: namely to defend Western Europe against an alleged Soviet
threat. Indeed one could argue that with the Cold War over, another motive for the attack on
Yugoslavia was to provide NATO with a justification to exist. (It would later go even further
afield outside its legal theater of operation, into Afghanistan and then Libya.)
Russia could do little to help the Serbs. Then the Chinese Embassy was hit
as well, as a test it seems, though The New York Timessaid
it was a mistake. The Chinese did nothing.
Thus was R2P implemented -- with no protection for Yugoslav Serbs. They had to die in the
experiment to explore the limits of U.S. power and the limits of its resistance.
If my memory serves me correctly, President Bill Clinton had set up a summit meeting with
Russian President Yevgeny Primakov here in the USA. Primakov was in flight on his way here
for that summit meeting when President of Vice, Al Gore, without Clinton's permission or
knowledge, called Primakov, in flight, to tell him NATO had decided to bomb Kosovo. Primakov immediately ordered his plane to
turn around and return to Russia, thus cancelling the summit meeting...
Aurora , August 7, 2018 at 8:55 pm
In Russia that is known as "The Primakov Loop."
rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Thanks Vladimir. The Serbs are demonized by so many, especially the Germans-many believe
it was because they fought so valiantly against the Nazis in WW2. Diana Johnstone has written
"Fools' Crusade- Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions", and Michel Collon "Media Lies and
the Conquest of Kosovo", but books with this point of view are not readily publicised. Nor is
the fact that after his death (no trial had yet taken place) Slobodan Milosovic was finally
found nOT to have been responsible for all the murderous acts he was accused/assumed to be
responsible for.
We can note now of course the Russian reaction to the "annexation of Crimea" after a
referendum, no bloodshed and the referendum also of Russians all over the Federation, while
Kosovo was ripped from Serbia by trickery and not consent, and we see how it is now. Russia
is sanctioned, the people who overthrew the Ukrainian government are not mentioned, Crimea is
not allowed to return to Russia. Slight difference from the "nation" of Kososvo!
Thomas Binder , August 6, 2018 at 6:35 am
The war against #Serbia under #R2P was the #MilitaryIndustrialFinancialMedialComplex'es
ruling the #USA/#NATO/#ISR/#SAU empire (#PNAC's) test for eternal war against #AlQaeda
outside international law & interference of #USLegislators for getting full-spectrum
dominance.
Jackson , August 5, 2018 at 2:21 pm
NATO should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviets. When you arm people and
train them to kill, they will look for an enemy to fight. War becomes inevitable.
jose , August 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm
It is hard to disagree with your post. Nato, disgracefully, has become a terrorist
organization that has dedicated itself to be the paw of the western elite. Shamefully, other
countries have joined Yugoslavia as victims of Nato criminality. Well done Jackson.
Björn Lindgren , August 5, 2018 at 7:25 am
FOR REASON OF STATE, FOR REASON OF INTEREST
There might be still more reasons for the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Germany had put its mind into destabilizing Yugoslavia to get a "Hinterland". Added to
this, a revenge motive: Nazi Germany occupation of Yugoslavia failed, and this has never been
forgotten. And lastly, Yugoslavia was a member of the non-alignment movement, not obeying
US-NATO.
And, of course, after the collapse of the Warsaw pact, NATO had no enemy, no purpose.
But, it invented one: full US spectrum global dominance.
Sweden has also been punished to obey the US.
During the years of PM Olof Palme, Sweden was also a member of the non-alignment movement.
Palme was educated in and friendly to the US, but critized the US war in Vietnam. (Nixon
hated Palme, and withdraw the US diplomats from Sweden).
1992 foreign submarines penetrated Swedish waters repeatedly.
The submarine incident at Hårsfjärden, a marine base, was not made by Russia,
but was made by US and British submarines. Afterwards, both Caspar Weinberger and Sir Keith
Speed confirmed this. Weinberger even thanked Sweden for not blowing up the US mini-sub
(which we could have done. (Read, "Hårsfjärden. Det hemliga ubåtskriget mot
Sverige," by Ola Tunander).
Purpose: pushing Sweden westward.
Already in the mid 50s, William Colby, later head of the CIA, was in Sweden organizing
stay-behind groups, recruting Swedish voluntary ex-soldiers from the Finnish wars against
Soviet Union. In the 50-s these people were organized in "Sveaborg", a Nazi group.
A good hypothesis is, that Olof Palme was assassinated by a US stay-behind group,
consisting of Nazi military and police.
Which, of course, had to be stonewalled "for reason of state". Today, Sweden is "cooperating" shamelessly with NATO, invite, and have excersices with
NATO. This week, the Swedish government annonced that it will purchase US "Patriot"
anti-missiles with "ballistic capability" (Hey, hey!).
Supporting the insane belligerent US and UK nuclear armament (for a nuclear first-strike?)
against neoliberal, oligarchic Russia, which is planning to keep up in the race towards the
abyss. That is, Sweden is now d e f a c t o a member of NATO, without the Swedish people or
parliament have had a say. NATO which eventually is falling apart, and with a lunatic US
president and his military government in the White House, in a US empire collapsing. The peace aspirations of Sweden are long forgotten. And so, is the Helsinki Conference and
agreement (1975-1983) for common security, disarmamanet , and a nuclear-free zone in
Europe.
The question is if Germany, France, UK (with Corbyn in 10 Downing) and Russia will
organize a new Helsinki Conference and Agreement?
Maybe, "for reasons of interest".
--
rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Thanks so much for this comprehensive addition to the discussion. Sweden indeed has been
placed in an invidious position.
Pretending that NATO has any purpose even vaguely related to peace is laughable.
David G , August 6, 2018 at 6:01 pm
Great comment, Björn Lindgren. Many thanks.
The withering away of Swedish neutrality into an empty formality has become so obvious,
but never remarked upon in the U.S. I'm sure most cable TV talking heads just assume Sweden
is in NATO – indeed, I've heard the error made, albeit corrected after the next
commercial break.
I appreciate reading your committed, highly informed perspective. Maybe you could submit
an article on this under-reported subject to Consortium News?
Excellent article in the eve of 20th anniversary of NATO aggression on Yugoslavia which
will be marked by Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, March 23, 24rth, 2019.
NATO 1999 aggression was meant to be precedent and turning point in global conduct toward
globalization of military interventionism (Avganistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.). Willy Wimmer wrote
to Schoerder on May 2nd, 2000, USA position: "The war against Yugoslavia was conducted in
order to correct the mistake of General Eisenhower from the 2ndWW. Subsequently, for
strategic reasons, USA troops had to be stationed there ". And: "It is clear that it is the
precedent to be recalled any time" The Bondstil base in Kosovo was only the first in the
ensuing chain of new USA bases in Bulgaria (4), Rumania (4), Albania (2), Baltic states
I think VG is quite correct in this: it was a test. And the test was of the
neocon/humanitarian intervention marriage. Yes, the USA has doe a lot of this sort of thing
in its history, but there has always been some opposition inside the USA. This time, they
figured it out and "humanitarian bombing" was born. We have seen a lot more humanitarian
bombing since.
Branko Mikasinovich , August 4, 2018 at 4:45 pm
A great and truthful article about Western Policy, NATO and US. A courageous and
informative analysis of Mr. Golstein. Thank you.
ToivoS , August 4, 2018 at 1:18 pm
Goldstein writes Russia could do little to help the Serbs. Then the Chinese Embassy was
hit as well, as a test it seems, though The New York Times said it was a mistake. The Chinese
did nothing.
Actually the Chinese did do something. They changed their attitude towards the US. I have
yet to meet a Chinese national who believes that the embassy hit was a "mistake". They and
their government view it as a deliberate attack on their sovereignty. But they realized they
were not in a position respond so they then began military planning for possible conflict
between China and the US Navy in the Western Pacific. In 2000 they started a 10 plan to
achieve the ability to sink any US aircraft carrier within a 1000 km of their shores. We
won't know if they have achieved that ability until a real test is conducted. But that is the
something they have done.
FB , August 8, 2018 at 9:24 am
Good point Toivos The Chinese have never forgotten the Belgrade embassy bombing and they
never will. Ask any Chinese today, even those living in the West the Chinese are an ancient people
with a long and proud memory the embassy bombing was a step too far. All of these hubristic missteps will come back to haunt the empire
Theo , August 4, 2018 at 10:51 am
I remember well the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia under the pretext to stop the genocide
that was allegedly committed by the Serbs. The saddest thing for me was that Germany was
participating in the bombing campaign. My father who was in Yugoslavia as a Wehrmacht soldier
was outraged as were many others. After almost sixty years German bombers were over Serbia
again. My dad used to say German soldiers on foreign soil had never been good neither for the
foreign country nor for Germany. That's why until today the Germans have an aversion to all
military and the deployment of German soldiers in foreign countries is not very popular.
David G , August 4, 2018 at 11:16 am
The 1999 air attacks were the coup de grace, but I think Germany had the (dis)honor of
leading the vivisection of Yugoslavia from the start.
As Vladimir Golstein rhetorically asks: "Or was it to finally kill off a rather successful
Yugoslav experiment in the 'third way' between the West and the Soviet Union?"
Indeed it was, and that surely appealed to all the Western powers. But Germany was
particularly interested in removing a possible continental rival, and took the lead in making
sure it happened – not at all to absolve the U.S., under whose aegis it was ultimately
operating.
Antiwar7 , August 4, 2018 at 11:42 am
The German people and the German government are different. The German government has had
an anti-Serb animus for over 150 years: that's clear. But the German people, as Theo's dad
shows, can be very nice. My father was a POW in Germany for 4 years during WWII, and most of
the German people he encountered were quite nice to him.
Theo , August 4, 2018 at 3:56 pm
You are right. The vivisection of Yugoslavia began when Germany recognized the independence
of Slovenia before any other country did. The German government with Genscher as foreign
minister didn't consult with any of the European allies. Especially France was not amused at
all.
rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 4:04 pm
It was Germany, 9 days after reunification, which led the removal of Croatia from
Yugoslavia and beginning the breakup of a successful multicultural country.
Juan P. Zenter , August 4, 2018 at 7:29 am
Yugoslavia was a federation of states and was, thus, an obstacle to consolidating EU and
NATO power in Southeastern Europe. Once the federation was destroyed, the individual states
that comprised it could be absorbed by EU/NATO. That was the ultimate outcome of NATO bombing
there, despite all denials about that being the intent.
Thanks for the article, the photo of the beautiful church, and the reflection on this
horrible chapter from the book of atrocities disguised as "humanitarian" to fool the masses.
This also helped Bill and Hillary Clinton distract the American public from the Monica
Lewinsky affair.
j. D. D. , August 4, 2018 at 7:59 pm
I don't see it that way. Rather, as President Clinton was hit with the Lewinsky scandal
and put on the defensive immediately following his speech to NY's Council on Foreign Relations
in which he called for "a new world financial archithitecture," VP Al Gore, who later shunned
the president, saw the opportunity to determine policy. It was Gore, in consultation with
Hillary Clinton, who decided to launch the criminal bombing of Serbia, informing PM Primakov
after taking a phone call meant for the president. Whereupon the PM turned around his flight
in mid-air over the Atlantic and returned to Russia. By launching an illegal attack on
Russia's ally, the VP and the future Sec. of State, were offering a foreshadowing of the
hawkish and belligerent anti-Russian policy that was to follow for the next 17 years.
FB , August 8, 2018 at 9:31 am
Disagree these are minor details that are meaningless. Yugoslavia had already been systematically dismembered starting the very instant after
German unification and the fall of the Soviet Union. Coincidence ? Maybe a child could believe it by 1999, the final chapter of the dismemberment, Kosovo,
was ready, after several years of laying careful groundwork of subversion, propaganda and
agitation
The Nato war of aggression in 1999 would have proceeded no matter what to think that the
Lewisnky nonsense had anything to do with anything is ridiculous
nonsense factory , August 3, 2018 at 11:50 pm
One major factor in the NATO bombing and the overall agenda in the region was control of
territory for a proposed gas/oil pipeline export route from Central Asia to Europe. The
creation of Camp Bondsteel was directly related to that goal, and the chief contractor
(KBR-Halliburton) played the same role there that they did in the construction of numerous
military bases in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
That's been a dominant theme in U.S. foreign policy and military strategy circles ever
since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Numerous routes have been proposed –
trans-Afghanistan pipeline, the Nabucco pipeline, etc., all with the same goal –
getting Central Asia fossil fuels (leased to US and British majors like Exxon, Chevron, BP,
etc.) to global markets while bypassing Iran and Russia.
Monbiot in the Guardian, 2001 (when it was still a fairly decent paper, rather than a
gung-ho enforcer of the Blairite neoliberal agenda), said this:
"For the past few weeks, a freelance researcher called Keith Fisher has been doggedly
documenting a project which has, as far as I can discover, has been little-reported in any
British, European or American newspaper. It is called the Trans-Balkan pipeline, and it's due
for approval at the end of next month. Its purpose is to secure a passage for oil from the
Caspian sea. . ."
"In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the
extraction and transport of Caspian oil. "This is about America's energy security," he
explained. "It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values.
We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west. We would like to see
them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way.
We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right. . ."
Paul Stuart, in the WSWS, 2002, noted:
"According to leaked comments to the press, European politicians now believe that the US
used the bombing of Yugoslavia specifically in order to establish Camp Bondsteel. Before the
start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the Washington Post insisted, "With the
Middle-East increasingly fragile, we will need bases and fly over rights in the Balkans to
protect Caspian Sea oil."" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/04/oil-a29.html
Forward project of American imperial power in the name of control of energy resources and
the cash flows arising from them, in a nutshell. Or, "business as usual since the 1950s".
Since JFK, it's all been done under the cover of "humanitarian intervention" and "protecting
democracy" which is why so many American citizens have no idea what the true aims of these
wars have really been
MH , August 7, 2018 at 2:13 pm
Sadly, Monbiot's column aside, the Guardian's coverage of what most of us here think of as
a war against Yugoslav independence was unabashedly pro-NATO and anti-Serb. The outlet did
it's best to confuse otherwise war skeptical liberals -- by demonizing the Serbs as
bloodthirsty savages purveying late 1930s genocide -- about the true character of "the
west's" aggression against the Serbs. Unlike Iraq, where the Graundiad reversed their pro-war
stance, the paper only doubled down on its anti-Serb biases, culminating in trumpets and
coronets for Hague's prosecutors ludicrously inept (at best) handling of Milosevic's
trial.
Bob Van Noy , August 3, 2018 at 8:11 pm
Thank you Vladimir Golstein for this article. I'm sure you know the answers to the
questions you ask in the paragraph titled "Testing the Limlts". The answer to each of them is
given to us and to the world in F. William Engdahl's devastating book entitled "Manifest
Destiny" : Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. I say devastating because Mr. Engdahl
thoroughly describes a series of American administrations responsible for all of these crimes
and more.
It will be up to us (American Citizens) to educate ourselves as to the real history of our
government acting secretly, without broad consensus, and illegally. This article is a good
beginning but the discussion needs to be broadened and further documented. Then we can begin
to find a resolution.
How one can wonder how the German population stood aside while the Nazis committed their
atrocities while at the same time not speaking out at our own apparent daily military
excesses is beyond me.
irina , August 4, 2018 at 12:01 am
Not to mention meekly paying for these daily military excesses, with no protest.
christina garcia , August 4, 2018 at 1:02 am
here is an historical answer, My Grandfather and Grandmother were born in Koenigsberg
Prussia what is now known as Kaliningrad. The City of Emanuel Kant and not quite in the
1930's fans of National Socialism. My Grandfather owned a brick factory and a saw mill . They
were capitalists, not National Socialists. And you JIMBOBLA , fyi, My Opa was caught by the
Russian Army 1943, my family was totally disunited. It took the Red Cross 3 years to find my
family members and repatriate them .The Nazi organization disliked capitalism . I can prove
every single sentence I wrote. Please be careful when you write Nazism
Sam F , August 4, 2018 at 8:48 am
If you disagree, you should really address the issue of "how the German population stood
aside while the Nazis committed their atrocities." Are you arguing that Nazi atrocities were
justified by the USSR dispersing a family in 1943 Kaliningrad, during a war in which Nazis
killed over 20 million Russians? It would be interesting to hear an argument with substance
and references.
christina garcia , August 4, 2018 at 1:04 am
it is beyond you because you never experienced these atrocities
Milojkovic , August 5, 2018 at 8:11 pm
Dear Christina, I am very sorry about what happened to your family. They probably didn't
have a choice, otherwise the Nazis would have hurt them. Maybe you'd have never been born if
they dared to resist actively. Probably good people, unfairly caught in the whirlwind of
history and human brutality. They were then retaliated against by other Nazi victims without
deserving so, just because of their ethnicity. I am a Serb, living in U.S. Trust me, I can
relate. I was here in U.S. during those terrible days of 1999, living through them as if in a
daze. Life is now "kinda back to normal", but I try my best not to think just how big a part
of me had died in that bombing. My grandfather, who was just a peasant but a very devoted
Christian, died in a horrible pain from the terminal stomach cancer because there was no pain
medication for him; plus the pharmaceutical factories were bombed after having been accused
of being able to produce chemical weapons in a coordinated NATO propaganda just days before.
In agony, he was trying to undress himself, and was screaming and running around the garden.
Several of our family members were killed by Wehrmacht in WW II. I think that Germany had no
business participating in this bombing. Look up Varvarin bridge. It was shameful. And yes,
unfortunately, it was a German hand holding the match that lit up the powder keg that was
Yugoslavia in early 90's.
Consortium's Fan , August 7, 2018 at 10:28 am
Did YOU, Christina Garcia, experience atrocities? Judging by you comment, I am confidently
saying you DIDN'T. You know NOTHING about atrocities. Read and watch films about Nazi doings.
And compare them to "dispersing a family" in a wartime. A recent film worth seeing is
SOBIBOR, entirely based on archives, – a Nazi concentration camp in Poland's Sobibor
– hence the name. Educate yourself.
Lois Gagnon , August 3, 2018 at 5:37 pm
Western populations for the most part are so thoroughly brainwashed they still cling to
the belief they live in civilized countries and their militaries keep them safe from
barbarians. Unf*cking believable.
rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 4:11 pm
The likelihood of damage being caused by the USA NOT intervening anywhere must be
vanishingly small!!!!!
Realist , August 3, 2018 at 5:24 pm
To U.S. authorities, foreign lives simply do not matter. No need to conduct any
"intelligence assessment" to determine their culpability. They shamelessly commit mass murder
right out in the open with impunity.
What makes you think USA lives matter to them. I see no evidence of that either.
Realist , August 3, 2018 at 11:39 pm
Nothing makes me think that. Why do you think I chose the phraseology that I did? It
gained currency in reaction to the murderous abuses by American police on our own
streets.
LarcoMarco , August 4, 2018 at 1:50 pm
It gained currency when that other Donald (Rumsfeld) essentially said that G.I's were
cannon fodder.
REDPILLED , August 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm
That despicable attitude long predates war criminal Rumsfeld: "Military men are just dumb,
stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."? Henry Kissinger
Drew Hunkins , August 3, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Michael Parenti's book "To Kill a Nation" is the best book on the criminal NATO war on
Yugoslavia. Followed closely by Diana Johnstone's seminal book "Fool's Crusade."
Antiwar7 , August 4, 2018 at 11:45 am
Agreed: those are excellent books, the best English language works on the breakup of
Yugoslavia.
Isn't it sad that the most enduring monuments the U.S. is leaving for it's worldly legacy
are but artifacts of war and destruction. We could have done much better than this.
Joe – Exactly. I sometimes find myself thinking the "what if" to the U.S. mayhem of
just my own lifetime. "What if" the CIA hadn't coordinated the assassinations of JFK and
Lumumba, as well as of course the murder or overthrow of dozens of elected leaders in former
colonies who simply aspired to helping their own people, rather than acting as proxies to the
continuing pillage by U.S. & Western capitalism. What if instead those leaders were
allowed to lead their nations into a non-aligned world and not forced to be beholden to
either the U.S. or Soviet systems by threats of U.S. military and economic violence? What if
Malcolm and MLK and RFK had not been murdered by forces connected to the U.S. ruling
institutions, and had instead by now had become elder statesmen in a more humane and
democratic U.S. system that would stand in stark contrast to the insane neoliberal capitalist
freak show which has been forced upon the world, and who's mystical – "invisible hand"
– can be found tightly wrapped around the throats of the poor everywhere?
Yes Joe I agree, I think we could have lived in a very different world had not the greed
and pathology of U.S. and Western oligarchy quite intentionally and violently destroyed any
possibility of a more humane and egalitarian world by routinely murdering those more humane
leaders who could have helped us reach it. That possibility of a more humane world was
replaced instead with the odious Maggie Thatcher's "there is no alternative" global nightmare
of continued neocolonial pillage euphemistically called neoliberal capitalism. Only the
fine-tuning of the rational for mass murder has changed. Now we have "duty to protect"
– which translated from 'newspeak' means = "we now must bomb and kill you because we
care about you so very, very much." Sort of a Western postmodern version of earlier
justifications for slaughtering the indigenous in order to – "save their souls" I
suppose. We in the West have created this current version of global "reality" through
absolutely amoral unrelenting mass violence over 500+ years now, and sadly there does not
seem to be any real evidence of a change of heart or direction in our global mayhem.
Joe Tedesky , August 3, 2018 at 9:24 pm
Gary I agree whole heartedly with every word you wrote. I would add to how intriguing it
would be to learn of the high deception played during the passage of the Federal Reserve back
in 1913. Then I'd push out of the way those who blocked Claude Pepper from endorsing Henry
Wallace into the 1944 Democratic Convention. This alone may have changed the course of the
establishment of the CIA, and avoided the disaster that is happening in Palestine to this
day.
Thatcher & Reagan surly introduced us into this new economy which is often said to be
doing so great, and there we are ruined by an overly eager Fed lender along with an out of
sight Defense budget. Your job isn't there, and with that you are told to blame the union.
Ah, the Union wasn't that what Margaret & Ronny sabotaged eventually . nice work.
I do believe the assassination era was the biggest turning point, as it sent a strong
message to the would be seekers of sane government policies who would incur such tragedy if
explored. Joe
Joe – I quite agree. The assassination era was the huge turning point, but as you
point out the corruption and manipulation of democracy by the oligarchy goes way back. Yes,
imagine if Wallace had been the VP for FDR? Had Wallace's nomination not been sabotaged,
perhaps the Dulles brothers would have spent their remaining time on earth learning
woodworking skills in prison workshop after being convicted for the treason of their Nazi
dealings – instead of leading the CIA and State Dept. into the corrupt secrecy of
multiple regime changes, assassinations, and endless insane cold war posturing. The Dulles
CIA era, including it's loving embrace of the Nazi war criminals, seems to have a been in
retrospect a very dark prelude leading up to the assassination era to follow. Ike certainly
had some foreboding of the evil to come given his parting comments.
REDPILLED , August 4, 2018 at 5:04 pm
A brief recommended reading list:
The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
by David Talbot
The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the attack on U.S. Democracy by Peter
Dale Scott
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Mike
Lofgren
Bob Van Noy , August 4, 2018 at 8:35 am
Joe and Gary, very nice and well informed thread, thank you. Clearly we all share the
history that both of you mentioned and we also see through the now crumbling obfuscation. It
will become our new duty to use that past experience and a new hope to help make an official
case for correcting the official record and reclaiming Democracy. Actually it's a worthy
endeavor and we're uniquely positioned to help
Consortium's Fan , August 7, 2018 at 10:42 am
"Sort of a Western postmodern version of earlier justifications for slaughtering the
indigenous in order to – "save their souls" I suppose."
Or even earlier justifications (by the Holy Inquisition in the Middle Ages) to burn people
alive to "save their souls".
Realist , August 4, 2018 at 6:03 pm
Excellent point, Joe. I wonder how different the history books will look if this country
somehow manages to shed the warmongering hegemonists who have been in control for at least
the last 70 years (or, one might argue, from its inception).
I'd also like to see an English translation of the current world history books, used in
the schools of China, Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan, Cuba, Vietnam or dozens of other
countries not part of the American World Empire. I'll bet American actions and motives are
not portrayed to be as noble and pure as the driven snow. I'll bet even Mexico has a quite
different take. Canada? You stopped our invasion in 1812, aided the slaves sent to you via
the Underground Railway and refused to cooperate in the Vietnam fiasco. What happened since
then? Now you extradite AWOL GI's who don't want to go back to the numerous "sand boxes" we
play in. I'll bet those books, if ever published in English, would not be allowed on public
library shelves in the U.S.
I believe there are many questions that need answering about NATO. For instance:
July 14, 2018
The Diabolical "Work" of NATO and Its Allies: Why Are These War Criminals Still Free?
NATO's recent meeting or summit in Brussels July 11 – 12, 2018, could be described
as a gathering of heinous hypocrites. [1] There are millions of people dead, millions are
refugees, their countries have been destroyed and our ruling hypocrites spout the words "rule
of law." Has there ever been a gang of human reptiles (are they even human?) so evil, dressed
in expensive suits [and dresses] and operating out of houses of power called "parliaments"
and other houses of ill repute? These criminals, or gangsters, or bandits, or reprobates (Add
your own epithet) are up to their filthy necks in the blood of the victims of their planned
carnage.
Yet it was reported: "The summit will also discuss the fight against terrorism." Gee! Does
that statement about fighting "terrorism" smack of hypocrisy? There is evidence that NATO and
its members have, in fact, been consorting with, and supporting, terrorists. [2]
[much more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-diabolical-work-of-nato-and-its.html
"... At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession. The thing just flew apart. And afterwards we had to bomb the country in order to save it. ..."
I vividly recall the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo. I was nine-years-old and we were not
wired for cable then. There also was no remote control for the 27″ Zenith color
console. I was forced to watch some of the coverage for those reasons. Sarajevo was held up
as a utopian city where Serbs, Croats and Muslims all lived in a beautiful city peacefully.
It was so beautiful said the announcers. And in less than a decade that Olympic stadium
was turned into a cemetery as those peaceful Croats, Serbs and Muslims slaughtered each
other. Once the Soviet Army withdrew from Yugoslavia and the nation disintegrated back into
its ethnic lines, the killings started.
Imagine what is coming in the United States where the simmering hatreds are invited and
exploited by not three distinct groups, but hundreds. Image what is to come when
"historically aggrieved" peoples who have been weaponized for generations to despise their
non-homogenous neighbors.
The erasure of common nationhood and the instilling of grievance as a caste system will
see the US descend into chaotic slaughter the likes of which have never been seen before.
When Pakistan separated from India after the British pulled out, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus
slaughtered each other, stopping trains filled with refugees being repatriated into their new
nations and slaughtering every one of them. Americans have been so denuded of historical
understanding that these histories are unknown.
The malevolence of humanity seething just under the surface until the opportunity arises
for it to burst forth is forgotten by placated propagandized people. What people in world
history have been more propagandized and placated than Americans who have been viewing
carefully crafted scripts since their eyes were first able to focus on a tv screen and whose
desperately poor are morbidly obese?
Stocking a warehouse to the rafters with volatile materials, packing them in so tightly
until they near critical mass, now add in some agitation -- and light a match. The most
devastating weapon ever devised in not the hydrogen bomb, it is a population bomb. A 100
megaton nuclear weapon destroys cleanly -- one flash and a wind storm -- it's all over aside
from lingering sunshine units. In a thousand years the land will forget what had
happened.
A population bomb where the very people have been weaponized will prove far more
devastating and remain scarring the land for eons and that common memory lives on in the
survivors igniting anew every few decades.
Once the Soviet Army withdrew from Yugoslavia and the nation disintegrated back into its
ethnic lines, the killings started.
That never happened though because the Soviet Army was never in Yugoslavia in the first
place. It was Tito who maintained order with an iron fist.
At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic
would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be
internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession. The thing just flew
apart. And afterwards we had to bomb the country in order to save it.
"It did not take National Socialism long to rally workers, most of whom were either
unemployed or still very young, into the SA [Sturmangriff, Stormtroopers, "brown shirts"]. To a
large extent, however, these workers were revolutionary in a dull sort of way and still
maintained an authoritarian attitude. For this reason National Socialist propaganda was
contradictory; it's content was determined by the class for which it was intended. Only in its
manipulation of the mystical feelings of the masses was it clear and consistent.
In talks with followers of the National Socialist party and especially with members of the
SA, it was clearly brought out that the revolutionary phraseology of National Socialism was the
decisive factor in the winning over of these masses. One heard National Socialists deny that
Hitler
represented capital. One heard SA men warn Hitler that he must not betray the cause of the
"revolution." One heard SA men say that Hitler was the German Lenin . Those who went over to
National Socialism from Social Democracy and the liberal central parties were, without
exception, revolutionary minded masses who were either nonpolitical or politically undecided
prior to this. Those who went over from the Communist party were often revolutionary elements
who simply could not make any sense of many of the German Communist party's contradictory
political slogans. In part they were men upon whom the external features of Hitler's party,
it's military character, its assertiveness, etc., made a big impression.
"Open avowal of dictatorship is much less dangerous than sham democracy. The first one can
fight; sham democracy is insidious."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Even more
essential, however, is the identification of the individuals in the masses with the
"führer." The more helpless the "mass-individual" has become, owing to his upbringing, the
more pronounced is his identification with the führer, and the more the childish need for
protection is disguised in the form of a feeling at one with the führer. This inclination
to identify is the psychological basis of national narcissism, i.e., of the self-confidence
that individual man derives from the "greatness of the nation."
The reactionary lower
middle-class man perceives himself in the führer, in the authoritarian state. On
the basis of this identification he feels himself to be a defender of the "national heritage,"
of the "nation," which does not prevent him, likewise on the basis of this identification, from
simultaneously despising "the masses" and confronting them as an individual. The wretchedness
of his material and sexual situation is so overshadowed by the exalting idea of belonging to a
master race and having a brilliant führer that, as time goes on, he ceases to realize how
completely he has sunk to a position of insignificant, blind allegiance.
The worker who is conscious of his skills -- he, in short, who has rid himself of his
submissive structure, who identifies with his work and not with the führer, with the
international working masses and not with the national homeland -- represents the opposite of
this. He feels himself to be a leader , not on the basis of his identification with the
führer, but on the basis of his consciousness of performing work that is vitally necessary
for society's existence."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"It was one
of the greatest errors in evaluating dictatorship to say that the dictator forces himself on
society against its own will. In reality, every dictator in history was nothing but the
accentuation of already existing state ideas which he had only to exaggerate in order to gain
power"
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Race
theorists, who are as old as imperialism itself, want to achieve racial purity in peoples whose
interbreeding, as a result of the expansion of world economy, is so far advanced that racial
purity can have meaning only to a numbskull."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Power, no matter what kind of power it is, without a foundation in truth, is a
dictatorship, more or less and in one way or another, for it is always based on man's fear of
the social responsibility and personal burden that "freedom" entails."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"The word fascism is not a word of abuse any more than the word capitalism is. It is a
concept denoting a very definite kind of mass leadership and mass influence: authoritarian,
one-party system, hence totalitarian, a system in which power takes priority over objective
interests, and facts are distorted for political purposes. Hence, there are "fascist Jews,"
just as there are "fascist Democrats."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Finally, we arrive at the question of the so-called nonpolitical man. Hitler not only established his
power from the very beginning with masses of people who were until then essentially
nonpolitical; he also accomplished his last step to victory in March of 1933 in a "legal"
manner, by mobilizing no less than five million nonvoters, that is to say, nonpolitical people.
The Left parties had made every effort to win over the indifferent masses, without posing the
question as to what it means "to be indifferent or nonpolitical."
If an industrialist and large estate owner champions a rightist party, this is easily
understood in terms of his immediate economic interests. In his case a leftist orientation
would be at variance with his social situation and would, for that reason, point to irrational
motives. If an industrial worker has a leftist orientation, this too is by all mean rationally
consistent -- it derives from his economic and social position in industry. If, however, a
worker, an employee, or an official has a rightist orientation, this must be ascribed to a lack
of political clarity, i.e., he is ignorant of his social position. The more a man who belongs
to the broad working masses is nonpolitical, the more susceptible he is to the ideology of
political reaction. To be nonpolitical is not, as one might suppose, evidence of a passive
psychic condition, but of a highly active attitude, a defense against the awareness of
social responsibility. The analysis of this defense against consciousness of one's social
responsibility yields clear insights into a number of dark questions concerning the behavior of
the broad nonpolitical strata. In the case of the average intellectual "who wants nothing to do
with politics," it can easily be shown that immediate economic interests and fears related to
his social position, which is dependent upon public opinion, lie at the basis of his
noninvolvement. These fears cause him to make the most grotesque sacrifices with respect to his
knowledge and convictions. Those people who are engaged in the production process in one way or
another and are nonetheless socially irresponsible can be divided into two major groups. In the
case of the one group the concept of politics is unconsciously associated with the idea of
violence and physical danger, i.e., with an intense fear, which prevents them from facing life
realistically. In the case of the other group, which undoubtedly constitutes the majority,
social irresponsibility is based on personal conflicts and anxieties, of which the sexual
anxiety is the predominant one. [ ] Until now the revolutionary movement has misunderstood this
situation. It attempted to awaken the "nonpolitical" man by making him conscious solely of his
unfulfilled economic interests. Experience teaches that the majority of these "nonpolitical"
people can hardly be made to listen to anything about their socio-economic situation, whereas
they are very accessible to the mystical claptrap of a National Socialist, despite the fact
that the latter makes very little mention of economic interests. [This] is explained by the
fact that severe sexual conflicts (in the broadest sense of the word), whether conscious or
unconscious, inhibit rational thinking and the development of social responsibility. They make
a person afraid and force him into a shell. If, now, such a self-encapsulated person meets a
propagandist who works with faith and mysticism, meets, in other words, a fascist who works
with sexual, libidinous methods, he turns his complete attention to him. This is not because
the fascist program makes a greater impression on him than the liberal program, but because in
his devotion to the führer and the führer's ideology, he experiences a momentary
release from his unrelenting inner tension. Unconsciously, he is able to give his conflicts a
different form and in this way to "solve" them."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"When, then, the Social Democrat worker found himself in the economic crisis which degraded
him to the status of a coolie, the development of his revolutionary sentiments was severely
retarded by the conservative structuralization that had been taking shape in him for decades.
Either he remained in the camp of the Social Democrats, notwithstanding his criticism and
rejection of their policies, or he went over to the NSDAP [Nazi party] in search of a better
replacement. Irresolute and indecisive, owing to the deep contradiction between revolutionary
and conservative sentiments, disappointed by his own leadership, he followed the line of least
resistance. Whether he would give up his conservative tendencies and arrive at a complete
consciousness of his actual responsibility in the production process, i.e., at a revolutionary
consciousness, depended solely on the correct or incorrect leadership of the revolutionary
party. Thus the communist assertion that it was the Social Democrat policies that put fascism
in the saddle was correct from a psychological viewpoint. Disappointment in Social
Democracy, accompanied by the contradiction between wretchedness and conservative thinking,
must lead to fascism if there are no revolutionary organizations. For example, following
the fiasco of the Labor party's policies in England, in 1930–31, fascism began to
infiltrate the workers who, then, in the election of 1931, cut away to the Right, instead of
going over to communism."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Hence, what he wants -- and it is openly admitted -- is to implement nationalistic
imperialism with methods he has borrowed from Marxism , including its technique of
mass organization. But the success of this mass organization is to be ascribed to the masses
and not to Hitler . It was man's
authoritarian freedom-fearing structure that enabled his propaganda to take root. Hence, what
is important about Hitler sociologically does not issue from his personality but from the
importance attached to him by the masses. And what makes the problem all the more
complex is the fact that Hitler held the masses, with whose help he wanted to carry out his
imperialism, in complete contempt."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"As bitter as it may be, the fact remains: It is the irresponsibleness of masses
of people that lies at the basis of fascism of all countries, nations, and races, etc. Fascism
is the result of man's distortion over thousands of years. It could have developed in any
country or nation. It is not a character trait that is confined specifically to the Germans or
Italians. It is manifest in every single individual of the world. The Austrian saying "Da
kann man halt nix machen" expresses this fact just as the American saying "Let George do
it." That this situation was brought about by a social development which goes back thousands of
years does not alter the fact itself. It is man himself who is responsible and not "historical
developments." It was the shifting of the responsibility from living man to "historical
developments" that caused the downfall of the socialist freedom movements. However, the
events of the past twenty years demand the responsibility of the working masses of people.
If we take "freedom" to mean first and foremost the responsibility of each
individual to shape personal, occupational, and social existence in a rational way, then it
can be said that there is no greater fear than the fear of the creation of general
freedom. Unless this basic problem is given complete priority and solved, there will never
be a freedom capable of lasting more than one or two generations."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"It did not
take National Socialism long to rally workers, most of whom were either unemployed or still
very young, into the SA [Sturmangriff, Stormtroopers, "brown shirts"]. To a large extent,
however, these workers were revolutionary in a dull sort of way and still maintained an
authoritarian attitude. For this reason National Socialist propaganda was contradictory; it's
content was determined by the class for which it was intended. Only in its manipulation of the
mystical feelings of the masses was it clear and consistent.
In talks with followers of the National Socialist party and especially with members of the
SA, it was clearly brought out that the revolutionary phraseology of National Socialism was the
decisive factor in the winning over of these masses. One heard National Socialists deny that
Hitler
represented capital. One heard SA men warn Hitler that he must not betray the cause of the
"revolution." One heard SA men say that Hitler was the German Lenin . Those who went over to
National Socialism from Social Democracy and the liberal central parties were, without
exception, revolutionary minded masses who were either nonpolitical or politically undecided
prior to this. Those who went over from the Communist party were often revolutionary elements
who simply could not make any sense of many of the German Communist party's contradictory
political slogans. In part they were men upon whom the external features of Hitler's party,
it's military character, its assertiveness, etc., made a big impression.
"National Socialism made use of various means in dealing with various classes, and made
various promises depending upon the social class it needed at a particular time. In the spring
of 1933, for example, it was the revolutionary character of the Nazi movement that was
given particular emphasis in Nazi propaganda in an effort to win over the industrial workers,
and the first of May was "celebrated," but only after the aristocracy had been appeased in
Potsdam. To ascribe the success solely to political swindle, however, would be to become
entangled in a contradiction with the basic idea of freedom, and would practically exclude the
possibility of a social revolution. What must be answered is: Why do the masses allow
themselves to be politically swindled? The masses had every possibility of evaluating the
propaganda of the various parties. Why didn't they see that, while promising the workers that
the owners of the means of production would be disappropriated, Hitler promised the capitalists that
their rights would be protected?"
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Yet, it was precisely our failure to differentiate between work and politics, between
reality and illusion; it was precisely our mistake of conceiving of politics as a rational
human activity comparable to the sowing of seeds or the construction of buildings that was
responsible for the fact that a painter who
failed to make the grade was able to plunge the whole world into misery. And I have
stressed again and again that the main purpose of this book -- which, after all, was not
written merely for the fun of it -- was to demonstrate these catastrophic errors in human
thinking and to eliminate irrationalism from politics. It is an essential part of our social
tragedy that the farmer, the industrial worker, the physician, etc., do not influence social
existence solely through their social activities, but also and even predominantly through their
political ideologies. For political activity hinders objective and professional activity; it
splits every profession into inimical ideologic groups; creates a dichotomy in the body of
industrial workers; limits the activity of the medical profession and harms the patients. In
short, it is precisely political activity that prevents the realization of that which it
pretends to fight for: peace, work, security, international cooperation, free objective speech,
freedom of religion, etc."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"... "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers – from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," ..."
"... "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" ..."
"... "an absence of evidence." ..."
"... "a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being." ..."
"... "any property, or interest in property" ..."
"... "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them." ..."
The "addiction" of Washington to sanctions "knows no bounds," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said. It comes after Washington
slapped two top officials from major ally Turkey with restrictions. "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers
– from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft,
but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," Zarif tweeted.
US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers - from an allied country - illustrates not just US administration's policy
of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds.
In a heightening of tensions between the two allies, the US Treasury Department on Wednesday
announced restrictions against Turkish Minister
of Justice Abdulhamit Gul and Minister of Interior Suleyman Soylu over the continued detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson.
Brunson is being held by Turkey on charges of espionage and assisting the plotters of an unsuccessful 2016 military coup attempt.
The US says Brunson is "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" by the Turkish government, adding that he was accused
with "an absence of evidence." US President Donald Trump has
called the pastor "a great Christian,
family man and wonderful human being."
The Treasury Department announced that "any property, or interest in property" of both Gul and Soylu within US jurisdiction
is blocked and "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them."
Brunson's case has long been a stumbling block in already strained relations between Washington and Ankara. Days before the US
Treasury announced its decision, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
accused
his American counterpart of waging "psychological warfare" against Turkey over the pastor and warned that the US may lose
"a strong and sincere ally."
Responding to the restrictions, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu
tweeted that they "won't be left
without retaliation."
US relations with Turkey have not been smooth in recent months. Among other things, Ankara and Washington are locking horns over
Turkey's decision to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Erdogan's government is also adamant on pushing ahead with the purchase of
American F-35 jets, which US lawmakers are trying to block due to Ankara's S-400 deal.
trump has wrecked environmental policy, trade policy and domestic social policy....the
upshots will be: 1- a much more toxic environment & much higher level of respiratory
disease and cancerous related ailments; overall poorer health & health care for the
average citizen 2- higher prices for imported goods, lower level of trade exports, fewer US
based jobs and more off-shoring of US jobs 3- a substantial increase in the homeless
population in the urban areas of this country; increased rates of poverty for the poor, lower
economic prosperity for the lower and lower middle class income brackets; wage stagnation for
the middle & upper middle income brackets; less advanced education & lower worker
productivity and innovation to name just a few of the impacts created by this idiot....in
simple in English, Trump and his so-called initiatives are shafting this country in almost
every way possible
What part of international law is not just pissed on toiler paper strewn over the floors of a
urinal? Which post WWII president respected this law?
None.
International law, since WWII failed. It failed in '47 when no referendum was held in
Palestine - against Chapter 1, Article 1 paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. It failed in Crimea,
when the results of such a referendum was spat on by the previous war criminal to sit in the
Oval Office. It fails now as sanctions are used unilaterally - being equivalent to the use of
force in result, they should be
But then let's not stop at after the war. The US is the only country to nuke civilians.
6/7 US four star generals at the time said the action had no strategic or tactical purpose
whatsoever.
The US is what ISIS dreams to be, the sooner it falls into obscurity the better.
Pure nonsense. The Great Depression began on October 29, 1929. FDR was inaugurated on March
4, 1933 nearly 4 years after it began. Hoover had actually only been in office for just over
6 months before Black Tuesday. GDP began growing and unemployment began falling in 1933
shortly after FDR took office. The Depression officially came to an end in 1939 when GDP
returned to pre-Depression levels.
There is no long term US growth. There is a debt default after people realize the fact that
the top of the whole US government is incompetent. That it has chained itself to such
astronomic liabilities for useless wars (as the Empire has not succeeded in world hegemony),
is even sadder. It coould have spent the $5tn of Iraq and Afghanistan on building shit, but
instead it bombed shit.
Trump doesn't matter for US long run - in 5-10 years time the country will be only found
in history books.
Remember Kruschev's (sp?) last words on leaving office, and I'm paraphrasing: "Don't worry
about America, they'll spend themselves to death (just like we have)". Continued economic
growth is a wet dream of Wall Street origin. We are massively overpopulated and rapidly using
up earth's natural resources at an increasingly unsustainable rate. We must begin to reduce
our growth, not keep increasing it. Population density stress is killing us now and only
increasing every day along with the 220,000 new mouths to feed that we are turning out into a
world that has no room for 28,000,000 homeless migrants already. Just how crazy are we
really. If this article is to be believed, we are nuts. E.F. Schumacher is rolling in his
grave! Stress R Us
The contribution of a president to the national debt depends a bit on how you calculate it.
You could simply look at rhe dates of inauguration or go a step further and look at the
fiscal years. For the latter see :
In absolute terms Obama is indeed at the top of the list, percentagewise his predecessor
played a larger part. No matter how you look at it or what the causes were, under Bush and
Obama the U.S. debt seems to have spiralled out of of control and Trump is doing bugger all
to stop that trend.
"... The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present), have never known a real relaxation of tension. ..."
"... a warning against the oppressors of the people ..."
"... the outcasts have become creators of public norms ..."
"... 5Stars – League ..."
"... rhetoric of the clash between civilizations ..."
"... Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason, according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused. ..."
"... velayat-e faqih ..."
"... the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through the definition of a government able to run the law. ..."
"... The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist model of civilization. ..."
"... Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance ..."
The intelligence is coming in, Russia appearing to be pushed to the side, making many wonder
what Netanyahu has on Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Iran should well be a "redline" for
Russia but, increasingly, analysts are coming to believe that Trump and Putin at their
conference in Helsinki may well have "sold Iran down the river."
The next target, of course is Turkey.
When Iran is gone, Turkey will go as well, with America having a long standing relationship
with the Kurds and holding the what Trump's sees has his key to Turkey, Gulan, the radical
cleric living in Pennsylvania, groomed by the CIA to become Washington's puppet in Ankara when
Erdogan can finally be eliminated.
Behind this is an economic war. Israel is crushing the Palestinians, aided by Trump rag-tail
relation and probably Mueller investigation target, Jared Kushner. Few are aware of the real
"geologicals" from the Eastern Mediterranean, with massive gas deposits under Idlib and Latakia
in Syria and adjacent Turkey and both off and onshore in Gaza. The Gaza reserves alone may well
constitute the second largest untapped gas reserve in the world.
The the first under both Iran and Qatar, moves to put both nations "out of business," will
benefit Israel, Russia and the US and push pipeline gas and LNG to new record highs.
It is always about the money and US sanctions on Iran and Russia are intended, of course, to
bring the "hot war" on Iran to fruition as soon as possible.
Now for an Italian source on
the issue translated by Pravda's Constantino Ceoldo
by Daniele Perra
The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal
Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a
potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the
Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution
in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the
nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully
respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present),
have never known a real relaxation of tension.
The 1979 hostage crisis, as a result of which Pope John Paul II sent a request for release
that Imam Khomeini rejected by arguing his answer with the fact that the Iranian people would
have expected from the messenger of Christ a warning against the oppressors of the
people and not solidarity with them, and the terrifying war of aggression that Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, on US and Saudi commission, moved against the newborn Islamic Republic were
only the first episodes of a long series of more or less direct confrontation between a nation
with ancient history and culture and that paradise of Protestant eschatological heterodoxy in
which, as the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin affirmed, the outcasts have become
creators of public norms .
Add to this the fact that between the imposition of sanctions regimes on several levels and
in different periods and direct interference in Iranian internal affairs (heavy exploitation of
the protests of the so-called Green Movement and support to various terrorist groups that aim
to destabilize the country: first among all the Mojahedin-e Khalq with offices in France and
Albania), the US has never stopped aspiring and dreaming of that "regime change" that now, with
the appointment of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State but above all of John R. Bolton as a
national security advisor, seems to have come back very closely.
Also, and above all, because the fears for the Iranian presence in Syria, considered as an
existential threat to Israel, has triggered various hysterical reactions between the North
American Zionist lobby and the Israeli military and political leaders themselves. See
in this regard the bombastic as unreliable presentation of "irrefutable evidence" on the
Iranian violations of the JCPOA by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the twelve
requests, drawn up by Mike Pompeo, that Iran should meet if it intends to renegotiate the
agreement with the USA. Requests among which there appears to be at least a ridiculous
cessation of aid to al-Qaeda and to the Afghan Taliban that Iran have always been sworn enemies
and which, on the contrary, have often enjoyed the support of the US and Zionist
intelligence . The Taliban, among other things, have carried out real massacres of the
Hazara : the ethnic Shiite component of Afghanistan.
For what concerns Italy (Iran's first European commercial partner), the new sanctions
imposed by the USA following the unilateral exit from the JCPOA would damage the economy much
more than those, however useless, inflicted on Russia and the whose removal has been included
(even if at the time it is taken into the background) in the program of the new yellow-green
government [ 5Stars – League ].
The low negotiating power of European economic actors, faced with the forced choice between
access (with the risk of sanctions) to the Iranian market or to the "imposed" US market, and
the cultural subalternity that many governments continue to suffer towards the US, despite of
the desire to preserve the JCPOA, do not foresee anything that does not go beyond the usual
forms of masochistic schizophrenia of Europe.
Now, from a purely geopolitical point of view, the North American obsession with Iran is
more than justified. The Islamic Revolution has overthrown a regime that in previous decades,
except for the small parenthesis of the nationalist government of Mossadeq (not coincidentally
overturned by a joint Anglo-American operation), had made of its total alignment to the United
States its only form of international legitimacy and which, with Turkey, represented one of the
"pillars" of North American geopolitics in the Middle East. And the Revolution has also
prevented the North American elites from directly managing huge energy resources.
Iran, to date, is the third country in the world in terms of oil resources and the first in
terms of natural gas reserves. It is therefore clear how the Trump administration, by launching
the Energy Dominance doctrine aimed at achieving dominance on the global energy market, can not
help but perceive Iran as a fearsome potential competitor and at the same time as a "prey" for
the effective expansion and implementation of the aforementioned plan.
Nor should we forget the fact that Iran, as a pillar of the new multipolar order and a
hegemonic power in the Middle East, represents a sort of black hole that threatens the US
control of that Eurasian rimland that the geopolitical scholar Nicholas J. Spykman
laid the foundation of the North American hegemonic system. However, there are other factors
that, although preliminary to the North American hegemonic design, remain more related to the
rhetoric of the clash between civilizations and the perception of an Islam that can
not be used for its geopolitical purposes as an enemy to be fought and annihilated
whenever possible. And even in this sense, the North American obsession with Iran appears more
than justified.
Today's Iran, albeit with obvious defects (though not alien to any nation in the world),
represents the antithesis par excellence of a model of civilization set on the magnificent and
progressive fate of modernity. The Khomeinist Revolution developed as a reappropriation of the
dimension of the sacred, as a restoration of that direct thread between the physical and
metaphysical order that the Western modernity imposed by the Shah regime had almost
irretrievably split. The Revolution, understood in the etymologically correct sense of the term
re-evolution , has shown how the phenomenon of modernity has no connection with
contemporaneity. Modernity is only a model of society, of civilization, of the vision of the
world which through a process of reversion of time and of reappropriation of one's traditional
"being in the world" can be overturned.
Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the
reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures
incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the
step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources
and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason,
according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam
of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused.
But this law must refer to authentic Islam and not to its version counterfeited by Western
colonialism. The Imam, for example, never stopped defining Wahhabism as American Islam
. The doctrine of the velayat-e faqih (vicariate of the jurisconsult) as the
foundation of the current Iranian political system, by the admission of Khomeini himself, is
not the product of his theoretical elaboration. This is not something new, but is at the center
of the question of Islamic government from the beginning. Khomeini limited himself only to a
more in-depth analysis, identifying its roots in the Islamic tradition.
The vicariate of the jurisconsult is the order to fulfill a delivery. The assumption of the
obligations of government and of the burden of command by the doctors of the law implies the
realization of a precise purpose: to confirm the truth and to eliminate the lie. According to a
well known prophetic hadith the doctors of the law are the custodians of the trust of
the prophets. And as the Imam reiterates in his speech on the Islamic government:
the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the
framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through
the definition of a government able to run the law.
A concept present on several occasions even in his most strictly focused works on
irfan (gnosis) in which to the divine Nuncio and fixed archetype of the Perfect Man is
given the task of preserving the limits established by God and preventing them from coming out
of the confines of moderation. A call, that to measure, present in a relevant way also in
Western culture, both in ancient Greece and in the Middle Ages. It is said, for example, that
Frederick II Hohenstaufen, questioned by the legendary Priest Gianni (figuration of the
Guenonian "King of the World") about what was the best thing in the world, replied: "the best
thing in this world is measure".
It is therefore obvious that as a philosophical-metaphysical logos set entirely on
the sense of measure and on the virtue of moderation it can not necessarily clash against a
vision of the world based on excess (on that "gigantism" so stigmatized by Martin Heidegger)
and on the negation of all that is human. Man realizes himself through thought. Being human
means first of all to think and investigate around the sense of truth. And if the instrument of
the intellect is not exercised and developed, man is transformed into a machine and is
sacrificed on the altar of technique. The fact that Western thought has produced such an
artificial act by determining its own suicide does not mean that every other civilization /
culture must do the same in the name of unipolar globalization.
The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of
resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist
model of civilization. And the same idea is also valid for what concerns Zionism that has
imported this model in the Near East, openly confronting the Islamic world. In this regard, the
Imam was particularly critical in the first place with the rabbis: "they – said Khomeini
– despite being the guardians of Jewish religious law have done nothing to prevent the
oppressors to pronounce their sinful words, spread lies, slander and distort the truth".
Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale
Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance
On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20,
2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. Most people would calculate Obama added $9
trillion to the debt, more than any other president. But then Tom Eleven isn't "Most people".
Around 35 years ago, I was sitting in my college dorm-room closely reading the New York
Times as I did each and every morning when I noticed an astonishing article about the
controversial new Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir.
Back in those long-gone days, the Gray Lady was strictly a black-and-white print
publication, lacking the large color photographs of rap stars and long stories about dieting
techniques that fill so much of today's news coverage, and it also seemed to have a far harder
edge in its Middle East reporting. A year or so earlier, Shamir's predecessor Menacham Begin
had allowed his Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to talk him into invading Lebanon and besieging
Beirut, and the subsequent massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps had outraged the world and angered America's government. This eventually led to
Begin's resignation, with Shamir, his Foreign Minister, taking his place.
Prior to his surprising 1977 election victory, Begin had spent decades in the political
wilderness as an unacceptable right-winger, and Shamir had an even more extreme background,
with the American mainstream media freely reporting his long involvement in all sorts of
high-profile assassinations and terrorist attacks during the 1940s, painting him as a very bad
man indeed.
Given Shamir's notorious activities, few revelations would have shocked me, but this one
did. Apparently, during the late 1930s, Shamir and his small Zionist faction had become great
admirers of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis, and after World War II broke out, they had
made repeated attempts to contact Mussolini and the German leadership in 1940 and 1941, hoping
to enlist in the Axis Powers as their Palestine affiliate, and undertake a campaign of attacks
and espionage against the local British forces, then share in the political booty after
Hitler's inevitable triumph.
Now the Times clearly viewed Shamir in a very negative light, but it seemed
extremely unlikely to me that they would have published such a remarkable story without being
absolutely sure of their facts. Among other things, there were long excerpts from the official
letters sent to Mussolini ferociously denouncing the "decadent" democratic systems of Britain
and France that he was opposing, and assuring Il Duce that such ridiculous political
notions would have no future place in the totalitarian Jewish client state they hoped to
establish under his auspices in Palestine.
As it happens, both Germany and Italy were preoccupied with larger geopolitical issues at
the time, and given the small size of Shamir's Zionist faction, not much seems to have ever
come of those efforts. But the idea of the sitting Prime Minister of the Jewish State having
spent his early wartime years as an unrequited Nazi ally was certainly something that sticks in
one's mind, not quite conforming to the traditional narrative of that era which I had always
accepted.
Most remarkably, the revelation of Shamir's pro-Axis past seems to have had only a
relatively minor impact upon his political standing within Israeli society. I would think that
any American political figure found to have supported a military alliance with Nazi Germany
during the Second World War would have had a very difficult time surviving the resulting
political scandal, and the same would surely be true for politicians in Britain, France, or
most other western nations. But although there was certainly some embarrassment in the Israeli
press, especially after the shocking story reached the international headlines, apparently most
Israelis took the whole matter in stride, and Shamir stayed in office for another year, then
later served a second, much longer term as Prime Minister during 1986-1992. The Jews of Israel
apparently regarded Nazi Germany quite differently than did most Americans, let alone most
American Jews.
... ... ...
Over the years I've occasionally made half-hearted attempts to locate the Times
article about Shamir that had long stuck in my memory, but have had no success, either because
it was removed from the Times archives or more likely because my mediocre search
skills proved inadequate. But I'm almost certain that the piece had been prompted by the 1983
publication of Zionism in the
Age of the Dictators by Lenni Brenner, an anti-Zionist of the Trotskyite persuasion
and Jewish origins. I only very recently discovered that book, which really tells an extremely
interesting story.
Brenner, born in 1937, has spent his entire life as an unreconstructed hard-core leftist,
with his enthusiasms ranging from Marxist revolution to the Black Panthers, and he is obviously
a captive of his views and his ideology. At times, this background impairs the flow of his
text, and the periodic allusions to "proletarian," "bourgeoisie," and "capitalist classes"
sometimes grow a little wearisome, as does his unthinking acceptance of all the shared beliefs
common to his political circle. But surely only someone with that sort of fervent ideological
commitment would have been willing to devote so much time and effort to investigating that
controversial subject and ignoring the endless denunciations that resulted, which even included
physical assaults by Zionist partisans.
ORDER IT NOW
In any event, his documentation seems completely airtight, and some years after the original
appearance of his book, he published a companion volume entitled 51 Documents: Zionist
Collaboration with the Nazis , which simply provides English translations of all the raw
evidence behind his analytical framework, allowing interested parties to read the material and
draw their own conclusions.
Among other things, Brenner provides considerable evidence that the larger and somewhat more
mainstream right-wing Zionist faction later led by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was
almost invariably regarded as a Fascist movement during the 1930s, even apart from its warm
admiration for Mussolini's Italian regime. This was hardly such a dark secret in that period
given that its main Palestine newspaper carried a regular column by a top ideological leader
entitled "Diary of a Fascist." During one of the major international Zionist conferences,
factional leader Vladimir Zabotinsky entered the hall with his brown-shirted followers in full
military formation, leading the chair to ban the wearing of uniforms in order to avoid a riot,
and his faction was soon defeated politically and eventually expelled from the Zionist umbrella
organization. This major setback was largely due to the widespread hostility the group had
aroused after two of its members were arrested by British police for the recent assassination
of Chaim Arlosoroff, one of the highest-ranking Zionist officials based in Palestine.
The cover of the 2014 paperback edition of Brenner's book displays the commemorative medal
struck by Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, with a Star-of-David on the front face and
a Swastika on the obverse. But oddly enough, this symbolic medallion actually had absolutely no
connection with the unsuccessful attempts by Shamir's small faction to arrange a Nazi military
alliance during World War II.
Although the Germans paid little attention to the entreaties of that minor organization, the
far larger and more influential mainstream Zionist movement of Chaim Weizmann and David
Ben-Gurion was something else entirely. And during most of the 1930s, these other Zionists had
formed an important economic partnership with Nazi Germany, based upon an obvious commonality
of interests. After all, Hitler regarded Germany's one percent Jewish population as a
disruptive and potentially dangerous element which he wanted gone, and the Middle East seemed
as good a destination for them as any other. Meanwhile, the Zionists had very similar
objectives, and the creation of their new national homeland in Palestine obviously required
both Jewish immigrants and Jewish financial investment.
... ... ...
The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel's establishment is difficult to
overstate. According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier cited by Brenner, between
1933 and 1939 over 60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany. The
worldwide impoverishment of the Great Depression had drastically reduced ongoing Jewish
financial support from all other sources, and Brenner reasonably suggests that without Hitler's
financial backing, the nascent Jewish colony, so tiny and fragile, might easily have shriveled
up and died during that difficult period.
Such a conclusion leads to fascinating hypotheticals. When I first stumbled across
references to the Ha'avara Agreement on websites here and there, one of the commenters
mentioning the issue half-jokingly suggested that if Hitler had won the war, statues would
surely have been built to him throughout Israel and he would today be recognized by Jews
everywhere as the heroic Gentile leader who had played the central role in reestablishing a
national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine after almost 2000 years of bitter
exile.
This sort of astonishing counter-factual possibility is not nearly as totally absurd as it
might sound to our present-day ears. We must recognize that our historical understanding of
reality is shaped by the media, and media organs are controlled by the winners of major wars
and their allies, with inconvenient details often excluded to avoid confusing the public. It is
undeniably true that in his 1924 book Mein Kampf , Hitler had written all sorts of
hostile and nasty things about Jews, especially those who were recent immigrants from Eastern
Europe, but when I read the book back in high school, I was a little surprised to discover that
these anti-Jewish sentiments hardly seemed central to his text. Furthermore, just a couple of
years earlier, a vastly more prominent public figure such as British Minister Winston Churchill
had published
sentiments nearly as hostile and nasty , focusing on the monstrous crimes being committed
by Bolshevik Jews. In Albert Lindemann's Esau's Tears , I was surprised to discover
that the author of the famous Balfour Declaration, the foundation of the Zionist project, was
apparently also quite hostile to Jews, with an element of his motivation probably being his
desire to exclude them from Britain.
Once Hitler consolidated power in Germany, he quickly outlawed all other political
organizations for the German people, with only the Nazi Party and Nazi political symbols being
legally permitted. But a special exception was made for German Jews, and Germany's local
Zionist Party was accorded complete legal status, with Zionist marches, Zionist uniforms, and
Zionist flags all fully permitted. Under Hitler, there was strict censorship of all German
publications, but the weekly Zionist newspaper was freely sold at all newsstands and street
corners. The clear notion seemed to be that a German National Socialist Party was the proper
political home for the country's 99% German majority, while Zionist National Socialism would
fill the same role for the tiny Jewish minority.
In 1934, Zionist leaders invited an important SS official to spend six months visiting the
Jewish settlement in Palestine, and upon his return, his very favorable impressions of the
growing Zionist enterprise were published as a massive 12-part-series in Joseph Goebbel's
Der Angriff , the flagship media organ of the Nazi Party, bearing the descriptive
title "A Nazi Goes to Palestine." In his very angry 1920 critique of Jewish Bolshevik activity,
Churchill had argued that Zionism was locked in a fierce battle with Bolshevism for the soul of
European Jewry, and only its victory might ensure amicable future relations between Jew and
Gentile. Based on available evidence, Hitler and many of the other Nazi leaders seemed to have
reached a somewhat similar conclusion by the mid-1930s.
During that era extremely harsh sentiments regarding Diaspora Jewry were sometimes found in
rather surprising quarters. After the controversy surrounding Shamir's Nazi ties erupted into
the headlines, Brenner's material became the grist for an important article by Edward Mortimer,
the longtime Middle East expert at the august Times of London , and the 2014 edition
of the book includes some choice extracts from Mortimer's February 11, 1984 Times
piece:
Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that "each country can absorb only a limited
number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many
Jews"?
No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization
and later still the first president of the state of Israel.
And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but
republished as late as 1936: "The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both
physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness
of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline"?
Not in Der Sturmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer
Hatzair.
As the above quoted statement reveals, Zionism itself encouraged and exploited self-hatred
in the Diaspora. It started from the assumption that anti-Semitism was inevitable and even in
a sense justified so long as Jews were outside the land of Israel.
It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to join
the war on Germany's side in 1941, in the hope of establishing "the historical Jewish state
on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich."
Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister of Israel chose to
join.
The very uncomfortable truth is that the harsh characterizations of Diaspora Jewry found in
the pages of Mein Kampf were not all that different from what was voiced by Zionism's
founding fathers and its subsequent leaders, so the cooperation of those two ideological
movements was not really so totally surprising.
However, uncomfortable truths do remain uncomfortable. Mortimer had spent nineteen years at
the Times , the last dozen of them as the foreign specialist and leader-writer on
Middle Eastern affairs. But the year after he wrote that article including those controversial
quotations, his
career at that newspaper ended , leading to an unusual gap in his employment history, and
that development may or may not be purely coincidental.
Also quite ironic was the role of Adolf Eichmann, whose name today probably ranks as one of
the most famous half-dozen Nazis in history, due to his postwar 1960 kidnapping by Israeli
agents, followed by his public show-trial and execution as a war-criminal. As it happens,
Eichmann had been a central Nazi figure in the Zionist alliance, even studying Hebrew and
apparently becoming something of a philo-Semite during the years of his close collaboration
with top Zionist leaders.
Brenner is a captive of his ideology and his beliefs, accepting without question the
historical narrative with which he was raised. He seems to find nothing so strange about
Eichmann being a philo-Semitic partner of the Jewish Zionists during the late 1930s and then
suddenly being transformed into a mass-murderer of the European Jews in the early 1940s,
willingly committing the monstrous crimes for which the Israelis later justly put him to
death.
This is certainly possible, but I really wonder. A more cynical observer might find it a
very odd coincidence that the first prominent Nazi the Israelis made such an effort to track
down and kill had been their closest former political ally and collaborator. After Germany's
defeat, Eichmann had fled to Argentina and lived there quietly for a number of years until his
name resurfaced in a celebrated mid-1950s controversy surrounding one of his leading Zionist
partners, then living in Israel as a respected government official, who was denounced as a Nazi
collaborator, eventually ruled innocent after a celebrated trial, but later assassinated by
former members of Shamir's faction.
Following that controversy in Israel, Eichmann supposedly gave a long personal interview to
a Dutch Nazi journalist, and although it wasn't published at the time, perhaps word of its
existence may have gotten into circulation. The new state of Israel was just a few years old at
that time, and very politically and economically fragile, desperately dependent upon the
goodwill and support of America and Jewish donors worldwide. Their remarkable former Nazi
alliance was a deeply-suppressed secret, whose public release might have had absolutely
disastrous consequences.
According to the version of the interview later published as a two-part story in Life
Magazine , Eichmann's statements seemingly did not touch on the deadly topic of the 1930s
Nazi-Zionist partnership. But surely Israeli leaders must have been terrified that they might
not be so lucky the next time, so we may speculate that Eichmann's elimination suddenly became
a top national priority, and he was tracked down and captured in 1960. Presumably, harsh means
were employed to persuade him not to reveal any of these dangerous pre-war secrets at his
Jerusalem trial, and one might wonder if the reason he was famously kept in an enclosed glass
booth was to ensure that the sound could quickly be cut off if he started to stray from the
agreed upon script. All of this analysis is totally speculative, but Eichmann's role as a
central figure in the 1930s Nazi-Zionist partnership is undeniable historical fact.
Just as we might imagine, America's overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry was hardly
eager to serve as a public conduit for Brenner's shocking revelations of a close Nazi-Zionist
economic partnership, and he mentions that his book agent uniformly received rejections from
each firm he approached, based on a wide variety of different excuses. However, he finally
managed to locate an extremely obscure publisher in Britain willing to take on the project, and
his book was released in 1983, initially receiving no reviews other than a couple of harsh and
perfunctory denunciations, though Soviet Izvestia took some interest in his findings
until they discovered that he was a hated Trotskyite.
His big break came when Shamir suddenly became Israel's Prime Minister, and he brought his
evidence of former Nazi ties to the English-language Palestinian press, which put it into
general circulation. Various British Marxists, including the notorious "Red Ken" Livingstone of
London, organized a speaking tour for him, and when a group of right-wing Zionist militants
attacked one of the events and inflicted injuries, the story of the brawl caught the attention
of the mainstream newspapers. Soon afterward the discussion of Brenner's astonishing
discoveries appeared in the Times of London and entered the international media.
Presumably, the New York Times article that had originally caught my eye ran sometime
during this period.
Public relations professionals are quite skilled at minimizing the impact of damaging
revelations, and pro-Israel organizations have no shortage of such individuals. Just before the
1983 release of his remarkable book, Brenner suddenly discovered that a young pro-Zionist
author named Edwin Black was furiously working on a similar project, apparently backed by
sufficient financial resources that he was employing an army of fifty researchers to allow him
to complete his project in record time.
Since the entire embarrassing subject of a Nazi-Zionist partnership had been kept away from
the public eye for almost five decades, this timing surely seems more than merely coincidental.
Presumably word of Brenner's numerous unsuccessful efforts at securing a mainstream publisher
during 1982 had gotten around, as had as his eventual success in locating a tiny one in
Britain. Having failed to prevent publication of such explosive material, pro-Israel groups
quietly decided that their next best option was trying to seize control of the topic
themselves, allowing disclosure of those parts of the story that could not be concealed but
excluding items of greatest danger, while portraying the sordid history in the best possible
light.
ORDER IT NOW
Black's book, The Transfer Agreement , may have arrived a year later than Brenner's
but was clearly backed by vastly greater publicity and resources. It was released by Macmillan,
a leading publisher, ran nearly twice the length of Brenner's short book, and carried powerful
endorsements by leading figures from the firmament of Jewish activism, including the Simon
Weisenthal Center, the Israel Holocaust Memorial, and the American Jewish Archives. As a
consequence, it received long if not necessarily favorable reviews in influential publications
such as The New Republic and Commentary .
In all fairness, I should mention that in the Foreword to his book, Black claims that his
research efforts had been totally discouraged by nearly everyone he approached, and as a
consequence, he had been working on the project with solitary intensity for many years. This
implies the near-simultaneous release of the two books was purely due to chance. But such a
picture is hardly consistent with his glowing testimonials from so many prominent Jewish
leaders, and personally I find Brenner's claim that Black was assisted by fifty researchers far
more convincing.
Since both Black and Brenner were describing the same basic reality and relying upon many of
the same documents, in most respects the stories they tell are generally similar. But Black
carefully excludes any mention of offers of Zionist military cooperation with the Nazis, let
alone the repeated attempts by Shamir's Zionist faction to officially join the Axis Powers
after the war had broken out, as well as numerous other details of a particularly embarrassing
nature.
Assuming Black's book was published for the reasons I suggested, I think that the strategy
of the pro-Israel groups largely succeeded, with his version of the history seeming to have
quickly supplanted Brenner's except perhaps in strongly leftist or anti-Zionist circles.
Googling each combination of the title and author, Black's book gets eight times as many hits,
and his Amazon sales ranks and numbers of reviews are also larger by roughly that same factor.
Most notably, neither the Wikipedia articles on "The Transfer Agreement" and
"The
Ha'avara Agreement" contain any mention of Brenner's research whatsoever, even
though his book was published earlier, was far broader, and only he provided the underlying
documentary evidence. As a personal example of the current situation, I was quite unaware of
the entire Ha'avara history until just a few years ago when I encountered some website
comments mentioning Black's book, leading me to purchase and read it. But even then, Brenner's
far more wide-ranging and explosive volume remained totally unknown to me until very
recently.
Once World War II began, this Nazi-Zionist partnership quickly lapsed for obvious reasons.
Germany was now at war with the British Empire, and financial transfers to British-run
Palestine were no longer possible. Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had grown quite hostile
to the Jewish immigrants whom they rightfully feared might eventually displace them, and once
the Germans were forced to choose between maintaining their relationship with a relatively
small Zionist movement or winning the political sympathy of a vast sea of Middle Eastern Arabs
and Muslims, their decision was a natural one. The Zionists faced a similar choice, and
especially once wartime propaganda began so heavily blackening the German and Italian
governments, their long previous partnership was not something they wanted widely known.
However, at exactly this same moment a somewhat different and equally long-forgotten
connection between Jews and Nazi Germany suddenly moved to the fore.
Like most people everywhere, the average German, whether Jewish or Gentile, was probably not
all that political, and although Zionism had for years been accorded a privileged place in
German society, it is not entirely clear how many ordinary German Jews paid much attention to
it. The tens of thousands who emigrated to Palestine during that period were probably motivated
as much by economic pressures as by ideological commitment. But wartime changed matters in
other ways.
ORDER IT NOW
This was even more true for the German government. The outbreak of a world war against a
powerful coalition of the British and French empires, later augmented by both Soviet Russia and
the United States, imposed the sorts of enormous pressures that could often overcome
ideological scruples. A few years ago, I discovered a fascinating 2002 book by Bryan Mark Rigg,
Hitler's Jewish Soldiers , a scholarly treatment of exactly what the title implies.
The quality of this controversial historical analysis is indicated by the glowing jacket-blurbs
from numerous academic experts and an extremely favorable treatment by an eminent scholar in
The American Historical Review .
Obviously, Nazi ideology was overwhelmingly centered upon race and considered racial purity
a crucial factor in national cohesion. Individuals possessing substantial non-German ancestry
were regarded with considerable suspicion, and this concern was greatly amplified if that
admixture was Jewish. But in a military struggle against an opposing coalition possessing many
times Germany's population and industrial resources, such ideological factors might be overcome
by practical considerations, and Rigg persuasively argues that some 150,000 half-Jews or
quarter-Jews served in the armed forces of the Third Reich, a percentage probably not much
different than their share of the general military-age population.
Germany's long-integrated and assimilated Jewish population had always been
disproportionately urban, affluent, and well-educated. As a consequence it is not entirely
surprising that a large proportion of these part-Jewish soldiers who served Hitler were
actually combat officers rather than merely rank-and-file conscripts, and they included at
least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, and another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same
high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering's powerful
second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe.
Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims,
perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.
Admittedly, the racially-elite SS itself generally had far stricter ancestry standards, with
even a trace of non-Aryan parentage normally seen as disqualifying an individual from
membership. But even here, the situation was sometimes complicated, since there were widespread
rumors that Reinhard Heydrich, the second-ranking figure in that very powerful organization,
actually had considerable Jewish ancestry. Rigg investigates that claim without coming to any
clear conclusions, though he does seem to think that the circumstantial evidence involved may
have been used by other high-ranking Nazi figures as a point of leverage or blackmail against
Heydrich, who stood as one of the most important figures in the Third Reich.
As a further irony, most of these individuals traced their Jewish ancestry through their
father rather than their mother, so although they were not Jewish according to rabbinical law,
their family names often reflected their partly Semitic origins, though in many cases Nazi
authorities attempted to studiously overlook this glaringly obvious situation. As an extreme
example noted by an academic reviewer of the book, a half-Jew bearing the distinctly non-Aryan
name of Werner Goldberg actually had his photograph prominently featured in a 1939 Nazi
propaganda newspaper, with the caption describing him as the "The Ideal German Soldier."
The author conducted more than 400 personal interviews of the surviving part-Jews and their
relatives, and these painted a very mixed picture of the difficulties they had encountered
under the Nazi regime, which varied enormously depending upon particular circumstances and the
personalities of those in authority over them. One important source of complaint was that
because of their status, part-Jews were often denied the military honors or promotions they had
rightfully earned. However, under especially favorable conditions, they might also be legally
reclassified as being of "German Blood," which officially eliminated any taint on their
status.
Even official policy seems to have been quite contradictory and vacillating. For example,
when the civilian humiliations sometimes inflicted upon the fully Jewish parents of serving
half-Jews were brought to Hitler's attention, he regarded that situation as intolerable,
declaring that either such parents must be fully protected against such indignities or all the
half-Jews must be discharged, and eventually in April 1940 he issued a decree requiring the
latter. However, this order was largely ignored by many commanders, or implemented through a
honor-system that almost amounted to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," so a considerable fraction of
half-Jews remained in the military if they so wished. And then in July 1941, Hitler somewhat
reversed himself, issuing a new decree that allowed "worthy" half-Jews who had been discharged
to return to the military as officers, while also announcing that after the war, all
quarter-Jews would be reclassified as fully "German Blood" Aryan citizens.
It has been said that after questions were raised about the Jewish ancestry of some of his
subordinates, Goring once angrily responded "I will decide who is a Jew!" and that attitude
seems to reasonably capture some of the complexity and subjective nature of the social
situation.
Interestingly enough, many of part-Jews interviewed by Rigg recalled that prior to Hitler's
rise to power, the intermarriage of their parents had often provoked much greater hostility
from the Jewish rather than the Gentile side of their families, suggesting that even in
heavily-assimilated Germany, the traditional Jewish tendency toward ethnic exclusivity had
still remained a powerful factor in that community.
Although the part-Jews in German military service were certainly subject to various forms of
mistreatment and discrimination, perhaps we should compare this against the analogous situation
in our own military in those same years with regard to America's Japanese or black minorities.
During that era, racial intermarriage was legally prohibited across a large portion of the US,
so the mixed-race population of those groups was either almost non-existent or very different
in origin. But when Japanese-Americans were allowed to leave their wartime concentration camps
and enlist in the military, they were entirely restricted to segregated all-Japanese units, but
with the officers generally being white. Meanwhile, blacks were almost entirely barred from
combat service, though they sometimes served in strictly-segregated support roles. The notion
that an American with any appreciable trace of African, Japanese, or for that matter Chinese
ancestry might serve as a general or even an officer in the U.S. military and thereby exercise
command authority over white American troops would have been almost unthinkable. The contrast
with the practice in Hitler's own military is quite different than what Americans might naively
assume.
This paradox is not nearly as surprising as one might assume. The non-economic divisions in
European societies had almost always been along lines of religion, language, and culture rather
than racial ancestry, and the social tradition of more than a millennium could not easily be
swept away by merely a half-dozen years of National Socialist ideology. During all those
earlier centuries, a sincerely-baptized Jew, whether in Germany or elsewhere, was usually
considered just as good a Christian as any other. For example, Tomas de Torquemada, the most
fearsome figure of the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, actually came from a family of Jewish
converts.
Even wider racial differences were hardly considered of crucial importance. Some of the
greatest heroes of particular national cultures, such as Russia's Alexander Pushkin and
France's Alexandre Dumas, had been individuals with significant black African ancestry, and
this was certainly not considered any sort of disqualifying characteristic.
By contrast, American society from its inception had always been sharply divided by race,
with other differences generally constituting far smaller impediments to intermarriage and
amalgamation. I've seen widespread claims that when the Third Reich devised its 1935 Nuremberg
Laws restricting marriage and other social arrangements between Aryans, non-Aryans, and
part-Aryans, its experts drew upon some of America's long legal experience in similar matters,
and this seems quite plausible. Under that new Nazi statute, pre-existing mixed-marriages
received some legal protection, but henceforth Jews and half-Jews could only marry each other,
while quarter-Jews could only marry regular Aryans. The obvious intent was to absorb that
latter group into mainstream German society, while isolating the more heavily-Jewish
population.
Ironically enough, Israel today is one of very few countries with a similar sort of strictly
racially-based criteria for citizenship status and other privileges, with
the Jewish-only immigration policy now often determined by DNA testing , and marriages
between Jews and non-Jews legally prohibited. A few years ago, the world media also carried
the
remarkable story of a Palestinian Arab sentenced to prison for rape because he had
consensual sexual relations with a Jewish woman by passing himself off as a fellow Jew.
Since Orthodox Judaism is strictly matrilineal and controls Israeli law, even Jews of other
branches can experience unexpected difficulties due to conflicts between personal ethnic
identity and official legal status. The vast majority of the wealthier and more influential
Jewish families worldwide do not follow Orthodox religious traditions, and over the
generations, they have often taken Gentile wives. However, even if the latter had converted to
Judaism, their conversions are considered invalid by the Orthodox Rabbinate, and none of their
resulting descendants are considered Jewish. So if some members of these families later develop
a deep commitment to their Jewish heritage and immigrate to Israel, they are sometimes outraged
to discover that they are officially classified as "goyim" under Orthodox law and legally
prohibited from marrying Jews. These major political controversies periodically erupt and
sometimes
reach the international medi a.
Now it seems to me that any American official who proposed racial DNA tests to decide upon
the admission or exclusion of prospective immigrants would have a very difficult time remaining
in office, with the Jewish-activists of organizations like the ADL probably leading the attack.
And the same would surely be true for any prosecutor or judge who non-whites to prison for the
crime of "passing" as whites and thereby managing to seduce women from that latter group. A
similar fate would befall advocates of such policies in Britain, France, or most other Western
nations, with the local ADL-type organization certainly playing an important role. Yet in
Israel, such existing laws merely occasion a little temporary embarrassment when they are
covered in the international media, and then invariably remain in place after the commotion has
died down and been forgotten. These sorts of issues are considered of little more importance
than were the past wartime Nazi ties of the Israeli prime minister throughout most of the
1980s.
But perhaps the solution to this puzzling difference in public reaction lies in an old joke.
A leftist wit once claimed that the reason America has never had a military coup is that it is
the only country in the world that lacks an American embassy to organize such activities. And
unlike the U.S., Britain, France, and many other predominately-white countries, Israel has no
domestic Jewish-activist organization filling the powerful role of the ADL.
Over the last few years, many outside observers have noted a seemingly very odd political
situation in Ukraine. That unfortunate country possesses powerful militant groups, whose public
symbols, stated ideology, and political ancestry all unmistakably mark them as Neo-Nazis. Yet
those
violent Neo-Nazi elements are all being bankrolled and controlled by a Jewish Oligarch who holds dual
Israeli citizenship. Furthermore, that peculiar alliance had been mid-wifed and blessed by some
of America's leading Jewish Neocon figures, such as Victoria Nuland, who have successfully used
their media influence to keep such explosive facts away from the American public.
At first glance,
a close relationship between Jewish Israelis and European Neo-Nazis seems as grotesque and
bizarre a misalliance as one could imagine, but after recently reading Brenner's fascinating
book, my perspective quickly shifted. Indeed, the main difference between then and now is that
during the 1930s, Zionist factions represented a very insignificant junior partner to a
powerful Third Reich, while these days it is the Nazis who occupy the role of eager suppliants
to the formidable power of International Zionism, which now so heavily dominates the American
political system and through it, much of the world.
The Labour is in the midst of an "antisemitism crisis" orchestrated by the media, pro-Zionist Jewish groups, and the party's Blairite
faction bent on ousting Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.
The UK's media is overwhelmingly rightwing and pro-Israel. Even the BBC, terrified of being donated to Rupert Murdoch in a Tory
privatization, is pro-Tory and pro-Israel in its news reporting, all its professions of "objectivity" notwithstanding.
Corbyn has been their constant target since he became the party's leader, and the "antisemitism" smear is the latest installment
in this rightwing effort to discredit him.
Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, whose editorial line on Israel is led by the staunch Zionist Jonathan
Freedland, is resolutely anti-Corbyn.
No leader of a major political party has been as resolute as Corbyn in defending Palestinian rights. The
Observer newspaper put this succinctly: "As a long-term and ardent critic of Israel's policies and staunch supporter of
Palestinian causes, he has always been distrusted by the Jewish community".
Pro-Zionist Jewish groups fear that under his leadership Britain will become much more like Ireland (which recently banned the
import of products made in the illegal Israeli settlements) in its disposition towards Israel.
A clue to the motivation of these pro-Zionist UK Jewish groups was provided by the recent public protest in London against Labour's
"antisemitism"– many protesters carried the Israeli flag and "Israel we stand behind you" signs, thereby making it clear that their
concern for Zionist Israel was highly instrumental, and perhaps primarily so, in their presence at this rally against Labour's "antisemitism".
Several Blairite Labour MPs were present at this demonstration.
The Blairite faction in Labour has already made one attempt to overthrow Corbyn when it made him submit to an unprecedented reelection
shortly after he became party leader.
Corbyn went on to win this challenge with a percentage exceeding Blair's when the latter was elected Labour leader.
Labour's Blairite bloc know that Corbyn has to lose the next general election if they are to survive as a force within the party.
If Labour (under Corbyn) wins this election, they will have little choice but to take the option already being talked about by some
of these Blairites, that is, splitting from Labour and forming a new "centrist" party.
Their eminence grise, Tony Blair himself, has already talked about creating this "centrist" party.
So, paradoxically, Labour's Blairites would rather have the Conservatives win the next general election as their ticket to survival
within their own party!
Predictably, one of these Blairites, Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, jumped on the "crisis" bandwagon by
saying
that Labour faces "eternal shame" over antisemitism.
Of course, there are pockets of antisemitism in Labour, as is the case in nearly every non-Jewish British walk of life, including
the Tories (though dressing up in Nazi uniform and chanting "Sieg Heil!" at parties, as opposed to upholding Palestinian rights,
is their forte).
A few days ago, it was revealed that the senior Tory politicians Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg had recently
met in secret with Steve Bannon, who runs Breitbart News , a haven for antisemitic views. The British media, and the Blairite
Labour MPs hounding Corbyn, have said nary a word about these meetings. Nor have the vociferous UK Jewish organizations.
The notion that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, let alone one amounting to a "crisis", is a red herring.
The most recent purported manifestation of this crisis pivots on the decision of Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) to
adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's "non-legally binding working definition" of antisemitism, but not the
"illustrations" which accompany it. The definition states:
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions
and religious facilities."
The "illustrations" which accompany this definition include some which are uncontroversial for any fair-minded and relatively
rational person, and others which are highly problematic for such a person.
The uncontroversial "illustrations" of antisemitism:
+ advocating the killing or harming of Jews for ideological or religious reasons;
+ making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such;
+ holding Jews as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group;
+ Holocaust denial;
+ using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to
characterize Israel or Israelis;
+ holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;
+ accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
The controversial "illustrations" of antisemitism (and non-coincidently they all have a bearing on the Palestinian cause):
+ accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations;
+ claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour;
+ applying double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
+ drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
A close examination of this latter set of "illustrations" shows that Labour is absolutely right to resist the immense pressure
from Zionists and their supporters to accept these latter "illustrations" as part of the definition of antisemitism.
There are examples of Jewish US citizens being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their country.
The casino mogul Sheldon Adelson donated $25 million to Trump's 2016 campaign ($82 million in total to Republicans in 2016), and
$5 million towards his inauguration. Earlier this year Adelson donated $70 million to Birthright, the organization that brings young
Jews to Israel for nothing (he's donated $100m in total to Birthright). He also donated $30 million to Republicans after Trump withdrew
from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Adelson spent $150m in the 2012 election in a futile attempt to unseat the "anti-Israel" Barack
Obama.
Adelson's aim in all of this is to swing Trump behind his friend Netanyahu's "Greater Israel" political agenda. To this end Adelson
pushed hard for the US's withdrawal from the Iran deal, appointing the arch-Zionist John Bolton as a Trump adviser, recognizing Jerusalem
as Israel's capital (in contravention of international law), and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson has succeeded in all
of these objectives.
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and "envoy" for a "peace" deal in the Middle East, has made it clear that any such deal will
have to be compatible with Likud's "Greater Israel" political agenda.
According to The New York
Times , Kushner's family real estate company "received a roughly $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, an insurer
that is one of Israel's largest financial institutions".
The same NYT article also reported that "the Kushners had teamed up with at least one member of Israel's wealthy Steinmetz
family to buy nearly $200 million of Manhattan apartment buildings, as well as to build a luxury rental tower in New Jersey".
More from the same article: "Mr. Kushner's company has also taken out at least four loans from Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim,
which is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes".
Kushner's family foundation also donates to an illegal settlement in the West Bank.
Meanwhile , US military aid to Israel amounts to $3.8 billion annually, or $23,000 per year for every Jewish family living in
Israel for the next 10 years.
At the same time, 40 million Americans live in poverty, seniors and veterans are sleeping rough, and teachers have to buy school
supplies, and in some cases food, for their students.
Given these two examples of prominent Jewish individuals with loyalties divided between the US and Israel, with Israel acquiring
much and the US gaining so little from their actions, it is arguable whether it is "antisemitic" to broadcast the information detailed
above.
Claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is likewise hardly antisemitic. The recently passed Israeli
Nationality Law confirms why.
According to the law, Israel's full name is "Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people". The law stipulates that Eretz Israel
(historical Palestine) is the homeland of the Jewish people, while the state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.
As such, only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel. Hebrew is the only official language, with Arabic no longer
considered an official language.
The nationality law enjoins that future Jewish settlement in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is a supreme national
objective (in contravention of international law).
The law also grants Jewish communities the right to a segregated territory in the state(in practice legalizing exclusive villages
and towns for Jews).
The nationality law effectively deprives Arabs of any official semblance of their national identity, and confirms Israel's status
as an apartheid, i.e. racist, state. Saying this is certainly anti-Zionist, but only a dogmatist would insist that it is ipso facto
"antisemitic".
The IHRA "illustration" maintaining that it is antisemitic to apply double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected
or demanded of any other democratic nation is likewise extremely awkward in formulation and also in practice.
The 2017 Democracy Index used 4 categories
to assess countries– full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime.
The following countries were ranked by the Index as full democracies: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and
Uruguay.
Israel was listed as a flawed democracy, as was the US.
Israel's leaders have always touted their country as "the only democracy in the Middle East", as if their country stood on a par
with the 19 countries ranked as full democracies by the 2017 Democracy Index.
Is it "antisemitic" to hold Israel to a standard deemed to be achieved by Mauritius and Uruguay?
Or to say that Israel is really an "ethnocracy", as opposed to being a democracy?
The Israeli political geographer Oren Yiftachel argued in his 2006 book Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics
in Israel/Palestine that an ethnocracy is a regime promoting "the expansion of the dominant group in contested territory
while maintaining a democratic façade".
When it comes todrawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, it all depends on the basis used in making
the comparison between Israel and the Nazis.
Having gas chambers for mass exterminations, then certainly not.
However, nearly everyone who believes that comparing Israel with the Nazis is "antisemitic" invariably takes the concentration-camp
gas chambers as the implicit norm, whether out of bad faith or ignorance, for making such comparisons.
The Nazi "final solution", vast as it was, had many strands, with horror piled upon horror. This multiple-layering must be considered
when making the Israel-Nazi comparison.
Encircling and starving-out an entire community in a ghetto (Warsaw?), then yes, the comparison is valid– this is precisely what
is taking place in Gaza.
The Nazis confiscated Jewish property wholesale; the Israelis are doing the same to Palestinian houses and land in order to "clear"
them for the expansion of the illegal settlements, and for alleged military purposes. B'Tselem, Israel's human rights watchdog, confirms
this on their website . So, yes, in this case the comparison between
Israel and the Nazis is valid.
Jews were prevented from leaving German-occupied Poland by the SS. Similarly, Palestinians are prevented from leaving Gaza (even
for medical treatment) by the combined efforts of Israel and the Egyptian dictatorship. So, yes, in this case the comparison between
Israel and the Nazis is valid.
German Civil Police K-9 Units were used by the SS to assist in the roundup and deportation of Jews in WW2. Similarly, the Israeli
army uses attack dogs on
unarmed Palestinians when raiding their homes, and when
arresting
peaceful demonstrators. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.
It is difficult to see why comparing Israel to the Nazis on these latter bases, while scrupulously eschewing the gas chambers
as a basis for comparison (the Palestinians have not been sent to gas chambers en masse), necessarily makes one an "antisemite".
The Israeli historian Ilan Pappé describes Israel's policy regarding Gaza as "incremental genocide", in contrast to the Nazi's
absolute genocide. The final outcome however is not in doubt.
The distinguished Oxford jurist Stephen Sedley (himself a Jew) has saidthat "there is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet
several of the "examples" that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel
irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: "It is not antisemitic
to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent"."
Corbyn, under siege from the media and Jewish groups (who say, with risible hyperbole, that he poses an "existential threat" to
British Jews), has apologized for not doing enough to root out antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Corbyn's apology was unnecessary. Not just because it was not merited by the real circumstances underlying this manufactured "crisis",
but also because every step he takes now is dismissed as "meaningless" and "too little, too late" by his opportunistic opponents.
Instead Corbyn should have given an immediate forensic analysis of the IHRA's flawed "examples" of "antisemitism", indicating
that Labour was wise not to incorporate these, root and branch, in the definition of antisemitism it adopted.
Corbyn should also have come out earlier with his pledge to deal firmly with those justifiably guilty of antisemitism in the Labour
party.
Corbyn has many admirable qualities, but perhaps doing forensics is not one of them. However, he has many surrogates capable of
undertaking this task, and they should be entrusted with it immediately.
The late and much missed Robin Cook, the former Labour minister who demolished Blair's rationales for the Iraq war in the House
of Commons debate on Blair's push for the war, would have been perfect for the job.
The Ministry of Plenty ( Newspeak : Miniplenty ) is in control of
Oceania's planned
economy .
It oversees rationing of food , supplies , and goods . As told in Goldstein's book, the
economy of Oceania is very important, and it's necessary to have the public continually create
useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the
means of
production .
This is the central theme of Oceania's idea that a poor, ignorant populace is
easier to rule over than a wealthy, well-informed one. Telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able
to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down (see §
Ministry of Truth ).
The Ministry hands out statistics which are "nonsense". When Winston is adjusting some
Ministry of Plenty's figures, he explains this:
But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not
even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of
the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world,
not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as
much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of time
you were expected to make them up out of your head.
Like the other ministries, the Ministry of Plenty seems to be entirely misnamed, since it
is, in fact, responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty , scarcity and financial shortages.
However, the name is also apt, because, along with the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of
Plenty's other purpose is to convince the populace that they are living in a state of perpetual
prosperity. Orwell made a similar reference to the Ministry of Plenty in his allegorical work
Animal Farm
when, in the midst of a blight upon the farm, Napoleon the pig orders the silo to
be filled with sand, then to place a thin sprinkling of grain on top, which fools human
visitors into being dazzled about Napoleon's boasting of the farm's superior economy.
A department of the Ministry of Plenty is charged with organizing state lotteries . These are very popular among the
proles, who buy tickets and hope to win the big prizes – a completely vain hope as the
big prizes are in fact not awarded at all, the Ministry of Truth participating in the scam and
publishing every week the names of non-existent big winners.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of
Bank Whistleblowers United. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives
Steven Krystofiak formed the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending, a
professional association dedicated to fighting mortgage fraud and predation. On August 1, 2006.
He tried to save our Nation by issuing one of the most prescient warnings about the epidemic of
mortgage fraud and predation and the crisis it would so cause.
The context was Congress' effort to empower and convince the Federal Reserve to take action
against what the mortgage lending industry called, behind closed doors, "liar's" loans. A
liar's loan is a loan in which the lender does not verify (at least) the borrower's actual
income. The industry knew that the failure to verify inherently led to endemic fraud. George
Akerlof and Paul Romer's 1993 article on "Looting" by financial CEOs explicitly cited the
failure to verify the borrower's income as an example of a lending practice that only
fraudulent lenders would use on a widespread basis.
Congress gave the Fed the unique authority to ban all liar's loans in 1994, by passing the
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). HOEPA gave the Fed the authority to ban
liar's loans even by "shadow" sector financial firms that had no federal deposit insurance.
Liar's loans began to become material around 1989 during the savings and loan debacle where
all good U.S. financial frauds are born – Orange County, California. In that era, they
were called "low documentation" ('low doc') loans. We (the West Region of the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), were the federal regulator for these S&Ls, and we were overwhelmed
dealing with the "control frauds" driving the debacle, who overwhelmingly used commercial real
estate (CRE) as their accounting "weapon" of choice. Our examiners, however, made two critical
points. No honest lender would make widespread loans without verifying the borrower's income
because it was certain to produce severe "adverse selection" and produce serious losses. The
examiners' second warning was that such loans were growing rapidly in Orange County and
multiple lenders were involved.
We listened and responded well to our examiners' timely and sound warnings and made it a
moderate priority to drive liar's loans out of the industry we regulated. The last of the major
fraudulent S&L liar's loan lenders was Long Beach Savings. Long Beach set a common pattern
for fraudulent lenders by also engaging in predation primarily against Latinos and blacks. In
1994, the same year HOEPA became law; Long Beach voluntarily gave up federal deposit insurance
and its charger as a savings and loan. Long Beach's controlling owner, Roland Arnall, did this
for the sole purpose of escaping our regulatory jurisdiction and our ability to examine, sue,
and sanction the S&L and its officers. Arnall changed its name to Ameriquest, and converted
it to a mortgage bank. Mortgage banks were essentially unregulated. Arnall successfully sought
sanctuary in what we now call the "shadow" financial sector. The S&L debacle did not end.
It found sanctuary in the Shadow and grew 50% annually for 13 years.
Ameriquest and its leading mortgage bank competitor, run by former S&L officers we (OTS)
had "removed and prohibited" from working in any federally insured lender, became the leading
"vectors" spreading the epidemic of fraudulent liar's loans through (initially) the shadow
sector and later back into federally insured lenders. Many of Arnall's lieutenants eventually
left Ameriquest to lead other fraudulent and predatory lenders making predatory liar's loans.
Michael W. Hudson's book, The Monster , is a great read that presents this history.
Ameriquest and its fraudulent and predatory peers grew at extraordinary rates for over a
decade. They hyper-inflated the bubble and drove the financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernake refused to use HOEPA to stop this surging epidemic of
fraudulent and predatory liar's loans. This was the setting when Krystofiak, on his own dime
and initiative took advantage of a Fed hearing on predatory lending near his home to warn us
all of the coming disaster. Krystofiak was not the first warning. His written
testimony cited the appraisers' and the FBI's prior warnings. The appraisers' 2000 petition
explaining how lenders and their agents were extorting appraisers to inflate appraisals was
superb. Chris Swecker's 2004 warning on behalf of the FBI that the developing "epidemic" of
mortgage fraud would cause a financial "crisis" if not stopped was superb.
Krystofiak was also superb. The Fed did not want to conduct hearings on fraudulent and
predatory liar's loans – Congress forced it to do so. The Fed's Board members were not
interested in stopping fraudulent and predatory liar's loans. The Fed did not invite Krystofiak
to testify. The Fed offered only a brief "cattle call" at the end of the hearing allowing
(after a top Fed official had left to fly back to DC) the public to make a very brief
statement.
The Fed's treatment of Krysofiak stood in sharp contrast to its fawning treatment of the
Mortgage Bankers Associations' chosen witness. The MBA chose the leading originator of
fraudulent liar's loans in California – IndyMac – to present the MBA's position.
The MBA's position was that the Fed should not use its HOEPA authority to ban fraudulent and
predatory liar's loans. The Fed officials cracked jokes with and treated the IndyMac officer
like an old pal. They treated Krytofiak with cold indifference. The MBA witness presented utter
BS. Krystofiak
spoke truth to power. Power loved the BS. The truth discomfited the Fed officials.
Krytofiak's written testimony made many vital points, but I refer to only two related points
here. First, he warned the Fed that the twin mortgage fraud origination epidemics –
appraisal fraud and liar's loans – were so large that they were inflating the housing
bubble. Second, his means of quantifying the incidence of liar's loan fraud showed the
regulators and the prosecutors that they could use the same method to document reliably,
cheaply, and quickly the incidence of liar's loan fraud at every relevant financial firm.
Data Collected by the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending
A recent
sample of 100 stated income loans which were compared to IRS records (which is allowed through
IRS forms 4506, but hardly done) found that 90 % of the income was exaggerated by 5 % or more.
MORE DISTURBINGLY, ALMOST 60 % OF THE STATED AMOUNTS WERE EXAGGERATED BY MORE THAN 50%. These
results suggest that the stated income loans deserves the nickname used by many in the
industry, the "liar's loan" (emphasis in original).
The MBA's anti-fraud experts, MARI, appears to have conducted the study for Krystofiak. They
featured the 4506-T (the "T" stands for "transcript") study and its finding of a 90% fraud
incidence in liar's loans. In 2006, MARI presented its fraud study at the MBA's annual meeting.
The MBA sent MARI's report to every member, which included all the major mortgage players.
Any honest originator, purchaser, or packager of liar's loans was on notice no later than
mid-2006 that they could determine quickly, cheaply, and reliably the fraud incidence in those
liar's loans by using the 4506-T forms to test a sample of those loans. Krystofiak aptly noted
that while lenders typically required borrowers to sign the IRS 4506-T form allowing the lender
to access their tax information, it was actually "hardly done." Lenders supposedly require the
4506-T because taxpayers have an obvious interest in not inflating their income to the IRS. The
self-employed have to report their income accurately or face potential tax fraud sanctions.
The reason liar's loan mortgage lenders, purchasers, the packagers of toxic collateralized
debt obligations (CDOs ) that typically were composed of large amounts of liar's loans, and
credit rating agencies, "hardly [ever] used" or required the sellers to use their 4506-T
authority is also clear if you understand "accounting control fraud." Any 4506-T study of
liar's loans will document their pervasive frauds. Virtually all liar's loan and CDO sales
required "reps and warranties" that they were not fraudulent. If a firm making or selling
liar's loans conducted a 4506-T study and documented that it knew its reps and warranties were
false, and it continued t make, sell, package, or rate those fraudulent loans under false reps
and warranties it would be handling its counterparty a dream civil fraud suit. They would be
handing DOJ the ability to prosecute them successfully for felonies that caused hundreds of
billions of dollars in losses. The fraudulent mortgage money machine relied on the major
players following a financial "don't ask; don't tell" policy.
The exceptions prove the rule. I have found public evidence of only two cases in which
mortgage players (other than Krystofiak) conducted 4506-T audits of liar's loans. I have never
found public evidence that any federal regulator or prosecutor conducted or mandated a 4506-T
study. The two known cases of 4506-T audits were Wells Fargo (just disclosed by DOJ) and
Countrywide (disclosed by the SEC investigation and complaint). Both audits found massive fraud
incidence in the liar's loans. The risk officers presented these audit results to the banks'
senior managers.
Bank Whistleblowers United's 4506-T Proposal
Two and-a-half years ago, Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU) discussed the senior officers of
Countrywide's response to its 4506-T audit. We noted that BWU co-founder Michael Winston blew
the whistle on Countrywide's frauds to the bank's most senior officers to try to prevent these
frauds. Mr. Winston eagerly aided potential prosecutors – who failed to prosecute
Countrywide's senior officers leading the frauds. BWU then explained the analogous response of
Citigroup's senior officers to a different but equally reliable audit conducted by BWU
co-founder Richard Bowen. We did so in a January 30, 2016 New Economic Perspectives
blog urging presidential candidates in the 2016 election to pledge to implement the 60-day
BWU plan to restore the rule of law to Wall Street.
As documented in the SEC complaint, Countrywide's managers conducted a secret internal
study of Countrywide's liar's loans that, on June 2, 2006, confirmed Krystofiak's findings of
endemic fraud in liar's loans. Fraud was the norm in Countrywide's liar's loans, a fact that
it failed to disclose to its stockholders and secondary market purchasers. Instead of
stopping such loans, Countrywide's senior officers caused it to adopt what they termed
"Extreme Alt-A" loans offered by Bear and Lehman that "layered" this fraud risk on top of a
half dozen additional massive risks to create what Countrywide's controlling officer
described as loans that were "toxic" and "inherently unsound." "Alt-A" was the euphemism for
liar's loans. Countrywide made massive amounts of "Extreme Alt-A" and acted as a vector
spreading these "toxic" loans throughout the financial system. A member of our group, Dr.
Michael Winston, tried to stop these kinds of abuses, which enriched top management but
bankrupted Countrywide.
Similarly, a member of our group, Richard Bowen and his team of expert underwriters,
documented that Citigroup knew that it was purchasing tens of billions of dollars of loans
annually on the basis of fraudulent "reps and warranties" – and then reselling them to
Fannie and Freddie on the basis of fraudulent reps and warranties. Bowen put the highest
levels of Citigroup (including Bob Rubin) on personal notice in writing as the incidence of
fraud climbed from 40% to 60%. (It eventually reached an astonishing 80% fraud incidence.)
Citigroup's leadership's response was to remove his staff. Senior Citigroup officers also
responded to the surging fraud by causing Citigroup to become a major purchaser of
fraudulently originated liar's loans.
We can now add the senior leaders that determined Wells Fargo's response to its 4506-T
audit. We draw on the Department of Justice (DOJ) disclosures in conjunction with its
indefensible settlement of civil fraud claims against Wells Fargo's massive mortgage fraud. The
DOJ press release revealed that "in 2005, Wells Fargo began an initiative to double its
production of subprime and Alt-A loans." DOJ did not explain that this was after the FBI warned
there was an emerging "epidemic" of mortgage "fraud" that would cause a financial "crisis" if
it were not stopped. The settlement discloses that Wells' risk officers alerted senior managers
that the plan to increase greatly the number of liar's loans would greatly increase fraud in
2005 before Wells implemented the plan.
The press release had other bombshells (unintentionally) demonstrating the strength of the
criminal cases that DOJ refused to bring against Wells' senior officers. Wells Fargo's 4506-T
audit found that its liar's loans were endemically fraudulent, and the amount of inflated
income was extraordinary.
The results of Wells Fargo's 4506-T testing were disclosed in internal monthly reports,
which were widely distributed among Wells Fargo employees. One Wells Fargo employee in risk
management observed that the "4506-T results are astounding" yet "instead of reacting in a
way consistent with what is being reported WF [Wells Fargo] is expanding stated [income loan]
programs in all business lines."
The press release note some other actions by Wells' senior managers that show what
prosecutors term "consciousness of guilt." Such actions make (real) prosecutors salivate. The
press release's final substantive revelation is the unbelievable rate of loan defaults on Wells
Fargo's fraudulent loans and the exceptional damages those loans and sales caused.
Wells Fargo sold at least 73,539 stated income loans that were included in RMBS between
2005 to 2007, and nearly half of those loans have defaulted, resulting in billions of dollars
in losses to investors.
Typical default rates on conventional mortgages averaged, for decades, around 1.5 percent.
The Wells Fargo liar's loans defaulted at a rate 30 times greater.
How Corrupt is Wells? Cheating Customers is "Courageous"
The press release does not contain the Wells Fargo gem that proves our family rule that it
is impossible to compete with unintentional self-parody. Paragraph H of the settlement reveals
that Wells' term for doubling its number of fraudulent liar's loans in 2005 was "Courageous
Underwriting." Wells' senior managers changed its compensation system to induce its employees
to approve even worse loans. Calling defrauding your customers "courageous" epitomizes Wells
Fargo's corrupt culture built on lies and lies about lies.
DOJ's pathetic settlement with Wells Fargo has no admissions by the bank. It does not
require a penny in damages from any bank officer. It does not require a bank officer to return
a penny of bonuses received through these fraudulent loans. The settlement contains DOJ's
statement that its investigation found that Wells' violated four federal criminal
statutes. DOJ will continue to grant de facto immunity from prosecution to elite
banksters. The Trump administration has again flunked a major test dealing with the swamp
banksters.
Section H (b) of the settlement is factually inaccurate in a manner that makes it highly
favorable to fraudulent lenders making liar's loans. There is no indication that DOJ ever
investigated Wells' fraudulent loan origination practices. It was overwhelmingly lenders and
their loan brokers that put the lies in liar's loans. DOJ's settlement documents do not refer
to Wells whistleblowers, even though and competent investigation would have identified dozens
of whistleblowers. Throughout its Wells documents, DOJ implies that borrowers overstated their
income rather than Wells and its loan brokers.
The Jig is Up on DOJ's Pathetic Excuses for Refusing to Jail Elite Bank Frauds
We now know with certainty from the whistleblowers and the internal audits that the response
of Citigroup, Countrywide, and Wells Fargo's senior leaders to knowing that most of
their liar's loans and the reps and warranties they made about those loans were fraudulent. We
know with certainty that Michael Winston and Richard Bowen's disclosures were correct. We know
with certainty that each served up to DOJ on a platinum platter dream cases for prosecuting
Citigroup and Countrywide's top managers. The senior managers' response to proof that their
banks were engaged in endemic fraud makes sense only if the senior managers were leading an
"accounting control fraud," which enriches the managers by harming the lender.
When the appraisers' warned of extensive extortion by lenders and their agents to inflate
appraisals, when the FBI warned that mortgage fraud was becoming "epidemic" and would cause a
financial "crisis" if not halted, and when the MBA publicized Krystofiak and MARI's warnings
that liar's loans were endemically fraudulent, the fraudulent CEOs' response was always the
same. In each case, they expanded what they knew were endemically fraudulent liar's loans and
increased the extortion of appraisers.
Back to BWU's 4506-T Proposal
This brings us back to reminding the public what BWU proposed 32 months ago about 4506-T
audits. Point 17 of our 60-day plan began:
Within 60 days, each federal financial regulatory agency directs any bank that it
regulates to conduct and publicly report a "Krystofiak" study on a sample of "liar's" loans
that they continue to hold. Krystofiak devised a clever study that he presented to the
Federal Reserve in an unsuccessful attempt to try to get the Fed to stop the epidemic of
fraudulent liar's loans. Lenders and secondary market purchasers routinely required borrowers
to authorize the lender and any subsequent purchaser of the loan to obtain a "transcript"
(4506-T) of the borrower's tax returns from the IRS to allow the lender to quickly and
inexpensively verify the borrower's reported income.
Other parts of our 60-day plan called for DOJ appointees with the courage, integrity, and
skills to restore the rule of law to Wall Street. We also explained the needs (and means) for
the banking regulators to conduct the investigations (such as 4506-T audits), activate a legion
of whistleblowers, and make the criminal referrals to DOJ essential to bring successful
prosecutions.
Conclusion
Had the regulators (particularly the Fed through its HOEPA power) required each bank making
liar's loans to conduct a 4506-T audit, the senior managers would have faced a dilemma. They
could stop the fraudulent lending or provide DOJ with a great opportunity to prosecute them.
The bank CEOs' response to the internal audits showing endemic fraud and the retaliation
against the whistleblowers combine to offer superb proof of senior managers' 'specific intent'
to defraud. The reasons for the failure to prosecute were some combination of cowardice and
politics. If Democrats win control of the House they can use their investigative powers to
force each bank regulator to cause every relevant financial institution to conduct a 4506-T
audit.
Of course, the Republican Senate and House chairs could order those steps today . We are not
holding our breath, but BWU's co-founders are eager to aid either, or both, parties restore the
rule of law to Wall Street. Instead, we are rapidly creating an intensely criminogenic
environment on Wall Street that will eventually cause a severe financial crisis.
Did John Stumpf (President of Wells Fargo 2007-2016) really say, "If one family loses
their home, it is a tragedy. If ten million people lose their homes, it is a statistic?"
Even by Black's lofty standards, this is an outstanding article. The fact that it won't be
published in the mainstream media, and that the vast majority of regulators and politicians
will ignore it, underscores once again just how broken and corrupted the American political
and economic systems are.
It's the same in the UK with regard to mortgage fraud and reporting.
A colleague, brought in from the regulator to clean up our German basket case TBTF's brief
and late in the day foray into the mortgage market, said the UK mortgage market was as
corrupt / fraudulent. The same US firms were involved in many, if not most, cases. Lehman had
an outpost, Ascendant, in my home county, Buckinghamshire, for such activity. Lehman, Merrill
and Citi carved out the UK on geographical lines. One (US) firm was given the name of the
Germanic tribe that settled in the area 1500 years before.
FWIW, the kinds of government errors, cowardice, and confusions that Black relates –
on top of having taxpayers foot the bill for it all – was a key factor IMVHO in people
voting Trump as a kind of protest vote. He talks about 'fake news' to a huge number of
Americans who faked income, or approved fake income.
The rest of us, I assume, continue to seethe and are supporting 'honest money, fair
wages/salary' candidates like Warren and Sanders.
In early 2005 I was working as a loan Broker when I met the World Savings rep or the first
time.
The first words out of his mouth were a warning not to take more than 3 pints on the back end
because it was greedy, the second sentence was "If there's a problem with the income the
underwriter will drop the file on my desk, I'll call you and we'll fix it".
He's still in the business, a few rungs further up the corporate ladder, I got out of the
business the following week.
If Democrats win control of the House they can use their investigative powers to force
each bank regulator to cause every relevant financial institution to conduct a 4506-T
audit.
The establishment democrats that receive donor dollars from Wall Street banks? I wouldn't
hold my breath waiting for them to even investigate much less do anything else to stop this
criminal activity.
Fabulous piece as usual from Mr. Black. Just makes the tenure of the previous
administration all the more complicit in the current state of affairs. As Mr. Black details
there was an obvious solution to uncover the fraud and go after senior execs, something that
also could have also been done when the 'democrat' party held the House and at least a
leverage position in the Senate. What the American public received instead was a giant con
job/cover-up advertised as restitution and Obama goes on national TV to pathetically claim
that grossly fraudulent behavior was simply unethical. Obviously that maneuver had a higher
ROI for post-tenure legacy building and fundraising.
There is really a simple solution: fire everyone at DOJ and replace them with Air Force
officers.
An Air Force officer is brave. He will fly through enemy fire if he has to in order to do
his job. He gives no thought to the Taliban career opportunities that he might be forgoing by
bombing them.
An Air Force officer is competent. He can fly through thunderstorms in the dead of night
and get his bombs when and where the forward air controller down with the infantry needs
them. Compare that to the experience of an honest IG official trying to get an indictment
from DOJ for anyone at a mega-bank.
An Air Force officer knows how to get funding for his priorities. The Air Force annual
budget, at $156 billion, is about 5 times that of DOJ. Enough said.
When you know these facts, the solution is obvious.
Go read The Pentagon Wars or Coram's Boyd . Air Force (or other service)
officers have no particular claim to virtue. If you pulled mostly captains maybe it'd work,
but the bravery and competence needed on the front line is vastly different from that needed
from say a Colonel or General running programs/units which is likely the officers you'd be
bringing in. Remember you're advocating bringing in people responsible for the boondoggle
that is the F35 to shape up an organization. (which is not an isolated instance but
emblematic of the upper tiers of the service)
Thanks for the referrals; let me take a look. (I have read Thomas Ricks' The
Generals , which I suspect makes a similar point to those.) The point is acknowledged,
although I have not only read The Chickenshit Club but lived through it. There were
many DOJ people I had to deal with whom I can only describe using Bundy's pungent phrase for
the South Vietnamese political leadership: "the absolute bottom of the barrel." They
contrasted starkly with the fellow junior officers I knew in my youth, but as you noted,
those were junior officers.
The simplicity of the 4506-T audits is as profound as the physics comparison of the
diversity of the economy to GDP. These things don't work when all the chaos comes home to
roost. In 1989 our economy was on the rocks and our corporations were offshoring as fast as
they could; the USSR collapsed and we landed like a murder of crows to pick their bones and
loot Russia. OPEC was naming their price; China was exporting massive deflation; our banks
were already on the brink. But how to bring home all the loot from not just Russia but all
the other illegal sources connected with our once and future imperialism? We were no longer a
country of laws; we were looters, thieves and launderers. We were trying to salvage our
"investments" or we were hoovering up flight capital or some other thing that had nothing to
do with law and order and democracy. You name it. How else did all the banks, all of them,
agree to forego their own standards and make all those conveyor belt loans? They prolly all
had to become industrial laundromats and get rid of the stuff asap. Which was perhaps only
one aspect to the ongoing collapse of "capitalism" as we once knew it – but were unable
to protect it. I love Bill Black because he makes me come to uncomfortable explanations who
knows how it all fell apart? Somebody does.
Superb comment Susan. I make know how ' it all fell apart ' other than recognising that
the early capitalists worked with stuff that had to be produced, and so despite vile excesses
produced something useful to many , whereas these financial capitalists produce nothing of
value to anyone except themselves and take away something from everybody else ( liar's loans
being a key example ) . The question is , is there any here beyond here ? Clearly not with
ANY of the present political incumbents ( I am in the UK it's the same for you and us ) . So
that in two sentences is my answer to your question . My question is ' how on earth do we get
beyond here ?'
Re Bill Black: " Instead, we are rapidly creating an intensely criminogenic environment
on Wall Street that will eventually cause a severe financial crisis."
By design and intent with no fear of criminal prosecution for fraud, imprisonment, or even
surrender of ill-gotten personal financial gains. All brought to us courtesy of the political
donor class and large corporations, those they have corrupted, and the Supreme Court's
Orwellian-named Citizens United decision and expanded executive branch powers that
make it possible.
Look at any set of issues: Failure to pass and implement policies to address climate
change, endless wars, defunding public education and infrastructure, the opioid crisis,
manipulation of financial markets, federal government austerity, transfers of public lands
and resources into private hands, privatization of public services, healthcare, stagnant real
wages, loss of any semblance of economic equality, debt burdens placed on our young people
seeking economic opportunity or family formation, lack of legal separation of bank depository
and payments system functions from their market speculations, failure to enforce corporate
antitrust laws, erosion of privacy and civil liberties, repeated bubbles, concentration of
media ownership in the hands of a few, secret international tax havens, etc. and what do you
see?
With the latest disclosures about WF stealing directly from their banking customers on top
of their previous frauds, I'm just sure the regulators will come down hard on them this time
(NOT!)
I wonder if Mr. Trump, with his involvement in commercial RE, ever "mis-stated" his his
income, assets and/or liabilities when obtaining a loan. Nah, couldn't happen.
I wonder why anybody still banks with WF. My late mom had about 30K in a WF account under
a trust that I could not close out for 24 months (Florida laws – WF had a branch in
their eldercare facility.) I was delighted that my closeout check did not bounce.
A while back I worked at a medical device startup operating within a formal (i.e. written
and comprehensive) quality system. A quality system is required for any commercial sales of
medical products; previously I had been involved in early stage R+D and had not been bound by
such systems. So a lot of it was new to me.
Something that stuck out at the time, and probably ties in to the article above, was the
sanctity of corporate internal audit files. The FDA could demand access to almost any company
quality system document, except for internal audit files. They could be provided
with summaries of these internal audits indicating something like "6 minor deficiencies
found, 1 major deficiency found, 0 extreme deficiencies found" , but were not permitted
access to the raw internal audits.
I suspect that financial firms have the same level of protection for their internal
audits. Had they hired a consulting firm to investigate the accuracy of stated income in the
loans they originated, the results of that outside investigation would probably be a document
reviewable by government regulators (assuming they were interested in doing their job). But
by pursuing this as an internal audit, executives knew that the results would never be
reviewable, and give them plausible deniability that they knew of the systemic level of
fraud.
There certainly must be other ways of investigating efficiency or compliance within a
company, but by pursuing it as an internal audit they could easily bury the results.
A quibble: comparing stated income to income tax forms may be misleading, although it is
the standard. People have an interest in understating their income to the IRS, and in
overstating it when seeking a loan. The logic is that they risk prosecution if they
understate to the IRS, but there are plenty of situations where they're very unlikely to get
caught. It's conceivable the loan application is more honest than the tax return.
Loan officers I knew over the decades have changed their views. Asking them if they would
lend their own money to the proposed borrower used to be more likely to elicit a Yes. When
standards loosened (again) earlier this millennium, some answered No until realizing that
they shouldn't care since the money wasn't theirs. What really mattered was getting that
commission endorsed and deposited, given the rise of IBGYBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone)
thinking.
Another question I asked was about tracking borrower performance relative to loan officer
compensation. Relationship building and longer term interactions declined with the rise of
neo-liberalish (the -ish suffix indicates a primitive reaction to immediate perceived
incentives without further investigation) mindsets. Portfolio lenders had more at risk but
still laid off some of that on the deposit insurance funds. Loan buyers did not fully
appreciate that they had to trust everyone preceding them in the value (destruction) cycle,
from brokers and investment bankers through ratings agencies.
Internal audits, compliance functions and regulatory exams were often the only temporary
inconveniences or obstacles to transactions and related income distribution.
If Democrats win control of the House they can use their investigative powers to force
each bank regulator to cause every relevant financial institution to conduct a 4506-T
audit.
Let us, for a moment, imagine this happens. Then what? The results would show widespread
fraud and a pathetic lack of adequate vetting by the issuer. Then those fraudulent loans were
aggregated into various RMBS and sold to others. I hope you can see that just this disclosure
is likely to cause a substantial hiccup in the financial system, perhaps another full-blown
crisis. And who would the public blame? The criminals – or the cops? I could see Dems,
even Dems with little or no connection to the Street, deciding not to open Pandora's box.
That is one of the problems with the American political system. From defense
appropriations to banking regulation, the pols live in fear of being tarred for doing the
right thing, if the outcome is temporarily bad or unpopular. Yes, it would obviously be best
to cleanse the wound, but doing so would hurt, so the pols decide that it would be best for
their popularity to let the wound fester until it becomes too big to ignore or financial
Armageddon occurs. Isn't that precisely the thinking of the Obama Administration?
All major Wall St banks and brokerages including Wachovia, Wells, BofA and even Citadel
and a few foreign banks (ABN Amro, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, etc) set up an offshore sub
called CDS Indexco. This was used as a defacto cartel to control the prices of both Sub-Prime
CDO issues and their respective Credit Default Swaps. They created the Markit BBB- index
which was used by Paulsen, Ackman and a few other chosen ones to short the MBS sub-prime
market. This is the truth.. CDS Indexco dropped that name in Nov. 2008 when the accounting
rules forced Marked to Market accounting and also the Consolidation of VIE's (Special Purpose
Financial Subs that got an exception to the Enron Rule). So in other words: if banks had been
made to follow the "Enron Rule" the financial crisis wouldn't have happened. Goldman's own
employee was the Chairman of CDS Indexco, I couldn't make this shit up. And Yves knows it
too. Gramm Leach Bliley made it all possible – so banks could hold both the debt and
the equity of an entity that they took no responsibility for. This was the precise reason for
Glass-Steagall banks were manhandling the ownership of business due to inherent conflicts of
interest between debt and equity holders.
My dear Murgatory, Wow. This is the first I have heard of CDS Indexco. You are suggesting
that it was much more than a mere market clearinghouse. Where could I read more on this?
A former bank/trustee foreclosure attorney is running for a District Court judge position
in Seattle. Remember Trott, the Foreclosure King, who Michigan sent to Congress? Yeah, this
dude is trying to get on the bench.
"... The peculiar dialectic between power and powerlessness is shadowed by a necessary third component, the perfect target. These are the people who are identified as the threat that the powerful and the powerless must come together to defeat. ..."
"... The U.S. is not in a pre-fascist period. Globalization is forcing fundamental structural changes on American society, affecting the economy as well as personal life. One key question involves a president's vision and the practices of his administration. Do fundamental social changes foster greater efforts to protect (and increase) the wealth and social power of the privileged or does it signal a sea change -- like the post-WW-II consumer revolution -- that enhances the quality and longevity of the lives of the many? ..."
"... With hollow bravado, one with apparently little thought about consequences, Trump Tweets new federal policies, offers false apologies and ceaselessly attacks on the media. For Trump and his administration, all information questioning a Trump Team statement suggests possible treason. ..."
"... For two-plus centuries, the U.S. has been a battleground between power and powerlessness. Through each era of contestation, a perfect target has been identified and exploited to help assure the position of those contesting for power. Four of the most revealing "perfect targets" are the Native People, African-American slaves and free people, Catholics and Communists. Each illuminates the social struggle between the powerful and powerless, thus providing a valuable snapshot into America's evolving culture. ..."
"... The Know Nothing movement grew out of the Second Great Awakening or the Great Revival of the 1830s and became the American Party that flourished during the late-40s and early-50s. It got its name when members where asked the party's positions and simply said, "I know nothing." It drew together Protestants who felt threatened by the rapid increase in European immigrants and, most especially, Catholics, flooding the cities. Catholics became the perfect target. ..."
"... The post-WW-II period was the age of Sen. Joe McCarthy, of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and New York's Archbishop Francis Spellman -- and Roy Cohn, Trump's consigliere ..."
"... The dance of power/powerlessness shadowed by the perfect target is being exploited by Trump and his followers. Trump knows how to play this dialect given his narcissistic personality and likely compensation for learning disabilities. ..."
"... David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected] ; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com . ..."
Now a year-and-a-half into the Trump presidency, it's become a truism that the president's
support is anchored in a deep sense of social and political powerlessness felt by many
Americans, especially older, white men. An early 2016
Rand poll comparing Donald Trump and Ted Cruz supporters found that those who agreed with
the statement "people like me don't have any say about what the government does" preferred
Trump -- and by a whopping 86.5 percent majority.
This sense of powerlessness turned out to be a more reliable predictor of Trump support than
all the other issues that dogged the 2016 campaign, including immigration, income, education,
the economy and his abusive sexual exploits. And it still does.
In 1941, the then-radical psycho-theorist, Erich Fromm, published Escape from
Freedom . In it, he warned:
The annihilation of the individual self and the attempt to overcome thereby the unbearable
feeling of powerlessness are only one side of the masochistic strivings. The other side is
the attempt to become part of a bigger and more powerful whole outside of oneself, to
submerge and participate in it. This power can be a person, an institution, God, the nation,
conscience, or a psychic compulsion.
Like Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, Fromm was then worried about the growing threat of
totalitarianism. In particular, these thinkers, among others, were concerned about how the
deepening sense of powerlessness among what was then referred to as "the masses" had
contributed to the enormous increase in the power of the leader, whether Hitler, Mussolini,
Franco or Stalin.
The peculiar dialectic between power and powerlessness is shadowed by a necessary third
component, the perfect target. These are the people who are identified as the threat that the
powerful and the powerless must come together to defeat. In pre-WW-II Germany, the perfect
target were the Jews, communists, homosexuals and gypsies, people that Nazi's claimed were
different, thus threatening the purity of ordinary Germans' "Saxon heritage." The threat can
come in any form, be it class, race, nationality, religion or political ideology -- or whatever
is a distinguishing characteristic of those targeted.
Pres. Trump has up to now played the perfect-target dance with great success. As a candidate
and now in the Oval Office, he's ranted successfully against "illegal" immigrants, whether
long-time residents, married to a citizen and with American children, have a criminal record,
served in the military or recent arrivals. In one Tweet, he opined: "They [Democrats] don't
care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and
infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as
potential voters!"
Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no
matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win
on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!
The Trump administration may have recently overplayed its perfect-target hand with the
forceful separation of seized immigrant parents from their children, no matter at what age.
From purely bureaucratic and media-relations perspectives, it's been a mess. No matter whether
the immigrants might be "illegal," they are still people, parent and child, and -- in Christian
America -- family still matters. Equally revealing, the Congress has yet to underwrite building
a wall separating the U.S. from Mexico.
The U.S. is not in a pre-fascist period. Globalization is forcing fundamental structural
changes on American society, affecting the economy as well as personal life. One key question
involves a president's vision and the practices of his administration. Do fundamental social
changes foster greater efforts to protect (and increase) the wealth and social power of the
privileged or does it signal a sea change -- like the post-WW-II consumer revolution -- that
enhances the quality and longevity of the lives of the many?
Trump is effectively exploiting the power/powerless minuet to maximize his own wealth and
that among others of the 1 percent. His -- and his administration's -- efforts are designed to
(moderately) upset the post-WW-II alliance between the federal government and private corporate
interests. The alliance has long been a revolving door for both Democrats and Republicans --
and the Trump Team is spinning the door.
The Trump apparatus is pushing the revolving door further to the right. Every federal
department and agency, including the Supreme Court, appears to include, if not run by, someone
drawn from the military, a corporation or bank, an industry association, a lobbying firm, a
religious group or a conservative thinktank.
Trump and his administration, ably assisted by a get-what-you-can Republican-controlled
Congress and Senate, seem more like that of Herbert Hoover and the great denial of what
everyone knew was coming rather than that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the making of a modern
super-state. With hollow bravado, one with apparently little thought about consequences,
Trump Tweets new federal policies, offers false apologies and ceaselessly attacks on the media.
For Trump and his administration, all information questioning a Trump Team statement suggests
possible treason.
***
For two-plus centuries, the U.S. has been a battleground between power and
powerlessness. Through each era of contestation, a perfect target has been identified and
exploited to help assure the position of those contesting for power. Four of the most revealing
"perfect targets" are the Native People, African-American slaves and free people, Catholics and
Communists. Each illuminates the social struggle between the powerful and powerless, thus
providing a valuable snapshot into America's evolving culture.
No clearer or more honest statement as to the social role of the perfect target was made by
Pres. Andrew Jackson on December 6, 1830, in his Message to Congress, "On Indian Removal." It
was issued seven months after he signed the removal law that authorized to grant unsettled
lands west of the Mississippi to Anglos or white people in exchange for Indian lands within
existing state borders. He stated, in part
:
It [the act] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites;
free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and
under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening
their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and
through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an
interesting, civilized, and Christian community.
Four European states -- Netherlands, Great Britain and France as well Spain -- invaded and
conquered parts of what was once the vast North America territory and was then home to
innumerable tribes of Native Peoples.
The first African slaves arrived in North America in 1619 in Jamestown. Over the following
four centuries many Americans believed that Africans -- and their descendants,
African-Americans -- were not fully human, but rather subhuman. It was long an essential belief
among colonial revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson as well as Confederate secessionists and
those of the today's alt-right. As Jefferson wrote
:
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct
race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the
endowments both of body and mind. This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of
faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.
The U.S. Constitution embodied this racism in granting African and African-American males
3/5 th voting rights compared to white citizens.
The Know Nothing
movement grew out of the Second Great Awakening or the Great Revival of the 1830s and became
the American Party that flourished during the late-40s and early-50s. It got its name when
members where asked the party's positions and simply said, "I know nothing." It drew together
Protestants who felt threatened by the rapid increase in European immigrants and, most
especially, Catholics, flooding the cities. Catholics became the perfect target.
Know-Nothing adherents felt that Catholics, as followers of the Pope, were not loyal
Americans and were going to take over the country. It had strong support in the North that
witnessed large-scale Irish immigration after 1848. The American Party captured the
Massachusetts legislature in 1854 and, in 1856, backed Millard Fillmore for president, who
secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast.
And then there were
communists . It's nearly impossible to image just how awful it was for those who challenged
the nation's official belief system during the post-WW-II era of 1945 to 1960. Alleged
"communists" included Soviet Union agents, non-party trade unionists as well as professors,
teachers, publishers and nonviolent civil-rights activists. And then there were the
pornographers, homosexual and other alleged deviants who challenged the status quo.
The post-WW-II period was the age of Sen. Joe McCarthy, of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
and New York's Archbishop Francis Spellman -- and Roy Cohn, Trump's consigliere . It
saw hundreds lose their jobs, dozens arrested and jailed. And the powerful found their perfect
target in two innocent New Yorkers, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who they arrested, convicted
and executed -- they were prosecuted by Cohn.
***
The dance of power/powerlessness shadowed by the perfect target is being exploited by
Trump and his followers. Trump knows how to play this dialect given his narcissistic
personality and likely compensation for learning disabilities. Since the campaign, his
perfect perfect target has been non-documented immigrants. He's also targeted
Democrats, the news media and NATO.
Trump needs a perfect enemy. In this way he is very much like other authoritarian leaders,
whether all-powerful rulers like Hitler, Stalin or Mao or merely a failed petty tyrant like
Nixon or -- pick your favorite Latin American, African or Asian dictator.
So, keep your eyes on Trump's ever-changing perfect target for it signals where the pin-ball
bouncing around in his brain lands. And where it lands sets national policy by targeting those
he thinks can distract Americans from understanding his profound failings. Who's next?
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: David Rosen
David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New
York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected]
; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com .
On your last paragraph, I've been nursing that hope as far as the ME goes for a while as well. Ever since the Jerusalem decision.
As for European NATO, isn't that already shot? Turkey unreliable at one end. The UK at odds with the mainland at the other,
if all the disaster talk isn't just theatre and maybe if it is. European NATO no longer looks like a credible alliance. Not an
alliance at all should Trump remove or cause to be removed the American glue holding it all together.
But the Colonel's item 8 is going to weigh on the conscience of the West for a long time.
On #8: I would bet that not 1 in 100 Americans know anything about the place at all, never mind the current slaughter. There will
be nothing for them to forget. I'm not trying to be flippant either. Unfortunately, most of my countrymen are simply fat, dumb,
and happy; and content to stay that way.
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
"... Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved to be so careless, complacent,and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting agents of foreign states to responsible posts. ..."
Comrade Stalin speaks from the grave, in support of Kommissar General Clinton supporting
her brave fight against wreckers, spies, provocateurs, diversionists, whiteguards, kulaks
.who are trying to infiltrate and destroy, OUR Democratic Party!
Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers :
March 3, 1937
"Comrades!
From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that
we are dealing with the following three main facts.
First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among
whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly
all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.
Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into
lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.
Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only
failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved
to be so careless, complacent,and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting
agents of foreign states to responsible posts.
These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the
discussions on them "
Wrecking (Russian:
вредительство
or vreditel'stvo, lit. "inflicting damage", "harming"), was a crime specified in the criminal
code of the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. It is often translated as "sabotage"; however,
"wrecking", "diversionist acts" , and "counter-revolutionary sabotage" were distinct
sub-articles of Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) (58-7, 58-9, and 58-14 respectively), The
meaning of "wrecking" is closer to "undermining".
These three categories were distinguished in the following way:
Diversions were acts of immediate infliction of physical damage on state and cooperative
property.
Wrecking was deliberate acts aimed against normal functioning of state and cooperative
organisations, such as giving deliberately wrong commands.
Sabotage was non-execution, or careless execution, of one's duties.
The definition of sabotage was interpreted dialectically and indirectly, so any form of
non-compliance with Party directives could have been considered a 'sabotage'."
Sabotage was non-execution, or careless execution, of one's duties.
The definition of sabotage was interpreted dialectically and indirectly, so any form of
non-compliance with Party directives could have been considered a 'sabotage'."
So no deviating from being, or at least appearing as, an ultra obedient group-thinking
conformist drone. Gotcha. Anyone the higher ups didn't like would be guilty of something,
rather like how Americans today commit multiple felonies each day because it is
unavoidable.
I never followed up on it, but I read years ago that virtually all the original members of
PNAC and American Enterprise Institute were Trotskyites. Specifically Irving Kristol (Butcher
Bill's father), and Gertrud Himmelfarb (his mother).
"... BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence. ..."
"... Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion. ..."
"... Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War. ..."
"... Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked. ..."
BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong,
it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views.
Notably:
the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo .
That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence.
As to Fred Hiatt's network, some insight is given by the acknowledgements in Robert
Kagan's book Dangerous Nation , where Kagan writes:
I [Robert Kagan] have also been lucky to enjoy the comradeship and wise counsel of dear
friends
Fred Hiatt, Bill Kristol, Leon Wieseltier, Reuel Gerecht, Ed Lazarus, and Joe Rose ...
Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy!
And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed
page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion.
So this has been popping up on my screen for the last week, so I finally decided to watch it.
Cohen, of course, was the voice of reason. Boot is an idiot and a disrespectful one at
that. All true.
The problem is that the bulk of the population is going to go with Boot. That is, the bulk
of the population that give a damn about Russia or foreign policy, which as the recent poll
testifies is a mighty small group.
However, that group includes most of the Democrats. So Boot is going to walk away claiming
a win and Anderson Cooper is never going to claim otherwise, either, because he is on Boot's
side.
Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist",
and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia
and the history of the first Cold War.
In a debate, that isn't enough. WE think Cohen "schooled" Boot. The Democrats won't. And
the undecided's won't either.
Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how
you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when
attacked.
Now how you do that can vary. You can either be a sneering scumbag like Boot, or you can
be a cold assassin that simply blows him away with calm, but vicious ridicule.
I'm reminded of a joke video I saw a while back. Check it out.
At very least, a leader should be able to tell right from wrong... and sadly, too often in
this world, "nice guys finish last".
"There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain."
Plato
"... The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in the documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin. ..."
"... This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State, including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year. ..."
"... Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin). ..."
"... Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon. ..."
"... from the period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media ..."
"... they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality. ..."
"... And how it only took, you know, certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we are. They essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall of communism and the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her. ..."
"... Foreign Policy Initiative is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. ..."
"... Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the Obama era. ..."
"... the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran. ..."
"... That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say, hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe. ..."
"... So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you think the effect of that was? ..."
"... Because, and this is important to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so relatively obscure They're not household names. ..."
"... The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S. media was doing. ..."
"... And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane? ..."
Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams.
Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right
political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]
Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more
aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and
related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They
further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for
'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action.
[3]
The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The
9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy
choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims
and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in
the basement.'[4]
The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and
the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as
strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but
they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the
world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in
depth in the documentary series, A Very
Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.
In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor
Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere
in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality
which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .
This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep
State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and
aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome
of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State,
including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly
maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.
Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with
his sister Abby Martin of Media
Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from
Fluorescent Grey (Robbie
Martin).
Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture
practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us
as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in
Eugene, Oregon.
Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018
... ... ...
And of course, right after the Sochi Olympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine,
it kind of boiled over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over
Euromaidan – basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a
coup which many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. State Department.
And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of contro , and from the period between 2014 to 2018, it
was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before
the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and
frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.
I know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a
long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon
influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that
constructed the blueprints to the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing
this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.
And how it only took, you know, certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we
are. They essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall
of communism and the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too
long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made
it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried
to smear her while she was working for RT.
... ... ...
RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the
psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was
going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put
through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the
span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure
she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and
this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon
think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.
So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the
Foreign Policy Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the
Foreign Policy Initiative
is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think
tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I
realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably
every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring,
very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me
into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank
videos for weeks on end.
Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from
the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more
candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more
clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the
Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of
fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when
I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found
him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war
hawks that would go on Fox News.
But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so
fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder
if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.
... ... ...
But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is
because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed
to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy
consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and
make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community
into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with
the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but
see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these
neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact
that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because
that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to
cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say,
hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go
after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially
convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.
So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people
now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see
much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which
is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a
non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election
when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever
they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.
That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's
because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you
don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody
is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.
GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you
personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost
like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're
talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the
neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early
2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people
are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is
something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit
before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my
generation and the world that I'm living in now
But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind
of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk
about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some
odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider
narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.
So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don
and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour
period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright
calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we
should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the
effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you
think the effect of that was?
RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer
that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this
short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping
up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus
was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something
that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important
to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding
America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor,
a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe
that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being
heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are
two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq
surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David
Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are
some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so
relatively obscure They're not household names.
So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force
raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to
hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the
planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the
U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they
don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the
actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what
they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if
they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.
And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now
that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this,
I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run
throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for
the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I
find that very strange.
And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into
that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating
the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were
still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S.
media was doing.
So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we
should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that
badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the
only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing
through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s
saying that before on record.
And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you
were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what
would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would
have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?
GR: Right. Yeah.
RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush
Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax
infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by
that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.
GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his
documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the
neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role
of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at
averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin.
For the Global Research News Hour, I'm Scott Price.
-end of transcript-
Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the
analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking
because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering
on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're
believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock
you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say.
The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling
Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists,
especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news"
and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists
into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content
are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners
who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
"... "We could not prevent the slaughter of the Serbs by the Croatians, including elderly people and children " – UNPROFOR French Lieutenant-General Jean Cot ..."
"... " The decision to launch Operation Storm is not controversial; what is controversial, however, is 'the successful effort' of some Croatian officials headed by President Franjo Tudjman to 'exploit the circumstances' and implement the plan to drive Serbs out of Krajina ." -- ICTY prosecutor Alain Tieger ..."
"... Just remember that at that time, US government offered $5 million reward for the capture of war criminal Ante Gotovina, making him the ICTY most wanted man. He was at that time sheltered by Croatian government, and through the notorious Vatican' "Rat Channels", that were used at the end of WWII to facilitate the escape of Nazis, he was hidden (among the other Croatian war criminals) in a Catholic monastery, to be smuggled to Tenerife, where he was eventually captured by the Spanish police, in 2005. ..."
"... " It is important that these [Serb] civilians start moving and then the army will follow them, and when the columns start moving, they will have a psychological effect on each other. That means we provide them with an exit, while on the other hand we feign (pretend) to guarantee civilian human rights and the like " -- ..."
"... Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, during War Council meeting in July 1995 ..."
"... "American concern is that if General Gotovina is arrested he may carry out a threat to disclose previously unknown extent of US covert involvement in the Krajina offensive " ..."
23 Years Ago the US Backed a Brutal Croatian Ethnic Cleansing of SerbsMiodrag Novakovic (
FBReporter ) Sat, Aug
4, 2018 | 4,303
445 If there was a
nation that could safely conclude from its own historical experience that "Crime Pays", than it
must be the newest EU member, Croatia. In the modern history this tiny Catholic nation
committed one of the most horrific genocides in WWII over Serbian Orthodox Christian population
residing in Croatia and Bosnia, murdering at least one million people; and recently in 1995,
Croatia conducted (under US supervision) the biggest and permanent ethnic cleansing "military
operation" against its (again) Serbian population, expelling over 200,000 of them in just three
days (the real number of ethnically cleansed Serbs from Croatia during the wars in 90ies, is at
least twice larger)- unofficially becoming the most ethnic cleanse European state.
If you believe, that Croats "en masse", would be ashamed of such reputation, then you are
dead wrong. Actually most of them are very proud, and for the last 23 years they are
celebrating it very loudly, and doing everything in their power to prevent (after being
pressured by the international community) the return of hundreds of thousands of Serbs to their
ancient land, and to avoid returning of their stolen property, mostly (real estates, farm
lands, etc.).
"We could not prevent the slaughter of the Serbs by the Croatians, including elderly
people and children " – UNPROFOR French Lieutenant-General Jean Cot
Elderly Krajina' resident murdered in his home by Croatian soldiers. His guilt- He was a
Serb
WHEN WESTERN "DEMOCRACIES" ORCHESTRATE ETHNIC CLEANSINGS
Of course, if would be unreasonable, for this evident and well documented war crimes, and
crimes against humanity, to blame only Croats. If their hands are soaked in the blood, of
innocent Serbian civilians, up to their arms, then the hands of their Western sponsors
(namely USA and Germany) are soaked in the blood at least up to their elbows. Simply Croats
would never get away with "such perfect crime", if they were not backed, in every possible
way, by their American and German sponsors.
This week will mark 22 years, since on August 4th 1995, Croatia lunched so called
military-police operation, named Storm, against Serb' held and controlled Krajina region.
Croats backed by US military-logistic & air support, CIA intelligence drone
reconnaissance, and open political support from Washington, completed their "operation" in
just three days. On August 7th they declared "victory".
Their "victory resulted": in a complete ethnic cleansing of Krajina region, and a murder
of at least 2,000 Serbs; vast majority of them were defenseless civilians. Official sources
claim that: 1,192 Serbian civilians were killed or missing, and around 200,000 thousands
(entire Krajina population) were expelled from their ancient land. Their property was
destroyed, looted and stolen, by the Croatian "soldiers" (who performed this "operation"
under direct Washington' supervision, while UNPROFOR peacekeepers assigned for the protection
of UN designated "Krajina Safe Zone" just stood by, doing almost nothing to prevent the
slaughter).
Croatian "soldiers" in "liberated Krajina"
IMPERATIVE WAS TO ESTABLISH US MILITARY
PRESENCE IN YUGOSLAVIA
To understand this US complicity, and its direct military involvement, in such horrendous
atrocity against one ethnic group, in one, of many, civil wars, which erupted, when former
Socialist Yugoslavia "fell apart", again with covert or overt Western support, we have to
look here at the wider picture-
When the Clinton' government, together with their major European allies, decided in 90ies,
that the best American interest in the Balkans will be to back armed rebellion of the
separatist administrative regions in Western Yugoslavia, and openly support the breakup of,
internationally recognized, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while it was still the UN member,
they consciously opened the Pandora box.
They openly sided politically & militarily with Slovenian and Croatian Catholics from
the Western Yugoslavian Republics, and with Islamic fundamentalists from Bosnia, in their
civil and religious wars against Orthodox Christian Serbs living outside, then administrative
Republic of Serbia (and later in 1999, US & NATO started another illegal war against
Serbia, on behalf of Islamic Albanian separatists from Kosovo, ultimately "stealing" this
Southern Serbian province).
Croatian and Bosnian Serbs, who simply wanted to remain in their Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, and not to be "taken away" by Catholic and Islamic separatists, and not to be
stripped of their constitutional rights, under existing Yugoslavian laws, naturally rebelled
against such illegal and violent Yugoslavian outcome, and they subsequently declared own
autonomy within the Yugoslavian separatist' regions.
And then all hell broke loose
The historical roots of such American approach, could be found in the Western (mainly
British and American) support of "Anti-Stalin" communist leader of post-WWII Yugoslavia
Marshal Josip Broz Tito (who was Croat himself), who provided Western leaders with assurances
that he will, not only keep Yugoslavia outside the Soviet bloc, but he would align militarily
his country with NATO alliance as well; and later in Reagan' presidential directive NSDD133,
from 1984, which outlined US strategic interest to expand its military presence to
Yugoslavia.
Croatian and US military leadership celebrating "joint operation"- the biggest ethnic
cleansing in Europe since WWII
THEY ARE KILLING "LITTLE RUSSIANS" TOO, AREN'T THEY
?
The "only" obstacle to this US (read NATO) expansionist policy in the former Yugoslavia,
was Serbian (majority) population, which was, due to its traditional friendship with Russia,
considered as "problematic" and had to be decimated, "broken into pieces", and Republic of
Serbia to be disabled as an independent state, during so called "spontaneous" civil wars in
90s.
I am not trying here to state that in the Western society exist some unexplained hatred
against Serbs (in same time, there is a lots of prejudice, and media & Hollywood bias,
picturing Serbs primarily as "bad guys"), actually I believe that people and their
politicians in the West could not care less about Serbs (Serbians), and most of them have no
clue where to find Serbia on the geographic map. But in same time, as we can observe these
days in the West, particularly in United States, there is a lot of unfounded and unreasonable
hatred for the Russians
And if we are familiar with the popular saying among Western diplomats, that "Serbs are
Little Russians", then is not difficult to put two and two together, and understand their
desire to "disable" any Russian-friendly nation in the region.
As long as you are a Serb, regardless of your age, for Croats and their US sponsors, you
are a "fair game"
CROATIAN WAR CRIMES AGAINST SERBS WERE SO EVIDENT, AND ON SUCH LARGE
SCALE, THAT WESTERN CONTROLLED ICTY HAD NO CHOICE, BUT TO SENTENCE CROATIAN LEADERSHIP
Western controlled ICTY (International Crime Tribunal for Yugoslavia) reluctantly brought
charges for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, against (war time) ultra-nationalistic Croatian
leadership and group of its generals. But in the wake of overwhelming evidence and
international outcry, they had little choice.
In 2001 ICTY brought charges for war crimes against Croatian president general Franjo
Tudjman (who will be remembered for publically saying "that he was very proud that his wife
was neither Jew or Serb"), Croatian defence minister Gojko Susak (prior to war- open Neo-Nazi
ideologist), and two other former (renegade) Yugoslav Army generals, (promoted into supreme
commanders of Croatian army) Janko Bobetko and Zvonimir Cermenko. Their indictment was
actually travesty of justice, because at the time they were charged, all of them (with
exception of General Janko Bobetko), were already dead (by natural cause). General Bobetko
died one year after indictment, before he could be delivered to ICTY.
" The decision to launch Operation Storm is not controversial; what is
controversial, however, is 'the successful effort' of some Croatian officials headed by
President Franjo Tudjman to 'exploit the circumstances' and implement the plan to drive
Serbs out of Krajina ." -- ICTY prosecutor Alain Tieger
When the indictment of Croatian generals Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, for
their war crimes and ethnic cleansing of Croatian Serbs in Krajina, during "operation" Storm
in 1995, was announced in 2008- Serbs who survived US sponsored pogrom and ethnic cleansing,
were naively hoping that at last some justice will be served.
Even, with such unprecedented obstruction of ICTY by Croatian government, Catholic Church
and wider Croatian society, who concealed and destroyed many war documents, facilitated
escape and concealment of indicted Croatian war criminals, and intimidated not only victims
and witnesses, but ICTY leadership as well- the trial of those three Croatian generals came
to conclusion in 2011, and after the overwhelming evidence (the evidence, Croats were not
able to conceal or destroy), Gotovina was sentenced to 24 years, Markac to 18 years, while
Cermak was acquitted.
Serbian victims hoped that at the end at least some justice was served- but they were
wrong again. There is a Serbian saying: "A crow doesn't pick out another crow's eyes."-
In 2012, ICTY appeal chamber overturned the decision of lower chamber, and unconditionally
acquitted Croatian war criminals Gotovina and Markac for all crimes. Entire Croatia and its
diaspora erupted in joy and massive celebration.
Their historical experience that Crime Pays have been proven yet again
Serbian children getting starved to death and slaughtered by knife in a first-ever death
camp for children and infants established by Croats in Jastrebarsko, Sisak, Stara
Gradiska, Independent State of Croatia in WW2
Even, after the ICTY had proved (from the audio and written transcript of Croatian war
leadership meeting in July 1995) – that there was very credible evidence of existence
of a joint criminal enterprise, with intent to forcibly remove ethnic Serbs from Croatia, and
that civilian areas in Krajina, including the subsequent civilian refugee columns, were
indiscriminately shelled by Croatian artillery, and bombed & machine gunned by Croatian
air-force – that did not prevent the real ICTY masters to pervert the course of
justice.
One would wander who and what was behind such obvious and embarrassing justice travesty,
demonstrated in this example. What had forced American controllers of ICTY to change their
mind, and influence the tribunal to free of any charges, these obvious and heavy documented,
war criminals?
Just remember that at that time, US government offered $5 million reward for the
capture of war criminal Ante Gotovina, making him the ICTY most wanted man. He was at that
time sheltered by Croatian government, and through the notorious Vatican' "Rat Channels",
that were used at the end of WWII to facilitate the escape of Nazis, he was hidden (among
the other Croatian war criminals) in a Catholic monastery, to be smuggled to Tenerife,
where he was eventually captured by the Spanish police, in 2005.
Serbian civilians fleeing US/CRO joint operation "Storm" were bombed, machine-gunned, and
ran by Croatian tanks, mercilessly- thousands of innocent people just
perished
INTERNATIONAL "POST-MORTEM" RESPONSE
It is worth to mention accusations and reactions, to such perversion of justice by ICTY,
from some highest international bodies and public persons, at that time-
US Security Council, on August 10th 1995 issued "post-mortem" (when ethnic cleansing of
Serbs was already completed) resolution #1009, demanding from Croatia to halt military
operation, and condemning targeting of UN peacekeepers (during the operation Storm, Croats
had killed three UN soldiers) – but UNSC failed to request a withdrawal of the Croatian
forces, and de-facto accepted new "ethnically cleanse" reality!?
The only UN official, who was fully aware of the horrific aspect of this US sponsored
"operation", and who was trying to prevent further Croatian atrocities against Serbian
population, was, at that time, the Head of UN mission in Yugoslavia, Thorvald Stoltenberg,
who urged UN Secretary Yasushi Akashi to request NATO strikes against Croatian army, to
prevent further atrocities against civilians.
Of course, that never happened, especially if we know that Croatian operation Storm, was
directly supervised by the retired US generals (via Pentagon military contractor MPRI), while
US Air Force conducted air raids against Serbian Air Defense systems in Krajina, and CIA
officers operated surveillance drones, which provided intelligence for advancing Croatian
troops, from two Croatian bases in Adriatic.
Even, EU negotiator Carl Bildt, and US ambassador in Croatia Peter Galbraith, publically
condemned Croatian atrocities in Krajina- but they too stayed short of requesting some
concrete and punitive measures.
" It is important that these [Serb] civilians start moving and then the army will
follow them, and when the columns start moving, they will have a psychological effect on
each other. That means we provide them with an exit, while on the other hand we feign
(pretend) to guarantee civilian human rights and the like " --Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, during War Council meeting in July 1995
The only ones from UN troops who tried to prevent Croatian atrocities, and in couple
occasions fought bravely against bloody-thirsty Croatian soldiers, where Canadian
peacekeepers from "Patricia Company", but they too, where upon return to Canada, silenced and
their experience never got real media traction. Their testimony simply did not fit with the
Western agenda, that Serbs are the only bad guys
THE REAL ATROCIOUS OUTCOME OF THE
BIGGEST ETHNIC CLEANSING IN POST-WWII EUROPE IS MUCH HIGHER, THEN THE OFFICIAL FIGURES
STATE
While ICTY prosecutors accepted the fact that some 200,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed
in just couple of days from Krajina region, they "lowered" the number of murdered Serbian
civilians to 324. Serbian sources on the ground documented 1,192 dead or missing civilians,
while Croatian Helsinki Committee documented 677 killed.
Human Rights Watch documented at least 5,000 Serbian homes razed to the ground by Croatian
forces, and HRW accused Croats for summary executions of elderly and disabled Serbs, who
stayed behind due to inability or unwillingness to leave their homes. We can only imagine if
the entire defenseless Serbian civilian population stayed behind, and faced bloody-thirsty
Croatian soldiers- in that case we would be talking here about a full scale genocide, not
"just" the ethnic cleansing!?
To better understand what kind of "Croatian justice" were facing defenseless Serbian
civilians, who decided not to leave their homes during operation Storm, here is one excerpt
from Wikipedia, describing one of many of Croatian "post-Storm" atrocities against innocent
civilians-
"The Varivode massacre was a mass killing that occurred on 28 September 1995 in the
village of Varivode , Croatia during the Croatian War of Independence . According to United
Nations officials, soldiers of the Croatian Army (HV) and Croatian police killed nine
Croatian Serb villagers, all of whom were between the ages of 60 and 85. [4] After
the war, six former Croatian soldiers were tried for committing crimes in the village, but
were all eventually released due to lack of evidence On the night of 28 September 1995,
Croatian soldiers entered the village of Varivode and killed nine elderly Serb villagers.
The civilians that were killed were Jovan Berić, Marko Berić, Milka Berić,
Radivoje Berić, Marija Berić, Dušan Dukić, Jovo Berić,
Špiro Berić and Mirko Pokrajac. After the executions occurred, the bodies were
buried in a cemetery near the village without the knowledge of the families of the victims.
[4] After the
massacre, Croatian authorities denied reports of widespread atrocities targeting Serbs and
said that they were propaganda. Later, the government blamed the atrocities on
uncontrollable elements within the Croatian Army and Croatian police. [25]
Christiane Amanpour 's report from October 1995 said that the "United Nations believes 12
Serb civilians were massacred." [25] In the
first one hundred days following Operation Storm, at least 150 Serb civilians were
summarily executed, and many hundreds disappeared as part of a widespread campaign of
revenge against Croatia's Serb minority. [26] The bodies of the
killed Serbs were never exhumed, autopsies were never performed and much of the evidence
that could have been used against the perpetrators of the crime was discarded. [27]
Despite this, six Croatian soldiers were tried for committing crimes in the village. The
soldiers were Ivan Jakovljević, Peri Perković, Neđeljko Mijić, Zlatko
Ladović, Ivica Petrić and Nikola Rašić. However, in 2002 they were
all released due to the lack of evidence against them. [27] In
July 2012, the Supreme Court of Croatia ruled that the Republic of Croatia was responsible
for the deaths of the nine Serb villagers who were killed in Varivode. The Supreme Court
declared, "two months after the conclusion of Operation Storm, an act of terrorism was
committed against the Serb inhabitants of Varivode for the purpose of causing fear,
hopelessness and to spread feelings of personal insecurity among the citizens." [35] –
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varivode_massacre
By 2012, Croatian government received 6,390 reports about committed war crimes against
Serbian civilians, during and after operation Storm, but did little or nothing to bring the
perpetrators to justice.
To make things worse and more humiliating for surviving Krajina Serbs, Croatian government
is still refusing to return (or reimburse) 140,000 Serbian homes, stolen from ethnic Serbs.
795 Serbs, presumed dead, are still missing, 1,604 bodies were retrieved- according to NGO
"Veritas".
Croats were attacking Krajina using the strategy of "Scorched Earth", with unconditional
US support
DID THE CROATS SUCCESSFULLY BLACKMAIL U.S. GOVERNMENT INTO SUBMISSION,
FORCING THEM TO OVERTURN THE INITIAL ICTY RULING!?
Defense ministers celebrating the joint outcome of the biggest ethnic cleansing in Europe
since WWII- Left: US William Perry, Right: CRO Gojkos Susak
The initial ICTY ruling in 2011, which sentenced Croatian generals Gotovina and Markac to
long term imprisonment, was expected, and very well supported by the "conclusive evidence".
Even, according to many international experts, this sentencing was not enough tough, and did
not cover the full scale of war crimes and atrocities, committed by Croatian political and
military leadership, during and in the aftermath of operation Storm. Still, many Serbian
victims were satisfied that they finally achieved at least some justice
So, when in November 2012 ICTY appeal chamber ruled that Croatian generals are innocent of
all charges and free to go, the news came to many as a complete shock, and reaffirmed them in
a belief that ICTY tribunal is just another NATO war tool, in their efforts to punish and
humiliate, not only the Serbian government, but the numerous Serbian victims of civil wars in
90ies, whose executors were never (and probably never will be) brought to justice.
The ruling was very controversial, not only because it ignored all the hard evidence,
including the forensics and the testimony of the international observers, but because the
formal excuse for the liberating judgment was – that in the prosecutor documents were
missing the Croatian artillery log books, that according to the Appeal chamber, were the only
document that would prove the Croatian intent to drive Serbian population from Krajina. The
same books were previously repeatedly requested by the ICTY prosecutors, and Croatia did not
even deny its existence, but simply refused to cooperate with ICTY and hand them over.
Finally, when in 2008 Croatia was warned by European leaders that non-cooperation with ICTY
might affect the prospect of its EU membership – somebody from the Croatian leadership
simply destroyed these books, and they informed Hague tribunal that Artillery logs no longer
exist. Even such provocative and blunt obstruction of the international justice by the
Croatian government, did not result in any repercussions for them, and practically they were
forgiven for their deeds. Crime pays – doesn't it?
Anyway, ICTY tribunal had plenty of other evidence, proving the intentional destruction of
Serbian civilian infrastructure was very well documented by the international observers, and
in April 2011 ICTY had no choice but to sentence general Gotovina to 24 years, and general
Markac to 18 years.
Another fact that indicates that Appeal chamber' ruling was the political one, and result
of some external interference was its split decision – the chamber ruled by the
majority decision 3 – 2, implying that there were serious doubts and disagreements, by
at least two of the Appeal chamber judges.
"American concern is that if General Gotovina is arrested he may carry out a threat
to disclose previously unknown extent of US covert involvement in the Krajina offensive
"– London Times, June 14th, 2003.
Gotovina was arrested, but only shortly, until Croatian blackmail convinced their US
masters, to pull strings in ICTY, and free him unconditionally
CROATIAN OFFICIALS
PROVIDED A PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED IN "STORM" MILITARILY, AND
HAD A FULL CONTROL OVER WAR (CRIMES) ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE GROUND
As soon the ICTY indictments against Croatian leaders were announced in 2001, the Croatian
government, NGOs, public, and very well organized and connected diaspora, displayed anger and
disagreement, promising that they will do everything in their power to obstruct ICTY
investigations and prevent trials against their "national heroes". When in 2011, the first
instance judgment by ICTY was issued and Croatian generals were sentenced to long term
imprisonment, the Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor and President Ivo Josipovic publicly
expressed their shock and rejection of the ruling, promising to help to overturn the
judgment, on appeal!?
And they started their campaign – of obstruction of justice, of abetting the accused
war criminals, of the intimidation, and finally, of the blackmail, of ICTY and US officials
–
On July 4th, 2002, NGO associated with Croatian government "Croatian World Congress-
CWC" filed complaint with ICTY citing what proofs, about US direct involvement in ethnic
cleansing of Krajina, they have:
" US officials aided General Gotovina and the Croatian army in operation Storm by
violating UN arms embargo and allowing Croatia to obtain weapons US officials established a
CIA base inside General Gotovina' military base, which provided the US officials with
real-time video footage of events transpiring on the ground during Operation Storm (and
thus imputing to them knowledge of events on the ground ), but also from which they could
provide such intelligence data to General Gotovina to assist him in conducting Operation
Storm . If General Gotovina carried out pre-planed campaign to deport 150,000 to 200,000
Croatian Serbian civilians, the CIA base was not only used to provide knowledge to US
officials of such plan and course of conduct on the part of General Gotovina , but was also
used to assist General Gotovina in achieving the goals of his alleged plan . The US
official gave the green light for the Operation and provided diplomatic and political
support for it . The US officials at all times had the ability to halt the military
operations . Accordingly, the US officials named in the complaint should be indicted for
having aided and abetted General Gotovina. "
Ethnic cleansing in Krajina was the joint US/CRO criminal enterprise History will be the
judge
If you read carefully through this CWC statement (threat), they are not even trying to
deny Gotovina' war crimes, they are just implying bluntly, that if their lovely General was
sentenced, they would gladly provide ICTY with the evidence of Croatian-American "Joint
criminal enterprise to forcibly remove the Serb population from Croatia ", as it states the
ICTY indictment from 2001, of course omitting the US participation (which was the very secret
deal, at least until Croatian officials started "mouthing" their "American friends").
Croatian complaint to ICTY specifically named the highest US officials, alleging that
they, along General Gotovina, committed too war crimes against Serbian population:
"On behalf of the Croatian World Congress, a non-governmental organization that is a
member of the United Nations with advisory status, you are hereby notified pursuant to
Article 18(1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia of the existence of information concerning serious violations of international
humanitarian law (hereinafter "IHL"), namely that officials of the United States of
America, including but not limited to William Jefferson Clinton , Anthony Lake , Samuel
Berger , Richard Holbrooke , Peter Galbraith and/or George J. Tenet (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "U.S. officials"), aided and abetted Croatian General Ante
Gotovina , who was indicted by your office on 8 June 2001."
War Criminals at work together- Croatian general Kresimir Cosic and US supreme commander
general Wesley Clark
We are not going here to present detailed evidence of US crimes, committed during the
operation Storm. Of course, the Croatian war crimes on the ground were very brutal,
systematic and savage, they did "the physical work", but from the evidence provided by
numerous Croatian officials and their organizations, it is very obvious, that operation Storm
would never happen, or if happened never would be successful, without US military support and
direct supervision, or without US approval.
Just to give you "a taste" what kind of American support Croats were enjoying during their
atrocious operation against innocent Serbian civilians, will present you with some documented
facts:
The Green Light for the operation came a couple days prior the assault- President Clinton
passed the order directly to US military attaché in Zagreb Colonel Richard Herrick;
Herrick passed order to Croatian head of military intelligence Markica Rebic (the others
involved directly were defense minister Gojko Susak, Miro Tudjman and Miro Medimurac, heads
of Secret Service and Intelligence Service). US masters were so pleased with Rebic' service,
that they rewarded him with Meritorious Service Medal, delivered to him by Ambassador
Galbraith in 1996. The other people from USG involved in this joint criminal enterprise with
Croats, in addition to Clinton, were Anthony Lake and William Perry. US masters imposed the
time limit on operation Storm- it had to be completed in 5 days.
Long before the Storm, in 1992 USG with Croatian approval established CIA reconnaissance
base on island of Brac, from where CIA operators were flying unmanned aircraft spying on
Serbian positions in Krajina, Bosnia and part of Serbia itself. USG requested that this
cooperation to be held a top secret, so outsiders don't find that US is taking sides in the
Balkans' civil wars. But it did not stay for too long the top secret. On January 1st, 1994,
Croatian state security apprehended a spy on the base perimeter. They delivered him right
away to General Gotovina, to find out it was their German ally, precisely it was German
military attaché Hans Schwan.
This incident alerted USG, which wanted to conceal any covert activities on behalf of CG,
so they promptly removed CIA base to new secret location, in Sepurina, near city of Zadar.
This new location was covered by three security layers, to ensure the full secrecy. From new
base CIA started immediately collecting photographic and video evidence of Serbian activities
in Krajina and Bosnia, and passing them to Croats, and to Pentagon. There was 24 hours, 6
member intelligence crew, present on site- consisting of three CIA and three Croatian
military officers.
Croatian military base Sepurine, near Zadar, from which CIA operated drones, aiding
operation Storm, and providing live video feed of "military activities" on the ground to
Pentagon
"STORM" WASN'T THE FIRST ETHNIC CLEANSING, UNDERTAKEN BY
CROATIA AND US, AS A JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE:
It is interesting that disgruntled (by ICTY indictment) Croatian Officials and Croatian
World Congress body, in their complaint to ICTY, are providing the evidence about USG
intelligence and logistical support for another Croatian genocidal operation, named Flash,
that took place in Western Slavonia, between May 1st and 3rd, 1995, which resulted in
another complete ethnic cleansing of Serbian population- prior to the operation this area
was populated by 29,000 Serbs, after Flash, only 1,500 remained.
The number of killed civilians is unknown because Croats prevented UNPROFOR troops from
accessing the area, until they did "the sanitation" (read: removing the evidence of their
crimes, because entire Serbian refugee columns were massacred and overran by Croatian
tanks). Estimates of killed civilians rage between one hundred to couple thousands. Another
example of "the successful US-CRO joint criminal enterprise"?
The interesting details, revealed here by Croatian sources, is- that US military
attaché Herrick was attached to the Croatian mobile military command, during the
genocidal operation Flash, supervising it directly- and the head of CIA branch in Zagreb
Marc Kelton was directly coordinating expulsion of Slavonia' Serbs, with Croatian president
Tudjman son Miro.
In the eve of the attack on Krajina, on August 4th 1995, between midnight and 4 a.m.
Croatian forces were ordered to turn off all telecommunication devices, to unable US air
force to electronically disable all Serbian communications.
The outcome of Joint US/CRO "justice"
According to NATO spokesman Jim Mitchell in Aviano, Italy, two US military planes EA-6B
Prowlers were dispatched to Krajina air space. USAF planes, on the top of jamming Serbian
telecommunications, destroyed the airport Udbine, and Radar and Serbian Air Defense near
Knin, in order to prevent any Serbian air support or defence, against invading Croatian
forces.
Here, US military attaché Herrick was replaced by the Colonel John Sadler, who was
embedded with Gotovina command unit, directly supervising operation Storm. Pentagon was also
directly monitoring the operation via live video feed.
Shortly after the biggest joint (US/CRO) ethnic cleansing in Europe was completed, US head
of DIA General Colonel Patrick Hughes visited Croatia to coordinate further military actions
against Serbs in Bosnia and if necessary in Republic of Serbia
Hitler, it has been reported, in 'Secret History of the Twentieth Century' by
Herbert Dorsey, commended the USA for having 'gunned down the millions of Redskins to
a few hundred thousand.' This way of 'winning the West' type-casts American as
imperialist and certainly sympathetic with much we associated with fascism. America
lead the world in race-based lawmaking to safeguard the historically white character
of the country. Including immigration legislation to guarantee the predominance of
northern Europe and shut the doors on Jews, Italians, Asians and others. Nazi
commentators called this keeping out the 'undesirables.' The eugenics movement took
root in the United States in the early 1900's.
This article concerns the largest ethnic cleansing in Balkans that was committed
by Croatia with US operational support. The US committed multiple war crimes in the
Balkans in the 1990's.
After the 1990's the US has clearly emerged the fascist rogue state of the 21st
century.
Last week, US State Department officials met with Taliban leaders in
Qatar. At the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not invited. The
officials discussed ceasefires and an end to the war. Meanwhile, the US inspector general
charged with monitoring US spending on Afghanistan reconstruction has reported that since
2008, the US has completely wasted at the least $15.5 billion. He believes that's just the
tip of the iceberg, though. Will President Trump do the smart thing and negotiate peace and
leave? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
"... "My film itself is essentially was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints for the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality." ..."
"... – Robbie Martin, from this week's program. ..."
"My film itself is essentially was tracking the neocon influence and how the
neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints
for the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0
mentality."
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours. ..."
"... You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows... ..."
"... Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial,
economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest
single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself.
While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than
" a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you
didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was
"deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated
by DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't
need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
While neocons definitely agitated for invasion and were well represented in Bush Ii
government, this statement might be not true. As Greenspan said it was about oil.
Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the
strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."
In Britain, Tam Dalyell, a longstanding Labor member of Parliament, expressed a similar view.
Tony Blair, he opined, was listening too much to a "cabal" of Jews around President Bush that
included Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; an under secretary of defense, Douglas
Feith; Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, director of
Middle East Affairs in the White House; and the former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer.
"Those people drive this policy," Dalyell said.
Dalyell was "worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik-Sharon
agenda" by British Jews close to Blair.
-- -- -- -- -- -
Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the
strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."
In Britain, Tam Dalyell, a longstanding Labor member of Parliament, expressed a similar view.
Tony Blair, he opined, was listening too much to a "cabal" of Jews around President Bush that
included Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; an under secretary of defense, Douglas
Feith; Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, director of
Middle East Affairs in the White House; and the former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer.
"Those people drive this policy," Dalyell said.
Dalyell was "worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik-Sharon
agenda" by British Jews close to Blair.
The way , this war has played out, the way Oslo has been shredded, the way Iran deal has
been gutted, the way Blair spoke in Bush's ranch and took money form and awards from Israel,
the way attacks on Lebanon and Syria have been allowed and helped , the way Libya have been
made a failed country, the way billions have been poured on Israel, the way dissent against
war has been suppressed, the way Corbyn was attacked prove one thing – only one thing
that is the author was entirely wrong .Moran Japanense and British minister are and were
correct.
"... -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on. ..."
"... In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian" hacker. Here's how we know that: ..."
"... Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred. ..."
"... The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia, which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world.... ..."
"... @Pluto's Republic ..."
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... third run ..."
"... ~~Author Unknown ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
Russiagate may technically be about Trump, but in fact most of the "traitors" and Putin Puppets are progressives on the left.
Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before
the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin
Russiagate never was actually about Russia. It's the Democrats' version of Obama's birth certificate. As
Caitlin Johnstone puts it, Russiagate is 9/11 minus 9/11.
TWIT:
Kurt Eichenwald
@kurteichenwald
Bottom line: You either support the patriots in our intelligence community and law enforcement who work endlessly for our
national security, and all of the intelligence agencies of our allies, or you support Putin.
You're either a patriot, a traitor or an idiot. Choose.
10:51 AM-16 Jul 2018
In reality, Russiagate started with Ralph Nader and the
2000 election .
They said a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. You have a moral duty to vote for the Democrat and to be pragmatic. Your Naderite
purity came at the expense of the poor. Only affluent selfish white guys could afford this type of virtue signaling. In fact,
maybe some of these people were really Republicans in disguise. There were no Russian bots to blame just yet, but clearly some
liberals are unable to imagine good faith criticism of Democrats coming from the left.
The terms " virtue signaling", " purity pony", and of course "White Berniebro" weren't coined yet, but the the stereotype they
describe was formed in 2000. Gore lost and Nader and all his voters, in swing states or not, were vilified. They were worse than
Republicans. They were traitors. Of all the factors that caused Gore's loss, the only one that Democratic partisans really cared
about was Nader.
People that voted for Nader became responsible for the Iraq War, while Democrats who voted for Bush and the Iraq War got a free
pass. Liberals, besides their obvious double-standards when allocating responsibility, made the dubious claim that morality requires
being pragmatic in your voting. And then, as if to prove the basis of their claims to be false, they approach their target audience
in a non-pragmatic way.
The anger on open display is the opposite of pragmatic politics. They don't try to persuade people to vote for the Democrat. They
demand it. It is a moral litmus test, or rather, a judgement of one's very soul. Good people know they have to vote for the Democrat.
Bad people vote for Republicans and the very worst people of all claim to be left, but vote for Stein or maybe even voted for
Clinton, but criticized her. Democratic partisans have no interest in what you say about an issue if they perceive it as in any
way an attack or a criticism of a Democrat. If you are a third party advocate you can forget about being taken seriously on any
issue because you have already self identified as a Satanist and you need to be exorcised from the body politic. Even if you say
you support the Democrat as the lesser evil, you speak as one of the damned and deserve no mercy. Sanders played the game in 2016
exactly the way people said Nader should have played it and he and his supporters were still dismissed.
Like Nader before her, Stein is the absolute
worst traitor of all . Worse than Trump himself.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent. https://t.co/qkDUe6yADd
Maddow cast suspicion on Stein's silence over alleged Russian attempts to interfere with the election to benefit Donald Trump, who
she claimed during her own campaign would govern no differently than Hillary Clinton.
"So everybody's like, 'Wow, how come this like super, super aggressive opposition that we saw from these third-party candidates
-- how come they haven't said anything since this scandal has broken?'" Maddow said.
"I don't know, Jill -- I can't pronounce it in Russian," Maddow said, with apparent sarcasm.
Bernie Sanders, OTOH, did everything he was told he should do. He supported the Democratic establishment candidate, and believed
the Russiagate story.
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
That's because you, Russia, funded riots in Ferguson. See 0 hour I have your connections to Trump archived via Schiller and
Scavino https://t.co/aTUDlCGkYi
If you are still confused about what is treason and what isn't, ask yourself the question: Does the issue advance the narrative
that the Democratic Party is a force for absolute good?
Oh my god: this is how deranged official Washington is. The President of the largest Dem Party think tank (funded in part by
dictators) genuinely believes Chelsea Manning's candidacy is a Kremlin plot. Conspiracy theorists thrive more in mainstream DC
than on internet fringes pic.twitter.com/e8g314iQHT
We still have the 2018 election, and then the long lead-up to the 2020 election. There is nothing to indicate that the rhetoric
won't get a lot more insane. The general indifference of the public doesn't seem to discourage the media and pundits. So how will
it likely look in Fall 2020? Probably like it looked in
1952 .
The purpose of advancing the Communist issue was not to fix the Communist problem -- it was to exploit that problem for political
and ideological advantage. That is how the Republican Party could produce its unhinged 1952 platform, which charged that the Democrats
"have shielded traitors to the Nation in high places," "work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism," and "by
a long succession of vicious acts, so undermined the foundations of our Republic as to threaten its existence." (Does that kind
of talk strike you as overheated? Then you, too, are failing to take the Russia issue seriously.)
There is little to no danger for conservatives and Republicans. All of the danger is for progressives and socialists, and the
angry mob is the Democratic establishment trying to silence left-wing ideas. In comparison, the danger of the GOP to the left-wing
is trivial.
Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.
I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that people keep posting it as common knowledge and factual -- especially on this
site. Old dkos habits are hard to break, I guess. The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network.
Not from Russia, or from a van parked down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used
to do so, because it would blow the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.
The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network. Not from Russia, or from a van parked
down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used to do so, because it would blow
the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.
There was NO hack.
emphasis in original.
The term usually used by the perpetrator classes for this sort of thing is: "inside job" . And, as
with all other inside jobs, the question really is: "Who's the insider?"
"The easiest way to raise a revolutionary army is to use someone else's; especially if it belongs to your enemy." -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory
I've seen an article debunking the "hack was a leak" story, but it makes no difference anyway. In my book, the leak/hack just
created a more informed electorate, and that's good for American democracy.
@Deja
The truth is contained in the emails, not in their journey. Remember who else is telling you that the contents of the emails is
less important than how they got there - the Democrats.
@Deja
hypothesis has problems. Don't get me wrong, I think it holds more promise than the 'hack' hypothesis. But right now, really,
we got shit for proof either way? Would honestly look forward to your proof either way, sans the critique of the essayist. Might
I suggest that you criticize the point, not the person, please? Questions remain.
- DNC leak vs hack remains unproven (servers not provided)
- one party consent is complicated. On the tape, there was 3rd party on speaker phone. Were they in one party consent jurisdiction
as well?
- How was CNN able to confirm that this tape was recorded in NY?
in it. This is the point that matters to me. Assange has stated that the emails didn't come from Russia. Craig Murray said
that he was involved with the person who got the information from the DNC computers and that there was no connection to Russia.
The CIAs Vault 7 shows how evidence on computers can be manipulated to make it seem like someone's dawg did the deed. I think
it'd be very sloppy for trained hackers to leave their own footprints on the scene don't you think?
Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where
he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed
Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on.
It matters profoundly. Knowing the facts surrounding critical political events or social earthquakes can be
epigenetic events. Hard truths can trigger conscious evolution while we are alive and your advanced gene expressions can be
physically inherited, changing the species.
By exercising our own critical thinking and working very hard to see through narratives to the core realities in the universe
and in all things -- we are physically evolving the species into better and more enlightened generations of humans.
In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us
that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated
copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian"
hacker. Here's how we know that:
Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was
emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the
American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter
downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred.
The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue
their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this
has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia,
which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all
other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world....
If that is what your instincts tell you, you should trust them. It's a biological imperative.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single
continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you
are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude
toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
meaning the 'Russia Ruse'--IMO, has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system
geared toward major social media 'censorship,' and, a face-saving exercise for FSC--just in case she decides to make a third
run in 2020. Heaven forbid!
Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will
be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving." ~~Author Unknown
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments
are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
"... has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system geared toward major social
media 'censorship,'
Yup. Dan Coates directory of national intelligence came out and accused Russsia of engaging in a "messaging campaign". So how
does one stop this messaging campaign. Well, back in the day, the answer was to answer bad speech with more and better speech.
Well, with Russiagate both the media and dem/gop establishment have to come to demand censorship from the major social media
platforms. And they have responded. At first they actually didn't and thought the Russia charges were trivial. Until that is,
they were theatened by House and Senate reps. And then they hopped to it.
And just a number of days ago, Facebook proudly announced they took down some nefarious pages who seemed to be engaging in
a message campaign. And turns out they shut down a real group organizing an anti-fascist rally. There are other examples like
this.
The censorship will continue becoming more and more brazen. (BTW, youtube started ths process earlier demonitizing and hurting
a lot of popular, but alternative voices.)
BTW--the Young Turks showed the Coats clip and claimed "see the Russians are still hacking our elections".
I'm truly getting concerned regarding the direction our government appears to be taking when it comes to 'freedom of expression/speech.'
Strangely, many on the 'left' don't seem very concerned. Indeed, because the MSM is so intent on going after DT, many so-called
progressives--including the supposedly more liberal (cough, cough) lawmakers--have become major cheerleaders of the corporatist
media. Go figure.
Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went." ~~Will Rogers
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments
are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
as well as every other person in Trump's administration that is working against him. This is insubordination and if Trump continues
to let them run their mouths then I believe that he is in on this scam and is playing along with it. Why? Look at what has been
happening since he became president. From the increasing Russian sanctions to the internet censorship to the increased military
budget with money that goes to fighting cyber warfare and many other things that are being done because of this new and improved
false flag.
As you stated YouTube has been removing lots of videos, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring alternative media sites that
are not playing along with Russia Gate and Google changed its algorithms so that traffic to those sites are down up to 90% according
to WSWS.
I once thought that this would eventually be exposed for the scam it is, but not any more. It's here to stay. And just like
in 1984 where there was that place where history was changed to fit the narrative of the day, we are seeing that here. Things
that happened last decade are being blamed on Russia hacking. I wouldn't be surprised if the KKK and Jim Crow were blamed on Russia.
This is how out of control it's gotten. And I was so looking forward to seeing Rachel trying to explain to her viewers how she
got things so wrong.
@snoopydawg
His erratic actions are the perfect distraction for the capitalist pigs the same as the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Communist
Fascist Socialist Radical Leftist Feminazi SJW" crap that went on during the last capitalist puppet presidency. Either way, the
world still burns and the pigs make out like bandits in the process. Keeping the plebs at each other's throats is just a bonus
for them.
@snoopydawg
Remember whom you are discussing. Alas, you must be a Russian wolfhound to think R. Madcow could ever be wrong. Apologize, then
stand in the corner until after the midterms when the GRU hauls off recalcitrant Dims and Repugnants failing to swear fealty to
Vladimir Vladimirovich.
"Russiagate is like a mirage. It looks so real from a distance you'll swear it's there and mock anyone who says otherwise,
but once you get up close and examine its component parts you find it's made of nothing but innuendo, spin, unsubstantiated claims
and dishonest omissions.
2:45 PM · Aug 3, 2018"
"
@caitoz
·
Aug 3
Nothing wrong with wanting a full investigation. There's something very, very wrong with pressuring a US president to continually
escalate dangerous cold war tensions with a nuclear superpower without ever backing down based on an "idea" with no evidence.
"
@snoopydawg
Bernie will not be able to say "Oh evil Russia but let's not go to war with them." Diplomacy itself finally became full criminalized
and made tresonous when Trump meet Putin in Finland. Any level of moderation will be attacked as soft on Putin and treasonous.
And I write "pro-war" and not "anti-Russian". One cannot be anti-Russian in any moderate way. Being anti-Russian means supporting
a harsh and aggressive military stance toward their nation. The Russians are after all destroying Western civilization and this
cannot be meant with diplomacy.
And from what I can, every national democratic candidate for House and Senate will follow suite.
For reference, these are the only 10 senators who voted AGAINST giving Trump a $717 billion war budget:
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Ed Markey
Kirsten Gillibrand
Dick Durban
Kamala Harris
Jeff Merkley
Ron Wyden
Mike Lee (R)
Marco Rubio (R)
So much for #Resistance huh?
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't
seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply
involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by
DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need
a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
"... The activities of the organization are gussied up in sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world. Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ..."
"... for inexplicable reasons, ..."
"... harshly worded ..."
"... To be sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. ..."
"... for the best of reasons ..."
"... Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. ..."
Within four weeks they bought $6.5 billion and transferred most of it to foreign banks.
[8] Most of the rest of IMF loan was a stealth bailout for western financial institutions
which had some $200 billion worth of loans and investments in Russia. The banks feared the
prospect of Russian default which would leave them with crippling losses. These risks became
even more acute in the aftermath of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis that would engulf
Russia in 1998.
In a testimony before the U.S. Congress, veteran investor Jim Rogers characterized IMF's
assistance to Russia as follows: " The activities of the organization are gussied up in
sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world.
Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P.
Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ."
[9]
In addition to loading Russia up with unproductive debt, IMF also engineered Russia's
hyperinflation and liquidity crisis. After eliminating price controls, IMF obliged Russia to
maintain the ruble as the common currency for all Soviet Union successor states, giving each of
the 15 new countries the incentive to issue ruble credits for their own benefit while fueling
inflation for all others. Sachs reported that he strenuously argued with the IMF against this
measure but " for inexplicable reasons, " he was consistently rebuked.
The result was a one-year delay in the introduction of national currencies for the former
Soviet republics, pushing Russia into hyperinflation and needlessly prolonging its economic
depression. At this same time, the IMF engineered Russia's staggering liquidity crisis that
made it almost impossible for enterprises to pay their suppliers and workers. Under IMF's
dictate, Russian economy struggled along on less than one sixth of the currency required to
operate an economy of its size.
The extent of IMF's iron-fisted control over Russian economy was exemplified in a letter
from the IMF's representative Yusuke Horaguchi to Russia's central bank chairman Sergei Dubinin
. The letter specified the precise schedule of Russia's ruble supply along with " harshly
worded " instructions regarding bank credits, the state budget, energy policy, price
levels, trade tariffs and agricultural policies. Horaguchi's letter even included a warning
that any acts of the parliament contravening the IMF mandates would be vetoed by president
Yeltsin.
[10]
It is clear that shock "therapy" was little more than a relentless, cruel strangulation of
Russia's economy to facilitate looting of her vast industrial and resource wealth .
Nonetheless, most Western-published analyses of this episode tended to treat it as failure of
good intentions. While lamenting the outcomes and certain questionable practices, most analysts
essentially attribute the failure of Russian transition to honest errors, Russia's endemic
corruption, and perhaps inexperience in many of the drama's protagonists.
Goldman Marshall
of Harvard and the Council of Foreign Relations wrote: " To be sure, there were unsettling
reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as
inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. "
Naturally, Marshall fails to detail how or where he polled these "most observers," but his
message to the readers is unmistakable: move along folks, there's nothing to see here –
especially pay no attention to the fact that many of those thousands of Westerners who came to
Russia " for the best of reasons ," including Bill Browder , Andrei Schleifer and
Jonathan Hay ,
[12] returned from Russia as multi-millionaires. Financial reporter Anne Willamson , who
covered Russia for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal rightly remarked in her
Congressional testimony that, " Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken
land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what
they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. "
[12] During his time managing the HIID's Moscow operation, Andrei Schleifer and Jonathan
Hay took advantage of their position and relationships to make personal investments in Russia.
An investigation by the FBI and U.S. Justice Department found evidence of fraud and money
laundering by Harvard's consultants. In 2004, Schleifer was found guilty of fraud and he agreed
to pay a $31 million fine to settle the case. Not only did Harvard University persist in
defending Schleifer over the 8 years of investigations and trials, it paid the bulk of
Schileifer's fine and kept him on university's faculty.
The Times dug into their relationship in 2013 after the
Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the doctor's offices, drawing scrutiny to his relationship with the
senator.
According to that article, Dr. Melgen delivered hundreds
of thousands of dollars to benefit Mr. Menendez and the Democratic Party, flying him around on a private jet
for lavish vacations and rushing to the senator's side when his mother died. After Mr. Menendez's failure to
report the trips as gifts surfaced, he later sent Dr. Melgen a check to reimburse him for the costs.
Dr. Melgen also received favors.
In 2011, he bought a stake in a company that had a
long-dormant contract with the Dominican Republic to provide port security. Mr. Menendez used his influence
to urge officials in the State and Commerce Departments to intervene so the contract would be enforced, at
an estimated value of $500 million.
The Times also reported at the time that Floridians
looking for federal appointments requiring Mr. Menendez's approval needed to first get Dr. Melgen's backing.
Dr. Melgen faced scrutiny again last year when The Times
reported that he had received $21 million in Medicare reimbursements in 2012 alone.
According to the article
: "Mr. Menendez's aides acknowledged that the senator called the Medicare
director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2009 and brought it up at a meeting with the
acting administrator in 2012. Now both Dr. Melgen and Mr. Menendez find themselves under federal scrutiny."
Dr. Melgen and Mr. Menendez became friends in the 1990s,
when Mr. Menendez, who entered the House of Representatives in 1993, made regular visits to the Dominican
Republic.
Asked about the relationship in 2013, Mr. Menendez's
office said in a statement: "Dr. Melgen has been a friend and political supporter of Senator Menendez for
many years."
The expected charges against Mr. Menendez were first
reported by CNN.
Senator Robert Menendez has been helpful to Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, a
friend and contributor, in ways that could be lucrative for the doctor, according to records and
interviews.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov will meet U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a
proponent of encouraging diplomacy with Russia amid tense relations, in Moscow on Aug. 6, the
senator's office said on Thursday.
"Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of diplomacy and is supporting President Donald J.
Trump in engaging around the world. He looks forward to his meetings," Paul's office said in a
statement on Thursday. No further information was available about the trip, including who else
might be in the delegation.
####
Bill intends to sanction Russian 'oligarchs,' restrict energy projects
The Russian Ruble dropped Thursday to a near-term low after bipartisan US senators
announced what they are calling a "bill from hell" round of new sanctions and restrictions
targeting the Russian economy and leadership.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the leading proponents of the bill, said the massive
present US sanctions against Russia have failed, saying that all of these new sanctions are
needed to "punish" Russia.
As currently envisioned, the sanctions target a number of top Russian politicians and
"oligarchs." The bill also aims to severely restrict Russia's ability to raise sovereign debt,
and to restrict their ability to seek investment in energy projects.
There is no timeline for a vote on the bill yet, but reportedly some senators are also
lining up to offer amendments adding yet more sanctions or other measures against Russia. This
could go on for quite awhile, with almost the whole Senate looking to one-up each other on
being anti-Russia these days, and could mean an actual vote won't happen.
####
It looks to me that with the mid-terms coming up and showing diplomacy with Russia not
taking a hit with Republican voters, this further push by Rand Paul looks to make the Dems look
and sound even more extreme, maybe drawing disgusted voters to the Republican camp..
This is just America pretending to itself that it controls the global economy and that it can
strangle any country economically at a time of its choosing – I am frankly surprised to
see them continually trying harder when their efforts to date have had such negligible
success. I suppose the Senate needs something to do to make itself look busy and necessary.
But all this will achieve is further cementing of America as an enemy of Russia in the eyes
of ordinary Russians – should a future US government decide that was a mistake, and
soft power is the way to go, it will not be able to make any progress for around 50 years,
and a great deal of hard work and careful relationship-building has been thrown away.
American businesses must be finding it increasingly difficult to continue operations in
Russia, and Asian companies must be acing them out for market
share . Altogether a continuing exercise in stupidity and willful blindness – if
America wants to destroy Russia, it is eventually going to have to take it on in a head-on
military confrontation. Because its efforts to destroy it economically are failing and will
continue to fail. Not to mention that they are building sympathy around the world –
outside North America – for Russia. America has to understand that while it is enjoying
playing "I'm crushing Russia", it has consequences and it will not be able to make things up
for a generation.
I'm not quite sure what Paul thinks he might achieve with this, but he certainly is not
going to make any friends in Russia, and he certainly is not going to have any leverage to
make changes in American policy so long as the Russophobic majority has the bit in its teeth.
He's basically just wasting the taxpayers' money on a junket to Moscow. Alternatively, he
might be going to measure Russian desperation, to see if there is any possibility the country
can be brought to its knees without having to fight it.
In February, the Pentagon announced
a $950 million no-bid contract to REAN Cloud, LLC for the migration of legacy systems to the
cloud. As an Amazon Web Services consulting partner and reseller, REAN Cloud was likely favored
due to Amazon's recent $600 million cloud project for the Central Intelligence Agency. Creating
an unusually large contract with little oversight or competition led to ample criticism of the
Pentagon, as lawmakers demanded an explanation from DoD. In response to the brouhaha, the
Pentagon announced in early March that the maximum value of the contract would be
reduced from $950 million to $65 million.
As it turned out, though, even the Pentagon wasn't exactly sure how to apply the murky
requirements of OTA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled in May that the REAN contract did not
accord with federal law, in that REAN was granted an award without even really considering
going through a competitive bidding process. "Vague and attenuated" statements from the
Pentagon to potential bidders in the beginning of the process ensured that the process would
not be an open one. After the cancellation of the REAN deal, the Pentagon finally seems open to
competitive bidding for cloud migration.
Unfortunately, OTA is still alive and well across the DoD procurement process. In June, the
Defense Information Systems Agency
joined the growing list of agencies dabbling in OTA, noting that "many of the companies
we're dealing with are small start-ups." But as the REAN Cloud case shows, many companies
appear "small" but have far larger partners. According to statistics in the
Federal News Radio report , "Only $7.4 billion of the nearly $21 billion went to
nontraditional companies." The problem is created in part by the use of consortiums, which are
comprised of multiple companies, which vary in size. The consortium can decide how money is
allocated for an award, allowing larger businesses to benefit disproportionately out of sight
of the DoD and taxpayers.
Congress has finally started to demand more accountability for OTAs. The 2019 National
Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress requires more data
reporting and analysis by acquisition officials. But far more work remains.
Lawmakers should set stricter limits on when it's okay to eschew competitive bidding, and
lower the threshold for requiring congressional notification (currently set at $500 million).
Allowing tens of billions of dollars to be spent behind the backs of taxpayers without a
bidding process cannot continue.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Perhaps the defining trait of neoconservatives like Max Boot is that they –
for whatever reason – feel free to opine on subjects about which they know little, if
anything.
Having no knowledge of history, cheap polemicists like Boot resort to ad
hominem attacks when confronted by serious scholars like Cohen while cable news anchors
sit by and scoff.
Max Book demonstrates typical neocon Chutzpah (Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan) and attacks like rabid
dog. Intelligcully he is nto equl to Cohen.
Q: What's the difference between a rabid dot and Max Boot? A: You think there is difference
The jury selection comes more than two years after Mr. Menendez was
indicted on eight bribery counts , the result of a federal investigation into Mr.
Menendez's relationship and dealings with Dr. Melgen.
Mr. Menendez is charged with receiving luxury hotel rooms, flights on Mr. Melgen's private
jet and donations to a Democratic super PAC in exchange for political advocacy, lobbying and
favors, such as intervening to help obtain visas for Mr. Melgen's college-age girlfriends from
Brazil, Ukraine and the Dominican Republic.
Mr. Menendez is also accused of lobbying the Obama administration to change the Medicare
reimbursement policy, which would have brought a financial windfall for Mr. Melgen.
NEWARK -- The federal corruption trial of Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey ended in a mistrial on Thursday after jurors said
they were unable to reach a verdict, leaving Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, free to return to Congress but injecting uncertainty as he
faces re-election next year and his party faces a difficult battle to retake the Senate.
After interviewing jurors individually in his chambers, Judge William H. Walls emerged to tell the court that, after nine weeks
of testimony, the jury was deadlocked and that, as a result, "there is no alternative but to declare a mistrial."
One juror told reporters that 10 of the 12 jurors supported finding Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, not guilty, saying that prosecutors
had not made the case that the favors and gifts exchanged between the senator and a wealthy eye doctor went beyond what good friends
do for each other.
Following the ruling, Mr. Menendez seemed both relieved and defiant, denouncing prosecutors who pursued criminal charges against
him. "The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way
it was tried was wrong as well," he said.
How Sen. Bob Menendez's corruption case could change the way members of Congress do business - The Washington Post
In April 2015, federal prosecutors
dropped a bomb
on one of Senate Democrats' leading foreign policy voices. They accused Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
of doling out political favors for one of his longtime friends in exchange for luxurious trips, lavish gifts and
campaign cash.
Menendez, who was reelected to his second full term in 2012 and was the top Democrat on the Senate
Foreign Relations committee at the time, has pleaded not guilty and said he has done nothing wrong.
His lawyers have spent the past year battling the FBI and Justice Department over whether federal prosecutors can
actually investigate Menendez in the first place -- a debate centered on a centuries-old constitutional clause that
has the potential to redefine how the executive branch can look into the legislative branch. On Monday, Menendez's
lawyers are asking a federal three-judge panel in Philadelphia to throw out some or all of the dozen or so bribery
and corruption charges facing Menendez on the basis of a 1780s constitutional clause that they argue prevents
scrutiny of lawmakers' official legislative activities.
What the judges decide later this year could have major ripple effects for how secure -- or not -- members of
Congress feel in their day-to-day jobs from federal prosecution. Adding to the drama: The whole case has the
potential to reach the Supreme Court. Here's what you need to know about this latest turn in a complicated corruption
case, in three questions:
Remind me again of the case's details?
Sen. Menendez indicted on corruption charges
Skip
(Reuters)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on Wednesday on federal corruption charges.
(Reuters)
This past spring, Menendez became just
one of 12 U.S. senators indicted
while in office. Proving corruption is a high bar in the U.S judicial system. In
Menendez's case, prosecutors are trying to prove that Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye doctor, specifically
received political favors from Menendez in exchange for giving Menendez something.
They are trying to show that Menendez intervened on behalf of Melgen twice -- once to try to solve his friend's
Medicare billings problem with the government and another trying to grease the wheels for Melgen's port cargo
contract in the Dominican Republic. In exchange, prosecutors argue, Menendez accepted a series of trips and gifts
over the years from his friend, including free private-jet flights, stays at resorts in Paris, trips to the Dominican
Republic and more than $750,000 in campaign contributions.
"No ordinary constituent from New Jersey received the same treatment," the Justice Department said in an August
filing. (In a sign of just how tough it is to prove bribery charges, in September, a federal judge
threw
out four bribery charges
, saying Melgen's contributions to Menendez's legal defense fund didn't contain any
explicit agreement of quid pro quo.)
Menendez has said his friend's trips and gifts were a natural result of his friendship and that he never
inappropriately intervened on behalf of his friend. In what's become a nasty back and forth, lawyers have accused
prosecutors of trying to dig up dirt on him -- even his sex life. The investigation started after an anonymous tipster
told the FBI and media outlets that Menendez was patronizing underage prostitutes in one of his trips to the
Dominican Republic. Those allegations appear to be fabricated, wrote
The Post's Carol Leonnig in August
, but they've given the defense leverage with which to argue that the Justice
Department will "stop at nothing" to try to put Menendez behind bars.
So what's going on Monday?
Menendez in March 2015: 'I'm not going anywhere'
Skip
(Reuters)
During a news conference, March 6, 2015, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he had no
intention of resigning during the trial phase of the corruption investigation against him. (Reuters)
Three federal appellate court judges will be hearing arguments from both sides about something much broader than
the two friends' alleged quid pro quo. The judges will be considering whether the executive branch, in the form of
the Justice Department, overstepped its constitutional bounds by investigating and charging Menendez in the first
place.
Menendez's lawyers are arguing that the senator was doing official legislative business in advancing his
constituent's interests in Washington, and the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause prevents lawmakers'
legislative acts from being scrutinized by the other two branches of government -- except for "Treason, Felony and
Breach of Peace." Menendez was engaged in none of that, they say, and they're asking the judges to throw out at least
some of the dozen or so counts of bribery and corruption on the claim that federal prosecutors unconstitutionally
investigated Menendez.
Federal prosecutors argue that the "speech or debate" clause doesn't apply if lawmakers are trying to influence
the other branches of government, and they say they can prove in court that Menendez was trying to do just that.
What the judges decide later this year could go to trial, possibly right around the time of the November
presidential elections. Depending on how the judges rule later this year, the case and its applications to the
"speech or debate" clause could also end up at the Supreme Court.
What happens next?
That's an open-ended question. Over the years, courts have expanded the protections lawmakers have from
investigation to go beyond what they say or do on the House or Senate floor,
reports
the Associated Press's David Porter
. But Lee Vartan, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, told Porter
that a case as specific as this is "uncharted territory."
And that's what makes this case and its potential legal ramifications so appealing to analyze. It is a
high-profile case litigating a not-widely-known constitutional clause. What the judges decide could set the precedent
for how protected -- or not -- lawmakers feel they are from investigation in the future.
The Supreme Court has rejected Sen. Bob Menendez's attempt to throw out the bribery and corruption charges against him, setting
the stage for a trial for the New Jersey Democrat this fall.
With Monday's announcement, Menendez can no longer block the proceedings against him from moving forward, a major setback for
his efforts to avoid criminal trial.
Abbe Lowell, Menendez's lead defense attorney, said the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal was "disappointing," but
still said Menendez will be "vindicated when all the facts are heard at trial."
"It's disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to set a clear, bright line of the separation of powers
to ensure that Congress remains an independent and co-equal branch of government, free of interference and retribution from the executive
as the Framers intended," Lowell said in a statement. "While the senator always understood it is rare that the Supreme Court hears
any case before trial, given the gravity of the Constitutional issues raised, he believed it was important to try."
Lowell added: "As the senator has been saying for more than four years since the government began chasing these wild allegations,
he has always acted in accordance with the law. Sen. Menendez remains confident that he will be vindicated when all the facts are
heard at trial." Menendez's defense team had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in December, seeking a hearing on its argument
that the Justice Department violated the senator's constitutional privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers
and aides from legal action for legitimate legislative activities. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Menendez.
After a long-running criminal probe, Menendez was indicted by the Justice Department in April 2015 on 14 felony counts related
to favors allegedly done in exchange for gifts and political contributions made by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime friend and campaign
donor.
Federal prosecutors claim Menendez or his staff intervened with federal agencies on Melgen's behalf to resolve a multi-million
dollar billing dispute over Medicare charges, to maintain a $500 million port security contract with the Dominican Republic and to
obtain U.S. visas for Melgen's girlfriends. Melgen has also been indicted in this matter.
Menendez pled not guilty in the case and has argued that his actions were routine constituent services or did not directly involve
Melgen. Menendez's attorneys have also argued that the New Jersey Democrat never mentioned Melgen's name during an August 2012 meeting
with then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Marilyn Tavenner, then the acting head of the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.
Sebelius and Tavenner were summoned to Capitol Hill for a private meeting with Menendez in the office of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.),
who at that time was the Senate majority leader. According to Sebelius, the topic of the meeting was a dispute between CMS and Melgen.
CMS claimed Melgen had overbilled the government for millions of dollars, which Melgen fought.
A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell,
ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a "boundless" definition of the kinds of acts that could lead
politicians to face criminal charges.
The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases
against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or
gift to a contract, grant or vote.
Story Continued Below
The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the government's position that simply
agreeing to meet with someone on account of such largesse could be enough to constitute an official act that
could trigger a corruption conviction.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with
tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the
Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute," Roberts wrote. "A more limited
interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with
the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."
The justices set forth a straightforward rule: "Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or
hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an 'official act.'"
In addition, the chief justice warned that accepting the government's stance in the case could chill all
sorts of routine interactions between politicians and their supporters.
"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf,
and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that
public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns -- whether it is the
union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore
power to their neighborhood after a storm," Roberts wrote.
"The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union
had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their
annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace
requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic
discourse," the chief justice added.
A jury convicted McDonnell on 11 corruption-related felony counts in 2014, including "honest services"
fraud, extortion and conspiracy.
The trial triggered public outrage as evidence showed the Virginia Republican and his wife accepted over
$175,000-worth of loans and gifts, such as vacations, designer clothes and a Rolex watch, from a businessman
seeking the state's help in promoting a tobacco-based dietary supplement. McDonnell also borrowed a Ferrari
from the businessman, Johnnie Williams, who turned state's evidence and was not prosecuted.
In the court's opinion, Roberts seemed eager to head off criticism that the justices were blessing
politicians' brazen attempts to improve their own financial condition through use of their official positions.
However, the chief justice emphasized that there were also risks in allowing prosecutors to decide for
themselves what kinds of conduct crossed the line.
"None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction
between public officials and their constituents. Far from it. But the Government's legal interpretation is not
confined to cases involving extravagant gifts or large sums of money and we cannot construe a criminal statute
on the assumption that the Government will 'use it responsibly,'" Roberts wrote.
McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison, but never began serving the time after the Supreme Court put
his sentence on hold last year.
In a statement, McDonnell thanked his legal team and repeatedly invoked his religious faith.
"From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not,
betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," the former
governor said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild
our lives."
In an interview Monday, a lawyer for McDonnell hailed the court's unanimous decision as a blunt rebuke of
the prosecution.
"The court squarely rejected the entire theory this prosecution was based on from the beginning and embraced
the theory we've been articulating literally from day one on this case," said Noel Francisco, the attorney who
argued for McDonnell at the Supreme court. "We think it's a vindication for the governor."
McDonnell's wife, Maureen, was also convicted for conspiracy by the same jury and sentenced to a year and a
day in prison. She was free pending appeal. Her attorney, William Burck, expressed confidence Monday that her
conviction will also be overturned.
"This decision applies no less to our client Maureen McDonnell and requires that her conviction immediately
be tossed out as well, which we are confident the prosecutors must agree with," Burck said in a statement.
"Mrs. McDonnell, like her husband, was wrongfully convicted. We thank the Supreme Court for unanimously
bringing justice back into the picture for the McDonnells."
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, whose office prosecuted the McDonnells,
issued a terse statement about the high court's ruling.
"The U.S. Attorney's Office is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision in the
McDonnell
matter and
does not have any further comment at this time," Boente said.
Despite the public outcry over the McDonnells' actions, his challenge to his convictions received a
groundswell of support from public officials, ex-prosecutors and former legal advisers to presidents of both
major parties.
In a series of amicus briefs filed with the high court, the former officials warned that giving
anti-corruption laws the sweeping breadth urged by the Justice Department would have dramatically constrained
the normal operation of government.
The Supreme Court noted those briefs in its opinion Monday -- the final one delivered before the typical summer
break. The ruling also allowed the shorthanded court, through the voice of its chief, to emphasize agreement at
the end of a term where the justice deadlocked in a series of cases.
Events in Ukraine after EuroMaidan are notoriously difficult to understand.
The book is fairly recent and as such might be a useful introduction for a Western reader who
is interested in Ukrainian event, but the material should be taken with a grain of salt. The
author is way too simplistic and his views on geopolitical problems are incorrect. The idea that
" Putin's Munich speech as a declaration of war" is nonsense. Also most of the readers probably
know State Department talking points and can recognize them in the text.
. In some areas the author is clearly incompetent as the quote "In 2016, France blocked
24,000 cyber attacks targeting its military. Ukraine experienced 24, 000 cyber attacks in only
the last two months of 2016" suggests.
The author views of Russia are typical of the US-based Ukrainian diaspora. As it is pretty
much radicalized, it can be argued that it brings to Ukraine more harm then good. In short his
views on Russia can be defined as cocktail of a 40% proof Russophobia with pure Neoconservatism.
So while author analysis of "Post-Maydan" Ukrainian elite has its value, his view on Russia
should probably be discarded.
For those who also bough McFaul book it is interesting to see correlation in views as well as
differences (especially McFaul laments from page 429 to the end of the book) . McFaul was the
co-architect of the 2011-2012 color revolution in Russia; and as an Ambassador became ostracized
by Russian and later removed by Obama. For his role in "White color revolution of 2012" McFaul
was put on the travel ban list by Russians and is not allowed to travel to the country. Both
represent neoconservative stance on the events, but there are some subtle and rather interesting
differences ;-)
Some Amazon reviews as one reproduced below are actually as valuable as the book itself and
can serve as a valuable addition.
This is a large book, embracing a vast amount of research. Conclusion is that
accommodation with Putin will be very difficult.
This is a large book, embracing a vast amount of research. Kuzio provides the conclusion
to the book as the conclusion to his introduction. It is somber, but realistic:
"There cannot be a conclusion to the book because the Donbas is an unresolved conflict
that is on-going. There will be no closure of the Ukraine-Russia crisis as long as Putin is
Russian president which will be as long as he remains alive. To fully implement the Minsk-2
Accords would mean jettisoning the DNR-LNR which Putin will not do and therefore, a political
resolution to the Donbas conflict is difficult to envisage."
Having lived in Kyiv for ten years, I was witness to the latter chapters of the drama that
Kuzio describes. His account jibes with what I witnessed, and provides a coherent explanation
of the events as they unfolded. The animus against Yanukovych was universal. His blatant
theft was visible to all. Every merchant I dealt with lived in fear of his tax police. We
saw, or more often read accounts about, the depredations of the titushki on a daily
basis.
One of my key questions in 2014 was whether it might have been better to endure Yanukovych
for another couple of years, until the elections. The Ukrainian people answered for me --
they had had enough. It wasn't exactly a coup, because the opposition was not well organized
and because Yanukovych fled before he could be overthrown. But the will of the people was
clear. He had to go. Kuzio makes a strong case that if it had not happened then, Yanukovych
might have had time to secure his dictatorship in such a way that he could not be dislodged
through democratic means.
Kuzio provides the most thorough and accurate description of the language situation I have
ever read. A fact he often repeats is that a majority of the soldiers fighting against the
Russians are themselves Russian speakers. Putin's claim that he is protecting a persecuted
linguistic minority is absolute nonsense. Kuzio makes the very useful analogy between the use
of English in Ireland and that of Russian in Ukraine. It is a matter of history and
convenience.
Ukrainian is not a dialect of Russian. They are very distinct languages. Speaking Spanish,
I was able to learn Portuguese quite easily. Speaking Russian has not enabled me to master
Ukrainian. They have different alphabets and even different grammars. As a resident of Kyiv
for 10 years I have not been forced to, and almost not been in a position to speak Ukrainian.
Everybody I interact with is exactly as Kuzio describes – ardently Ukrainian, but
nevertheless Russian speaking.
A question Kuzio does not raise is the utility of a language. For better or worse, Russian
is a world language. There is a significant body of scientific literature, fiction and poetry
written in Russian. It is, or was until recently, the lingua franca of the former USSR.
A lot of information about Kuzio himself is packed in the brief lead into his chapter
entitled Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism: "Ukraine is in the hands of homosexuals and Jewish
oligarchs. Aleksandr Dugin"
Russian philosopher Dugin is one of Kuzio's major bête noire's. Kuzio's book makes
it clear that Dugin is as much of an activist as he is a philosopher. Dugin seems to have a
hand in most things anti-Ukrainian. As a philosopher he is nothing – his book
The Fourth Political Theory is the subject of the most savage pan I have ever written.
Nonetheless, he is taken seriously by the resurgent Russian nationalists and Putin
himself.
Dugin's claim that Ukraine is in the hands of homosexuals is absurd. Homosexuals are
tolerated here, but they are discrete. Most Ukrainians, though they have no love whatsoever
for Russia, are largely in sympathy with Russia's stand against the flaunting of
homosexuality. The college-educated twentysomethings whom I know seem unaware that they even
know homosexuals, though it appears to this San Franciscan that some people in our circles
must be gay.
The claim that Ukraine is in the hand of Jewish oligarchs is quite another matter. Kuzio
gives quite rational explanations for anti-Ukrainian, anti-Belarusian and anti-Russian
sentiment, a great deal of which he manifests himself. He somehow looks at anti-Semitism as a
phenomenon that is beyond explanation. I would contend that it should be regarded just as the
other anti- concepts. Especially in the former USSR, where the Jews were regarded as a
separate people in the same way as Ukrainians.
He writes about the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Fraud or hoax might be a
better word. Internet sources name the author as a certain Russian Professor S. Nilus writing
in 1901. The attractiveness of the fraud is that it coincides quite neatly with widely held
opinions about the Jews, many of which have some substance.
Going to substance, Kuzio mentions some of the major Jewish oligarchs, Kolomoisky and
Taruta, and some of the Jewish participants and Ukrainian politics: Yatsenyuk and Groisman.
He discounts the notion that President Poroshenko's father, born Valtzman, was Jewish. I had
never heard this account questioned. Other prominent Jews in Ukrainian politics/oligarchy who
come immediately to mind include Feldman and Rabinowitz. It is not that there is anything
wrong with Jews occupying dominant positions, but "simple Ivan" is not so stupid as to fail
to notice them. It is also widely perceived that the Jewish oligarchs are no better or worse
than the others, in that they put their personal interests ahead of that of the people who
elected them. Poroshenko has been a major disappointment. Kuzio writes of Kolomoisky's
support of the volunteer battalions in Donbas. True – but it was totally in line with
his business interests.
The fact that six of the seven billionaires to emerge after the collapse of the USSR were
Jewish belies Kuzio's claims that they were radically disadvantaged in the USSR. More
balanced accounts of Soviet Judaism have been written by Robert
Wistrich ,
Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Yuri
Slezkine .
Even a paranoid has enemies. American Jewish neocons, especially Victoria Nuland and
husband Robert Kagan, actively involved in Ukrainian politics, were strongly anti-Russian.
Though Kuzio is absolutely correct that the animus of the Ukrainian people for Yanukovych was
more than enough to power the Maidan uprising, it is also probably true that the CIA was
covertly abetting the protesters.
Kuzio's history of the Donbas and Crimea provides a very useful background to the
conflict. After the Welsh engineer John Hughes discovered coal around Donetsk in the 1880s
there was a rush to exploit it. The sparse population of Ukrainian farmers was not interested
in working the mines. The Russians brought in men from all over the Empire. A large number
were criminals who earned early release by promising to work there. Others were simply
soldiers of fortune.
Mining is dirty, dangerous and very masculine work. Kuzio reports that the history of the
Donbas always mirrored the miners themselves. Politically, it sat in the middle between the
Russians and the Ukrainians, respecting neither very much and casting its lot with whoever
appeared at the moment to be most generous to them, more often Moscow than Kyiv.
Kuzio relates that Lenin included the Donbas within the Ukrainian SSR as a built-in fifth
column, as a lever to control all of Ukraine. It remained after independence in 1991. The
Donbas' unique culture and clannishness protected its politicians from probing inquiries into
their dark pasts, such as Yanukovych' two prison terms. They would overlook his depredations
and send him to Kyiv with the idea that "he's a crook, but he's our crook."
Crimea's history is even more convoluted, but the bottom line is that it has always been
Russian speaking and did not identify greatly with Ukraine.
Kuzio reports, seemingly approvingly, that fellow author Alexander Motyl believes that
Ukraine would be better off without these insubordinate, intransigent ingrates.
In the end, Kuzio sums the origins of the crisis up very well, "The roots of the
Ukraine-Russia crisis do not lie in EU and NATO enlargement and democracy promotion, as
left-wing scholars and realists would have us believe, but in two factors. The first is
Russia's and specifically Putin's unwillingness to accept Ukrainians are a separate people
and Ukraine is an independent state with a sovereign right to determine its geopolitical
alliances. The second is Yanukovych and the Donetsk clan's penchant for the monopolization of
power, state capture, corporate raiding of the state and willingness to accommodate
practically every demand made by Moscow that culminated in treason on a grand scale. This was
coupled with a shift to Sovietophile and Ukrainophobic nationality policies and return to
Soviet style treatment of political opponents. Taken together, these policies made popular
protests inevitable in the 2015 elections but they came a year earlier after Yanukovych bowed
to Russian pressure to back away from the EU Association Agreement. These protests, in turn,
became violent and nationalistic in response to the Party of Regions and KPU's destruction of
Ukraine's democracy through the passing of draconian legislation, the president's refusal to
compromise and his use of vigilantes and police spetsnaz for political repression, torture,
and murders of protestors."
The question facing Ukraine at the moment is how to resolve the war in Donbas and how to
prevent Russia from making further incursions. Kuzio shares some very useful insights in this
regard.
Even in 2014, Russia simply did not have the resources to conquer Ukraine even if it had
had the desire. Kuzio repeatedly makes the point that the Russian doctrine of hybrid war
depends on a sympathetic or at least indifferent local populace. Even in the Donbass the
Russians have not been welcomed by a majority.
Time and again, Putin proves himself too smart by half. In his desire to maintain
deniability, he employed Chechens, Don Cossacks and "political tourists," thugs from all over
Russia to infiltrate the Donbass as separatists. Criminals are simply not suited for either
civil administration or organized warfare. After three months it was clear to Putin that he
had to use Russian troops and administrators, pushing the separatists aside. Not mentioned in
the book is the fact that a great many of the separatist leaders died mysteriously. Although
Russia attempted to frame Ukraine for "Motorola's" death, it appears to have been done by
Russian agents. Russia's trecherous duplicity neither won the war for them no fooled anybody
for very long.
Russia has thus had several handicaps in capturing and holding even the small, Russophone
and previously Russophile enclaves in Lugansk and Donetsk. The LPR and DPR would not survive
without ongoing Russian support. They have not won the hearts and minds of the people.
This calls to mind Custine's
Penguin Classics Letters From Russia on the fact that Russian duplicity and deceit made
it impossible for them ever to subvert the West. Alexandr Zinoviev summed it up exquisitely
in his satirical Homo
Sovieticus :
"Even though the West seems chaotic, frivolous and defenseless, all the same Moscow will
never achieve worldwide supremacy. Moscow can defend itself against any opponent. Moscow can
deliver a knockout blow on the west. Moscow has the wherewithal to mess up the whole planet.
But it has no chance of becoming the ruler of the world. To rule the world one must have at
one's disposal a sufficiently great nation. That nation must feel itself to be a nation of
rulers. And when it comes to it, one that can rule in reality. In the Soviet Union the
Russians are the only people who might be suited to that role. They are the foundation and
the bulwark of the Empire. But they don't possess the qualities of a ruling nation. And in
the Soviet empire their situation is more like that of being a colony for all the other
peoples in it."
This is the bottom line, something for the warmongers in Washington to keep in mind.
Ukraine and NATO cannot defeat Russia on its own doorstep, but Russia can certainly defeat
itself. For NATO to arm Ukraine, as the west did Georgia, or continue to crowd it as they are
doing in the Baltics, is counterproductive. It would be quite possible, but also quite stupid
for Russia to roll over its neighbors. The adventure in Ukraine has already been expensive,
and holding Crimea and Donbas will only become more so. Conversely, for the west to arm
countries against the Russians, as the US did in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Nicaragua, proved
quite deadly for these supposed friends. Ukraine and the west should wait Putin out just as
they waited out the USSR.
I have a couple of quibbles with the book. Kuzio uses the word "Fascist" to characterize
various Russian nationalist groups that support Putin and attack Ukrainians. Fascism died
with Hitler, 72 years ago. There should be a better term. This is especially true as Putin
terms Ukrainians as "Fascists." The word is inappropriate, old and clichéd.
Kuzio goes on to paint the rising nationalist movements in Europe as Fascist, or extreme
right wing. He excoriates Marine le Pen for taking Putin's money. There is a strong case to
be made that anti-democrats, supported by mainstream parties, have seized the European
Parliament and strongly suppressed free speech, open debate and the ability of such
nationalists to find funding. Their national banks are prejudicially closed to Farage,
Wilders, Orban, le Pen and the others. Kuzio should be more accommodating to the
nationalists. Ukraine may soon find itself forced to work with them. Moreover, they have many
good points. Generation
Identity provides a succinct summary. It is a book of the millennial generation, the
nationalists' strongest base, outlining their case against their elders, the boomers.
Ukraine is a conservative country. It is not wise to push the west's liberal agendas with
regard to immigration, homosexuality, feminism and civil rights for the Roma and at the same
time steel Ukraine for its fight against Russia. Even joining the battle against corruption
smells of hypocrisy, as evidence of political corruption emerges all over the west. It is
better to recognize the simple facts, as Kuzio does, and have a bit of faith. Ukraine managed
against stiffer odds in 2014. It will survive.
"... In May it was revealed that AT&T paid Cohen up to $600,000 for his "insights" - asking him to specifically look into the proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner Inc. He also took money from Swiss healthcare giant Novartis, Korea Aerospace Industries and Russian businessman Victor Vekselberg. In total, Cohen has been paid a total of $1.8 million since Trump took office for his "insights," according to the companies, which would have been better off tossing their money in a fireplace. ..."
"... In other words, Cohen - who Trump has severed ties with, was either a terrible unregistered lobbyist or ran a bait and switch operation. ..."
"... Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the probe ..."
"... Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud surrounding, among other deals, Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. - WSJ ..."
Right before the feds raided former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in early April, a top Trump
donor offered to pay Cohen $10 million plus a retainer fee in exchange for help securing
funding for a nuclear-power project - including a $5 billion loan from the US Government,
claims the
Wall Street Journal , citing people familiar with the matter.
Under the contract, Mr. Haney agreed to pay Mr. Cohen a monthly retainer in addition to
the $10 million success fee if he could help obtain the funding, including approval of the
full amount of the project's application under a U.S. Department of Energy loan program, the
people familiar with the deal said. -
WSJ
Before we get too far down the rabbit hole, it should be noted that Cohen never actually
entered into the deal according to the donor's attorney, while application with the Department
of Energy (DOE) is still pending. The Journal also provides no evidence of the contract, only
anonymous sources, and there is also no suggestion that President Trump knew about the alleged
offer from the donor - who contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, yet primarily
backed Democrats before the Cohen arrangement.
The donor, Franklin L. Haney , gave the contract to Trump attorney Michael Cohen in early
April to assist his efforts to complete a pair of unfinished nuclear reactors in Alabama,
known as the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, these people said.
Had he been paid the success fee, Mr. Cohen's deal with Mr. Haney could have been among
the most lucrative of the known consulting agreements he secured after Mr. Trump's election
by emphasizing his personal relationship with the president, according to people familiar
with his pitches. -
WSJ
According to the DOE, Cohen hasn't communicated with Energy Secretary Rick Perry about the
project, however he did make "several calls to officials at the Energy Department in the
spring" to inquire about the process for securing the loan - including what could be done to
speed it up, according to the Journal.
Had Cohen accepted the deal, it would mark yet another corporate interest which lined his
pockets, yet received nothing in return.
In
May it was revealed that AT&T paid Cohen up to $600,000 for his "insights" - asking him
to specifically look into the proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner Inc. He also took
money from Swiss healthcare giant Novartis, Korea Aerospace Industries and Russian businessman
Victor Vekselberg. In total, Cohen has been paid a total of $1.8 million since Trump took
office for his "insights," according to the companies, which would have been better off tossing
their money in a fireplace.
In other words, Cohen - who Trump has severed ties with, was either a terrible unregistered
lobbyist or ran a bait and switch operation.
Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen
engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate
clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the
probe.
Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud
surrounding, among other deals,
Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star
called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr.
Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took
place. -
WSJ
"Neither Mr. Haney nor Nuclear Development LLC ever entered into a contract with Michael
Cohen or his affiliate for lobbying services related to the Bellefonte project," said Haney's
attorney, Larry Blust, referring to the name of the Company Haney is using for the project.
Haney's company, Nuclear Development, agreed to pay $111 million in a November 2016 contract
to purchase the unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Plant from the Tennessee Valley Authority. He has
until this November to close on the deal.
One month after the November agreement, Haney donated $1 million to the Trump inaugural fund
via a corporate entity, according to FEC records. He had previously backed Democrats. As part
of their arrangement - perhaps to take him for a test drive, Cohen reportedly participated in
an April 5 meeting in Miami with Haney to pitch his project to the vice chairman of the Qatar
Investment Authority, Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim bin Mohammed al-Thani, the Journal
reported in May , citing yet more anonymous people familiar with the matter.
The meeting took place near Miami Beach, where a Qatari delegation had come to promote
business ties with the U.S. Mr. Cohen spent a night on Mr. Haney's yacht during the trip, one
of those people has said.
There is no indication that the Qataris have decided to invest with Mr. Haney. A Qatar
spokesman in Washington has confirmed the meeting. A representative of the Qatari
sovereign-wealth fund didn't respond to a request for comment. -
WSJ
A professor of government at American University, James Thuber, told the WSJ that such fees
are "outside the ethical norms" among Washington lobbyists are frowned upon.
Century-old court rulings deemed fees contingent on lobbyists obtaining public funds or
killing legislation unenforceable and counter to public policy, saying they encouraged
corruption, he said. Several lobbyists contacted by the Journal said $10 million was an
unheard-of sum to pay a consultant for government-related work. -
WSJ
That said, there is no blanket federal ban on success fees for Washington lobbyists, while
Cohen has never worked for the Trump administration - something former chief strategist Steve
Bannon ensured early on in the campaign.
Following the money...
Meanwhile, five Republican Congressmen urged the Trump administration in a May 14
letter to finish reviewing Nuclear Development's loan application , describing the project
as an "engine for economic development."
According to the Journal , the DOE's Loan Programs Office COO Dong Kim wrote back saying
that the agency would address the application "as quickly as possible, while still performing
the necessary due diligence to protect taxpayer interests."
The most veteran member of a
deeply corrupt Baltimore police unit has been sentenced to 18 years in federal
prison.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake handed down the punishment
Friday to former Gun Trace Task Force member Daniel Hersl. The 48-year-old
ex-detective was the oldest member of the disbanded unit and the sixth to get
sentenced.
Wearing a red jail jumpsuit, Hersl shrugged in resignation as he was led
out of the courtroom in front of a gallery holding about a dozen relatives.
Federal prosecutor Leo Wise said Hersl "abused his power" as a city law
enforcer for years.
A jury had found the disgraced officer guilty of racketeering and robbery
earlier this year.
Hersl sought a new trial early Friday, but Blake rejected the request.
A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell,
ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a "boundless" definition of the kinds of acts that could lead
politicians to face criminal charges.
The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases
against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or
gift to a contract, grant or vote.
Story Continued Below
The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the government's position that simply
agreeing to meet with someone on account of such largesse could be enough to constitute an official act that
could trigger a corruption conviction.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with
tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the
Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute," Roberts wrote. "A more limited
interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with
the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."
The justices set forth a straightforward rule: "Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or
hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an 'official act.'"
In addition, the chief justice warned that accepting the government's stance in the case could chill all
sorts of routine interactions between politicians and their supporters.
"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf,
and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that
public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns -- whether it is the
union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore
power to their neighborhood after a storm," Roberts wrote.
"The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union
had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their
annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace
requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic
discourse," the chief justice added.
A jury convicted McDonnell on 11 corruption-related felony counts in 2014, including "honest services"
fraud, extortion and conspiracy.
The trial triggered public outrage as evidence showed the Virginia Republican and his wife accepted over
$175,000-worth of loans and gifts, such as vacations, designer clothes and a Rolex watch, from a businessman
seeking the state's help in promoting a tobacco-based dietary supplement. McDonnell also borrowed a Ferrari
from the businessman, Johnnie Williams, who turned state's evidence and was not prosecuted.
In the court's opinion, Roberts seemed eager to head off criticism that the justices were blessing
politicians' brazen attempts to improve their own financial condition through use of their official positions.
However, the chief justice emphasized that there were also risks in allowing prosecutors to decide for
themselves what kinds of conduct crossed the line.
"None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction
between public officials and their constituents. Far from it. But the Government's legal interpretation is not
confined to cases involving extravagant gifts or large sums of money and we cannot construe a criminal statute
on the assumption that the Government will 'use it responsibly,'" Roberts wrote.
McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison, but never began serving the time after the Supreme Court put
his sentence on hold last year.
In a statement, McDonnell thanked his legal team and repeatedly invoked his religious faith.
"From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not,
betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," the former
governor said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild
our lives."
In an interview Monday, a lawyer for McDonnell hailed the court's unanimous decision as a blunt rebuke of
the prosecution.
"The court squarely rejected the entire theory this prosecution was based on from the beginning and embraced
the theory we've been articulating literally from day one on this case," said Noel Francisco, the attorney who
argued for McDonnell at the Supreme court. "We think it's a vindication for the governor."
McDonnell's wife, Maureen, was also convicted for conspiracy by the same jury and sentenced to a year and a
day in prison. She was free pending appeal. Her attorney, William Burck, expressed confidence Monday that her
conviction will also be overturned.
"This decision applies no less to our client Maureen McDonnell and requires that her conviction immediately
be tossed out as well, which we are confident the prosecutors must agree with," Burck said in a statement.
"Mrs. McDonnell, like her husband, was wrongfully convicted. We thank the Supreme Court for unanimously
bringing justice back into the picture for the McDonnells."
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, whose office prosecuted the McDonnells,
issued a terse statement about the high court's ruling.
"The U.S. Attorney's Office is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision in the
McDonnell
matter and
does not have any further comment at this time," Boente said.
Despite the public outcry over the McDonnells' actions, his challenge to his convictions received a
groundswell of support from public officials, ex-prosecutors and former legal advisers to presidents of both
major parties.
In a series of amicus briefs filed with the high court, the former officials warned that giving
anti-corruption laws the sweeping breadth urged by the Justice Department would have dramatically constrained
the normal operation of government.
The Supreme Court noted those briefs in its opinion Monday -- the final one delivered before the typical summer
break. The ruling also allowed the shorthanded court, through the voice of its chief, to emphasize agreement at
the end of a term where the justice deadlocked in a series of cases.
Putin needs to get himself a good monetary economist not affiliated or influenced by the
Chicago School. The "pension reforms" are an Atlanticist trojan horse to erode the legitimacy
of the government and not a necessary "reform".
Putin has made his reputation "allocating real resources to the common people of Russia,
he should continue to do that.
In the latest effort to punish Moscow over alleged election meddling, as well its role in both Ukraine
and Syria, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate Thursday that
seeks to be so
far reaching that it's being widely described as "crushing".
Predictably, it has as
sponsors such Congressional hawks as Senators Bob Menendez, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham
--
the
latter which announced the bill's goal is to "
impose crushing sanctions and other measures
against Putin's Russia
until he ceases and desists meddling in the U.S. electoral process,
halts cyber-attacks on US infrastructure, removes Russia from Ukraine, and ceases efforts to create
chaos in Syria," according a
statement
.
Via Google News
According to lawmakers' statements,
the
Graham-Menendez bill introduces harsh new restrictions on sectors ranging from energy and oil projects
to uranium imports and on sovereign debt transactions.
And the new sanctions further target
various Russian political figures and oligarchs.
Bob Menendez (D) of New Jersey
called the measure
the
"next step in tightening the screws on the Kremlin"
so
Putin understands
"that the U.S. will not tolerate his behavior any longer."
Other supporters include Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
among those previously mentioned.
In a statement Sen. John McCain said, "Until Putin pays a serious price for his actions, these
attacks on our democracy will only grow.
This bill would build on
the strongest sanctions
ever imposed on the Putin regime
for its assault on democratic institutions, violation
of international treaties, and siege on open societies through cyberattacks and misinformation
campaigns."
Notably, part of the legislation would
require the State Department to make an assessment
on
whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism
.
It might have trouble passing, however, as even though
a broad spectrum of legislators have
lately criticized President Trump for meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last month
and have charged Russia with seeking to interfere in US elections, there's concern that it could
inadvertently impact markets beyond Russia's borders. It would further have to pass the House of
Representatives before going to Trump's desk.
The Banking and Foreign Relations Committees are planning hearings in advance of legislation
coming to the floor. Some senators have expressed concern new sanctions might go too far or not
succeed in getting Putin to change course.
The Treasury Department has warned Congress against legislation that would block
transactions and financing for Russian sovereign debt in part
because of the pain
it would wreak across markets outside Russia's borders
.
The bill is considered the broadest and most far reaching of any Russia sanctions bill previously
considered. Sen. Graham had recently described that it would include everything but "the kitchen
sink."
Meanwhile
the ruble and Russian local bonds were shaken moments after the bipartisan
legislation was announced Thursday
:
the ruble traded down by as much as 0.9 percent
against the dollar, and bond yields jumped to the highest level since July last year.
"... I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true fighters as well as stronger economic planning. ..."
The United States seems ready to give up on Afghanistan.
After the World Trade Center came down the U.S. accused al-Qaeda, parts of which were hosted
in Afghanistan. The Taliban government offered the U.S. to extradite al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin
Laden to an Islamic country to be judged under Islamic law. The U.S. rejected that and decided
instead to destroy the Afghan government.
Taliban units, supported by Pakistani officers, were at that time still fighting against the
Northern Alliance which held onto a few areas in the north of the country. Under threats from
the U.S. Pakistan, which sees Afghanistan as its natural depth hinterland, was pressed into
service. In exchange for its cooperation with the U.S. operation it was allowed to extradite
its forces and main figures of the Taliban.
U.S. special forces were dropped into north Afghanistan. They came with huge amounts of cash
and the ability to call in B-52 bombers. Together with the Northern Alliance they move towards
Kabul bombing any place where some feeble resistance came from. The Taliban forces dissolved.
Many resettled in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda also vanished.
A conference with Afghan notables was held in Germany's once capital Bonn. The Afghans
wanted to reestablish the former Kingdom but were pressed into accepting a western style
democracy. Fed with large amounts of western money the norther warlords, all well known
mass-murderers, and various greedy exiles were appointed as a government. To them it was all
about money. There was little capability and interest to govern.
All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country.
For a few years the Taliban went quiet. But continued U.S. operations, which included random
bombing of weddings, torture and abduction of assumed al-Qaeda followers, alienated the people.
Pakistan feared that it would be suffocated between a permanently U.S. occupied Afghanistan and
a hostile India. Four years after being ousted the Taliban were reactivated and found regrown
local support.
Busy with fighting an insurgency in Iraq the U.S. reacted slowly. It then surged troops into
Afghanistan, pulled back, surged again and is now again pulling back. The U.S. military aptly
demonstrated its excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence. The
longer it fought the more Afghan people stood up against it. The immense amount of money spent
to 'rebuild' Afghanistan
went to U.S. contractors and Afghan warlords but had little effect on the ground. Now half
the country is back under Taliban control while the other half is more or less contested.
Before his election campaign Donald Trump spoke out
against the war on Afghanistan. During his campaign he was more cautious pointing to the danger
of a nuclear Pakistan as a reason for staying in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is where the U.S.
supply line is coming through and there are no reasonable alternatives. Staying in Afghanistan
to confront Pakistan while depending on Pakistan for logistics does not make sense.
Early this year the U.S. stopped all aid to Pakistan. Even the old Pakistani government was
already talking
about blocking the logistic line. The incoming prime minister Imran Khan has campaigned for
years against the U.S. war on Afghanistan. He very much prefers an alliance with China over any U.S.
rapprochement. The U.S. hope is that Pakistan will have to ask the IMF for another bailout and
thus come back under Washington's control. But it is
more likely that Imran Khan will ask China for financial help.
Under pressure from the military Trump had agreed to raise the force in Afghanistan to some
15,000 troops. But these were way to few to hold more than some urban areas. Eighty percent of
the Afghan people live in the countryside. Afghan troops and police forces are incapable or
unwilling to fight their Taliban brethren. It was obvious that this mini-surge
would fail :
By most objective measures, President Donald Trump's year-old strategy for ending the war in
Afghanistan has produced few positive results.
Afghanistan's beleaguered soldiers have failed to recapture significant new ground from
the Taliban. Civilian deaths have hit historic highs. The Afghan military is struggling to
build a reliable air force and expand the number of elite fighters. Efforts to cripple
lucrative insurgent drug smuggling operations have fallen short of expectations. And U.S.
intelligence officials say the president's strategy has halted Taliban gains but not reversed
their momentum, according to people familiar with the latest assessments.
To blame Pakistan for its support for some Taliban is convenient, but makes little sense. In
a recent
talk John Sopko, the U.S. Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR),
made a crucial point:
"We keep referring to Pakistan as being the key problem. But the problem also was that the
Afghan government at times was viewed very negatively by their local people and what you
really need is to insert a government that the people support, a government that is not
predatory, a government that is not a bunch of lawless warlords," observed Sopko.
He went on to say that the U.S. policy of pouring in billions of dollars in these unstable
environments contributed to the problem of creating more warlords and powerful people who
took the law into their own hands.
"In essence, the government we introduced, particularly some of the Afghan local police
forces, which were nothing other than warlord militias with some uniforms on, were just as
bad as the terrorists before them," said Sopko ...
This was the problem from the very beginning. The U.S. bribed itself into Afghanistan. It
spent tons of money but did not gain real support. It bombed and shot aimlessly at 'Taliban'
that were more often than not just the local population. It incompetently fought 17
one-year-long wars instead of a consistently planned and sustained political, economic and
military campaign.
After a year of another useless surge the Trump administration decided to pull back from
most active operations and to bet
on negotiations with the Taliban:
The shift to prioritize initial American talks with the Taliban over what has proved a futile
"Afghan-led, Afghan-owned" process stems from a realization by both Afghan and American
officials that President Trump's new Afghanistan strategy is not making a fundamental
difference in rolling back Taliban gains.
While no date for any talks has been set, and the effort could still be derailed, the
willingness of the United States to pursue direct talks is an indication of the sense of
urgency in the administration to break the stalemate in Afghanistan.
...
Afghan officials and political leaders said direct American talks with the Taliban would
probably then grow into negotiations that would include the Taliban, the Afghan government,
the United States and Pakistan.
Afghans have continued to burn for the last four decades in the fire of imposed wars. They
are longing for peace and a just system but they will never tire from their just cause of
defending their creed, country and nation against the invading forces of your
warmongering government because they have rendered all the previous and present historic
sacrifices to safeguard their religious values and national sovereignty. If they make a deal
on their sovereignty now, it would be unforgettable infidelity with their proud history and
ancestors.
Last weeks talks between the Taliban and U.S. diplomats took place in Doha, Qatar.
Remarkably the Afghan government was excluded. Despite the rousing tone of the Reuters
report below the positions that were exchanged
do not point to a successful conclusion:
According to one Taliban official, who said he was part of a four-member delegation, there
were "very positive signals" from the meeting, which he said was conducted in a "friendly
atmosphere" in a Doha hotel.
"You can't call it peace talks," he said. "These are a series of meetings for initiating
formal and purposeful talks. We agreed to meet again soon and resolve the Afghan conflict
through dialogue."
...
The two sides had discussed proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces
where they would not be attacked, an idea that President Ashraf Ghani has already rejected .
They also discussed Taliban participation in the Afghan government.
"The only demand they made was to allow their military bases in Afghanistan ," said the
Taliban official.
...
"We have held three meetings with the U.S. and we reached a conclusion to continue talks for
meaningful negotiations," said a second Taliban official.
...
"However, our delegation made it clear to them that peace can only be restored to Afghanistan
when all foreign forces are withdrawn ," he said.
This does not sound promising:
In a first step the Taliban want to officially rule parts of the country and use it as a
safe haven. The Afghan government naturally rejects that.
Participation of the Taliban in the Afghan government is an idea of the Afghan president
Ghani. It is doubtful that this could be successfully arranged. Norther Alliance elements in
the Afghan government, like the 'chief executive' Abdullah Abdullah, are unlikely to ever
agree to it. The Taliban also have no interest to be 'part of the government' and to then get
blamed for its failures. Their February letter makes clear that they want to be the
government.
The U.S. wants bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban, and Pakistan behind them, reject that
and will continue to do so.
It is difficult to see how especially the last mutually exclusive positions can ever be
reconciled.
The Taliban are ready to accept a peaceful retreat of the U.S. forces. That is their only
offer. They may agree to keep foreign Islamist fighters out of their country. The U.S. has no
choice but to accept. It is currently retreating to the cities and large bases. The outlying
areas will fall to the Taliban. Sooner or later the U.S. supply lines will be cut. Its bases
will come under fire.
There is no staying in Afghanistan. A retreat is the only issue the U.S. can negotiate
about. It is not a question of "if" but of "when".
The Soviet war in Afghanistan took nine years. The time was used to build up a halfway
competent government and army that managed to hold off the insurgents for three more years
after the Soviet withdrawal. The government only fell when the Soviets cut the money line. The
seventeen year long U.S. occupation did not even succeed in that. The Afghan army is corrupt
and its leaders are incompetent. The U.S. supplied it with expensive and complicate equipment
that
does not fit Afghan needs . As soon as the U.S. withdraws the whole south, the east and
Kabul will immediately fall back into Taliban hands. Only the north may take a bit longer. They
will probably ask China to help them in developing their country.
The erratic
empire failed in another of its crazy endeavors. That will not hinder it to look for a new
ones. The immense increase
of the U.S. military budget, which includes 15,000 more troops, points to a new large war.
Which country will be its next target?
thanks b.. it would be good if the exceptional warmongering nation could go home, but i am
not fully counting on it.. i liked your quote here "The U.S. military aptly demonstrated its
excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence." that is ongoing..
unless the usa leaves, i think the madness continues.. i suspect the madness will continue..
the only other alternative is the usa, with the help of their good buddies - uk, ksa, qatar,
uae and israel - will keep on relocating isis to afgan for future destabilization.. i watched
a video peter au left from al jazzera 2017 with isis embedded in the kush mtns... until the
funding for them ceases - i think the usa will have a hand in the continued madness... if the
usa was serious about ending terrorism they would shut down the same middle east countries
they are in bed with.. until that happens, i suspect not much will change.. i hope i am
wrong..
I dont believe it for a second. Especially with Iran looming as a potential target. US is
staying in Afghanistan also to counter China , keep opium production high and of course there
is the TAPI pipeline to "protect" that is backed by US as an alternative to the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline that would have tapped Iran's South Pars gas field. A hostile or
unfriendly Pakistan is just one more reason to stay
Just like US will never leave Iraq or Syria, they will stay in Afghanistan. There will be
ebbs and flows, and talk of disengagement from time to time primarily for domestic
consumption, but thats all it is IMO.
This is a fine recap of the situation. It's much too optimistic. The classic method of
American negotiation and warfare like the Roman before them is to divide and conquer. It was
very successful against the American Indians.
If the Taliban get free movement in two provinces, the Americans will demand an end to
attacks on their bases, their soldiers and their agents elsewhere in Afghanistan. Just as the
Iroquois Confederation enjoyed special privileges in what is now Upper New York for their
help against the French, the Taliban will have special privileges in their two provinces
while the Americans consolidate in the rest of Afghanistan. When the Americans feel strong
enough, just as with the Iroquois, they will break the previous treaties.
After the Revolutionary War, the ancient central fireplace of the League was re-established
at Buffalo Creek. The United States and the Iroquois signed the treaty of Fort Stanwix in
1784 under which the Iroquois ceded much of their historical homeland to the Americans,
which was followed by another treaty in 1794 at Canandaigua which they ceded even more land
to the Americans./b
(...continuation of the comment above, somehow got posted when I pressed the return
key)
Even the Soviet Union and Russians were unable to make the American respect their
commitments. The United States reneged on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as soon as it
could in 2001 (Russia was on its knees), reneged on its commitments not to expand NATO east
and has built ballistic missile bases all around Russia which seem to be preparation for a
pre-emptive nuclear strike/war against Russia.
The Afghanis (foolish to call them the Taliban, they are traditional Afghani patriots)
have always been wise enough to annihilate any invader to the last man. This salutary policy
keeps invaders out for decades at a time. The Taliban have a long row to hoe. It took almost
a hundred years and several massacres to finally curb British ambitions on Afghanistan (1838
to 1919). Afghanis' best hopes rely on forging tight alliances with Pakistan and China,
squeezing the Americans out completely right now.
The Americans burnt their bridges with the Russian already and are in the process of
burning their bridges with Pakistan while losing influence with China. The US is very short
of options right now. It's the ideal time for Afghanis to reclaim the whole territory, not
leaving a single American soldier or airbase operational. They'll need a technically
sophisticated ally to help them clear their skies of US drones. This role might appeal to
either the Russians or the Chinese. As a training exercise, extended anti-drone warfare could
be very useful.
What a great success the US achieved in destroying Yugoslavia. Murdering thousands went
almost unnoticed. It was able to break up the country into a number of tiny, impoverished
nations and got to put a US MIC Base in most of them.
You did not mention isis-k in your analysis. Its active mostly in eastern afghanistan in
areas close to or adjacent to Pakistan (it is also controlls a small area in Jawzjan, in
northern afghanistan). Many fighters are formerly pakistani taliban(not to be confused with
afghan taliban who are simply called taliban). Before isis-k appeared in afghanistan, the
areas which it now controls had pakistani taliban presence. TTP, or tehreek e taliban
pakistan was facilitated by afghan ggovernment to settle down in these areas after they fled
pakistan when its military launched a large scale offensive, Operation Zarb e Azb. The afghan
government planned to use them to pressurize Pakistan, basically to use them as a bargaining
chip. They operate openly in eastern afghanistan, but many of them joined isis-k.
Russians estimate isis-k's strength to be between 10k to 12k, although it might be a bit
inflated number. From here they plan attacks against afghanistan and pakistan alike, mostly
suicide bombings as of now. They have had fierce clashes with afghan taliban in eastern
Afghanistan but have held their territory for now. Afghan army simply doesn't have the
capacity in those areas to confront them. It was here that MOAB was dropped but as expected
against a guerrilla force, it was ineffective in every way. But it did make headlines and has
helped US in giving an impression its seriously fighting ISIS. The reports of unmarked
helicopters dropping god-knows-what have also been coming from these areas. Hamid karzai
mentioned that and also maria zakharova asked afghan gov. and US to investigate that which
shows these are not just rumors. Recently intelligence chiefs of Pakistan, russia, iran and
china as well(if i remember correctly) met in islamabad to discuss isis-k in afghanistan, no
details other than this of this meeting are available.
In Northern afghanistan, in Jawzjan, fierce clashes broke out between taliban and isis-k
after taliban commander in thiae areas was beheaded. ISIS-k has been beaten up pretty badly
there but clashes are ongoing. Many areas have been cleared but fighting is still ongoing. An
interesting aspect is taliban sources claiming that whenever they come close to a decisive
victory, they have to stop operations becauae of heavy bombardment by US planes. They made
similar claims when fighting daesh in eastern afghanistan. Anyway in a few days isis presence
will probably be finished in Jawzjan. ISIS fighters who have survived have done so by
surrendering to afghan forces. They will probably end up back in eastern afghanistan.
Africa. US AFRICOM has a huge playground, tactics won't change and logistics is far
easier.
There also will be a long Hybrid wr against Iran, but that will be much like the early
days of Syria. Proxies as "moderates". Insurgents, not US troops. ISIS and AQ crazies will be
on the ground.
The big money will go into Africa. You want to see Trillions "spent"? It will be
Africa.
The decision to invade Afghanistan had been taken before the 9/11 false flag coup. Had
nothing much to do with the CIA's al-Qaeda mercenaries.
As I understood it, there were many agendas at work: testing weapons and making money for
the MIC; controlling the lucrative (how many hundreds of billions of dollars ?) opium/ heroin
production/profiteering; military bases relating to Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and other
...stans, etc; control of oil and gas pipelines; access to increasingly valuable and sought
rare earth minerals; proximity to oil and gas actual and potential.
More generally, subjugating Afghanistan was a necessary part of the 'full spectrum
dominance' 'we will rule the earth' doctrine, dear til recently to too many mad hatters, and
still evoking a misty eyed longing in some, no doubt.
Ahhh...the US produces some of the lamest euphemisms approved for all audiences; such as
"Afgahn Security Forces." So sterile, innocuous. And benign. How could anyone question their
plight? (We did pick up the game a little bit in Syria with "Free Syrian Army..." Can I get a
hell yeah?) All the people hearing this in the US could do was shrug their shoulders and
speak, "I guess I should support them." That is, of course, after we took out OBL and the
mission in Afghanistan was a little more opaque. Just a little bit. Anyways...Hell, yeah! Get
some!
Thanks b for the brief history. Really invaluable.
Afghani patriots, resisting invaders since 330 BCE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan
The US military, the planet's costliest losingest military since 1946. The US military, like
its munitions manufacturers, doesn't win but it does get paid and is why we can have nice
things like oh, decent health care. Lack of health insurance kills more Americans than the
Russians ever will. The Russians aren't the enemy, Trump is. Lobbyists are too.
I haven't read anything about Blackwater wanting to replace the U.S. Military in Afghanistan.
Of course, the U.S. Treasury would continue to shovel those pallet loads of newly printed
$100.00 bills down the Blackwater hole. Any odds this might go forward from anyone's opinion?
robin cook before he was murdered stated that alqueda was a cia data base.
i believe bresinski knew obl as tim osman who was later killed by cia mi6 man omar blah blah
sheikh bhutto of pakisyan was assasinated after spilling the beans about sheikh.
christopher bolleyn on you tube will give you the sp on what 9 and 11 was shirley we are
past the point of the offecal theory.
the turd burger that is the official theory is clearly the worst and lowest grade of all the
conspiracy theories.
the taliban where in barbera bushes texas talking lithium opium and oil pipelines with the
paedo bush crime syndicate before 9 and 11
marvin bush ran security at the twin towers
christopher bollyn is the go to man in these regardings
The US wants peace talks but wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. US under Trump has built
new bases in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait.
SDF have been talking with Syrian government, and US in Talks with Taliban. Are these just
moves to buy the US a little time until it launches the war Trump has been building the US
military up for.
isis is israeli counter gang with support of usa usa and the city of
london,ukrainian,polish,uk sas,cia,kiwi,aussie,jordanian and donmeh satanic house of
saud.
talking of isis as if it is real entity rather than a frank kitson gang counter gang and
pseudo gang is polluting the well.
who has been providing extraction helicopters from syriana for the last 14 months.
who has been washing these bearded devils operating on them in kosher field hospitals making
them well shiny and new
who?
scchhhhh you know who
We are concerned about reports regarding the use of helicopters without any identification
marks in many parts of Afghanistan that are delivering terrorists and arms to the Afghan
branch of this terrorist organisation. We believe that reports to this effect made by Afghan
officials should be thoroughly investigated."
- Of course. The US wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. Surprise, surprise.
In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village
Hajji, the writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit.
The only question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous
it will be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam
War (1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and
the Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be
even more severe.
In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village Hajji, the
writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit. The only
question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous it will
be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam War
(1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and the
Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be
even more severe.
@uncoy.. i basically see it like you, however another proxy war involving usa-russia-china
sounds like a running theme now...
@13 bilal.. good post.. i agree about the analysis missing much on isis presence in afgan
as @6 jr also points out.. i think it is a critical bit of the puzzle.. it appears the usa is
using isis as a proxy force, as obama previously stated with regard to syria... the usa just
can't seem to help themselves with their divide and conquer strategy using isis as part of
it's methodology... it's exact opposite of what they profess..
@18 eugene.. isn't blackwater or whatever they're called now - headquartered in uae?
perfect place for them, lol... right on top of yemen, afgan, and etc. etc.. if isis can't do
the job for the west thru their good friends ksa, uae - well, then maybe they can pay a bit
more and get blackwater directly involved too..
Trump is serious when he said he would talk to anybody. The CIA is alleged to have been
stirring the pot with Islamic militants prior to the Soviet invasion when the country went
full socialist. I would suspect the Russians had a hand in that in 1978. US intelligence was
said to be helping along the backlash to socialism by Islamic militants back then in 1978.
The CIA station chief was promptly assassinated the next year.
Obviously you could dump 600,000 NATO and US soldiers into the country and not control it
short of executing every Muslim. What a foolish endeavor but what would you expect from these
buffoons and their death cult? These human sacrifices are holy to them. They worship blood,
death, power and money.
With their loss in Syria the NEOCONS can now make peace with the Taliban and use them and
ISIS to push into old Soviet Central Asia in an attempt to deny them what the Anglo American
Zionist alliance cannot have at this time, control of the commodities.
China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place.
Even the Brits knew when it was time to leave India and their Middle Eastern holdings. They
realized the costs of containment would wipe out their country.
No he doesnt, along with Israel and neocons. There was already nuclear deal, and US was
out of "all this crap", so why introduce Gordian Knot if he doesnt want it?
What Trump demands is Iran's surrender. 'b discussed it at length some time ago, the list
of Trump's demands is completely ridiculous and the goal is Iran as a client state.
From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to
meet, it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt
worth a toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even
endeavor to negotiate dead from the get go.
Congress went along with the Pentagon's 7 countries in 5 years plan. No investigation of 9/11
or even consideration of Ron Paul's bringing in an old idea of Letters of Marque and
Reprisal.
As to the US leaving the warlords in power to continue opium production, etc, Van Buren (We
Meant Well book) said some of the same happened in Iraq with some sheikhs still holding power
in local areas. General Garner looked forward to going in to rebuild (and was promising quick
elections) but was shocked to see no protection of ministries (except oil) which were looted
and burned. And then Bremer was put in charge. Complete mismanagement of the war, the
aftermath, etc. Like someone once said, if they were doing these things at random you would
expect them to get it right once in a while.
The Kunduz Airlift which allowed Pakistan a corridor to fly out Pak officials, Taliban,
and possibly al Qaeda was yet another snafu like paying Pakistan to supposedly block any
escape from their side of Tora Bora only to have a long convoy leave at night. It made one
wonder about the US supposed air superiority/domination. Again, complete mismanagement.
A comparison to the end situation in VietNam 1975 is apt.
Trump meeting Rouhani. Trump saays he wants a better deal. The nuke agreement took years to
negotiate and Iran accepted far more stringent inspections than any other country signed up
NPT. There is nothing more for Iran to negotiate other than to give away their
sovereignty.
The offer of a meeting by Trump is more along the line of "we tried to avoid war".
The US under Trump have scrapped the nuke agreement and made demands that are impossible for
Iran to meet without giving away its sovereignty.
Erik Prince's plan for fighting in Afghanistan.
He presented it to the WH. Military rejected it.
He is no longer Blackwater-connected.
Frontier Services Group Ltd. is his new military-security services corp.
He has extensive contracts with the Chinese government and their SOEs overseas.
did you see General Souleimani answer's to Trump rabid tweet
it went like this
Our president doesnt lower himself to answer someone like.I, a soldier answer someone like
you, you re someone who speaks in the vocabulary of a cabaret owner and a gambling house
dealer.(paraphrasing saker has the video on his site)
and then he went on to describe how your cowad troops wore adult diapers in Afghanistan
and Iraq
China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place.
dltravers @28
No. China, being development-oriented rather than imperialist, will leave Afghanistan
alone. China and Russia, but especially China, requires an Afghanistan that is not a
U.S.-controlled terrorist base. Because China needs the oil/gas link that it is building
through Pakistan to access Gulf energy resources, and that energy corridor would be the
primary target of U.S.-hired mercenaries ('terrorists').
How Afghanistan manages itself in the post-U.S. era is Afghan business, but it will almost
certainly involve the Pashtun majority (in the form of the 'Taliban') retaking power in Kabul
but with the traditional huge amounts of autonomy for the provinces. That arrangement reduces
pressure by Pashtun nationalists in Pakistan against Pakistan's government, and in general
seems to be the long-term stable set up, and stability is what China has to have in
Afghanistan.
Now is the time with perfect China partner Khan and the Pakistan military firmly in power.
Not instant, but over the next two years I think we'll see the Taliban's fighting capacity
hugely improve, with transfers of supplies, weapons and intelligence from Pakistan. It would
be very smart for Trump to get out in 2019. History is going to accelerate in that
region.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I worry a lot about Venezuela. See, it's a perfect
fit for the U.S. economy. U.S. shale oil is way too light to be useful, while Venezuelan oil
is way too heavy to be useful. They are destined for each other, i.e. to be mixed into a
blend that would be a good fit U.S. refineries. Plus, Venezuela is very import-dependent and
thus would make for a good vassal. It also has a rabid capitalist class that will do anything
-- any kind of atrocity or false flag -- to return to the good old days of exploitation. "But
Venezuela has a lot of arms!", I hear you counter. True, but the people are severely
demoralized because of the extreme economic hardship. Think of the USSR in late 80s/early
90s. It had the most powerful military in the world, and yet people were so demoralized and
disillusioned with the old system that they simply chose not to defend it. Same thing may
happen in Venezuela. After Colombia has signed peace accords with FARC, U.S. has been
steadily increasing its military presence in Colombia. I think there is a very real
possibility of a naval blockade combined with supply lines/air raids from Colombia supporting
the "Free Venezuelan Army" assembled from Venezuelan gangs and revanchist capitalists and
foreign mercenaries. It would be logistically impossible for Russia or China to provide
military help to far-away Venezuela. Neighbors will not come to the aid of Venezuela either
as there is a surge of pro-U.S. right-wing governments in the region.
Any moves the U$A makes will have to be approved according to which natural resources their
corporate masters covet at any particular moment. Lithium and other rare earth minerals,
strategic importance, whatever the corporate form needs to stay on top globally, will dictate
what the empire does.
Leave Afghanistan? I very much doubt it.
DJT will do what the "puppet masters" desire. Just like all his predecessors.
'Correction': No reliable census has been done in decades, but I don't think the Pashtun are
the majority in Afghanistan. They
are by far the largest minority however. British 'divide and rule' stategists long ago
deliberately separated them into Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Venezuela and Iran have two things in common. Both have large oil reserves and neither
recognize Israel.
Trump's wars will be about destroying enemies of Israel, and at the same time, achieving
global energy dominance.
I've posted this before. I met a Taliban leader and his two guards in a brutal area during
the Hearts and Minds Schtick, preparatory to Cheney getting all the oil and gas, and copper
and iron and coming coal lease awards.
He was a nice guy, the Taliban leader. His guards looked at me with absolute death in
their eyes. Not wanting them to hear him, as we finished our tea, the Taliban leader leaned
close, then whispered, 'I love your Jesus, but I hate your Crusaders.'
And I take issue with the US 'incompetence' meme. Ever since Cheney hosted the Taliban in
Texas in 1998, trying to get a TAPI pipeline, the US has deliberately and cunningly taken
over the country, assassinated the local-level leadership, and installed their foreign Shah,
first Karzai, then Ghani.
In that time of occupation, 18 years, Pentagon MIC disappeared TRILLIONS in shrink-wrapped
pallets of $100s, and ballooned from $340B a year, to now Trump is saying $840B a year.
That's not incompetence. Just the opposite.
Now, to honor my Afghan friends, who love to joke even after 35+ years of machine warfare,
a joke I wrote in their honor:
Ring ring ring ring
"Office of the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan!"
"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."
"Hold please."
President Reagan, it's the Iranian ambassador!"
"Well hello Mr. Assinabindstani, what can I do for you?"
"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."
"Well I'll get my staff right on it."
[Intercomm clicks]
"Hey Ollie, the Ayatollah wants more guns! Step on it!"
Actually, the British paid an annual tithe-tribute the the Afghan king to stop raiding
their India holdings, and agreed to a neutral zone between them. Then when the British pulled
out, they declared the neutral zone as Pakistan and shrunk India away from Pashtun territory
to create a bigger divide. The Afghan leaders had no say in the matter. I believe Baluchistan
was also carved away. At one time, Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley.
There is no way to defeat a nation of warriors who created a kingdom that vast, while William
the Conqueror was still running around in bear skin diapers.
@41 'Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley.'
You are probably referring to the Khalji Dynasty, a brutal bunch, who ruled India from
1290 to 1320 by which time William the Conqueror was long dead. You would be a lot more
credible if you got your history right.
IMHO the military Budget increase, and what an increase it is!
is part of worsening an already outrageous situation to reach a caricatural point. Typical of
trump repeated special "art".
Of course Nobody in USA, no President can go against the MIC and Pentagon.
But money is cheap when you print it.
It is sugaring the intended shrinking of foreign deployments (as in NATO), closure of
"facilities" and replacing them officially with total deterrence capacities (Space Forces
anybody ?).
While keeping classical projection capacities for demonstration against backward
tribes.
...
From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to meet,
it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt worth a
toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even endeavor
to negotiate dead from the get go.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 30, 2018 7:53:57 PM | 29
Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite
likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if you
feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what Iran
wants it to mean.
Trump jumped into the NK and Putin talks first because both were eager to talk. Iran will
be a good test of Trump's seduction skills. All he's got to do is persuade the Iranians that
talking is more useful than swapping long-distance insults. Iranians are rusted onto logical
principles and Trump will find a way to appeal to that trait, imo.
It's too late for the afghanis who have been driven into the urban areas during the regulaar
'Afghanistanisation' campaigns. Most of them will have become hooked on consumerism and the
necessity of dollars.
That leaves only two options for the Taliban when they take over as they undoubtedly will
altho that is likely to mean having to tolerate clutches of obese amerikans lurking in some
Px strewn green zone, the inhabitants of which are likely to have less contact with people
from Afghanistan than any regular user of a Californian shopping mall. The new government can
ignore the consumerists even when these rejects insist on getting lured into some nonsense
green revolution - the danger with this isn't the vapid protests which can easily be dealt
with by fetching a few mobs of staunch citizens from rural Afghanistan who will quickly teach
them that neither cheeseburgers nor close captioned episodes of daytime television provide
sufficient nutrition to handle compatriots raised on traditional food and Islam. Or the new
administration can do as other traditional regimes have done many times over the last 80
years or so, purge the consumerists by disappearing the leadership and strewing empty lots in
the urban areas with mutilated corpses of a few of the shitkicker class consumerists. That
option can cause a bit of a fuss but it (the fuss) generally only lasts as long as the purge.
I suspect the Afghan government will favour the latter approach but they may try to hold
off until the North has been brought back into line. OTH, consumerism is a highly contagious
condition so, unless the North can be pacified speedily which seems unlikely, initially at
least the Taliban adminsitration may have to fight on two fronts, agin the North while they
nip urban consumerists in the bud before those confused fools can cause any highly publicised
in the west but in actuality, low key, attempted insurrection.
My advice to the gaming, TV or cheeseburger addicted inhabitants of Kabul would be to
volunteer your services to the amerikan military as a 'translator' asap and join yer cobbers
in California.
It is unlikely that you will bump into Roman Brady especially not when he is in one
of his avuncular moods, but if you stay outta Texas, Florida or any other part of flyover
amerika chocka with alcohol induced blowhardism, you will discover than amerikan racism isn't
as lethal as it once was.
Apart from having to ignore being jostled in the line at fast food joints and being loudly
and incorrectly termed a motherf**in sand n***er mid-jostle. Certainly a whole lot less
lethal than trying to cover your Fortnite jones by waving a badly copywritten sign in front
of the al-Jazeera cameras for a one month
battle pass .
What was happening in Kabul, Afghanistan less than 8 hours after the WTC Towers turned into
dust in midair? Who here remembers the massive bombing/cruise missile attack?
Here is CNN's transcript:
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Well, Joie, it's about 2:30 in the morning here in
Kabul. We've been hearing explosions around the perimeter of the city. We're in a position
here which gives us a view over the whole city. We just had an impact, perhaps a few miles
away.
"If I listen, you can hear the ripple of explosions around the city. Perhaps you heard
there. The fifth explosion -- sixth explosion, I think. Gun bursts and star bursts in the
air. Tracer fire is coming up out of the city. I hear aircraft flying above the city of
Kabul. Perhaps we've heard half a dozen to 10 detonations on the perimeter of the city,
some coming from the area close to the airport. I see on the horizon what could be a fire
on the horizon, close, perhaps, to where the airport might be. A flash came up then from
the airport. Some ground fire coming up here in Kabul."
"I've been in Belgrade and I've been in Baghdad and seen cruise missiles arrive in both
those cities. The detonations we're hearing in Kabul right now certainly sound like the
detonations of loud missiles that are coming in. "
"Certainly -- certainly it would appear that the Afghan defense systems have detected a
threat in the air. They are launching what appears to be anti-aircraft defense systems at
the moment. Certainly, I can see that fire that was blazing on the horizon. It was a faint
yellow; it's now a bright orange blazing. Several other detonations going off around the
city, multiple areas. Rockets appear to be taking off from one end of the airport. I can
see that perhaps located about 8 or 9 miles away from where we stand, Joie."
The bombing/explosions continue for 10+ minutes of this broadcast.
Then, they cut to WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: who says the US is only
collecting intelligence. He says what we're seeing must be part of the "Civil War" (despite
the fact that neither side had an air force or cruise missiles). The Pentagon later denies
knowing anything about it.
Then, CNN returns to Nic Robertson, who- within 15 minutes of his first report - begins to
change his tune. Suddenly, the jet sounds are not mentioned. The cruise missiles (jet
engines) have transformed into possible rockets. The airport fire is now an ammunition
dump.
And voila! They lose their connection and Nic will not be heard from again. And this
little bit of history will essentially disappear.
Dear Mr. B,
"All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country."
These mistakes are by design. To cause and keep causing destabilisation.
I like to refer to it as the 3-letter Scrabble method of doing things.
Me living in the Netherlands as I do, let me take the example of Greece.
Greece had its regime changed in 1948 (Wiki says 46-49).
And how is Greece doing these days? ...
@37 yep, gotta agree with the more passimistic outlook here. Personally i'll eat my shoes if
US leaves Afghanistan within any reasonable time frame. In addition to plentiful natural
resources, there are very influential vested interests in Afghanistans booming opium
industry.
Off topic: Andrei Nekrasov's 'Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes' can be viewed in full on You
Tube at this moment (31 July, 08:15 Amsterdam time). Can it also be seen in the USA, I
wonder? How long will it take before Google take it down ? Watch it and learn about one of
the main drivers of the Russia obsession.
Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite
likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if
you feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what
Iran wants it to mean.
White House just explained what Trump's "no preconditions" means: 1) Iran should at the
core change how it deals with its own people. 2) Change its evil stance in foreign policy. 3)
Agree on nuclear agreement which would REALLY prevent them making a nuke.
In other words, Iran should capitulate and become a client state, thats what Trump means
by "no preconditions."
At this advanced stage of American insanity, I don't see why the devil should have all the
best tunes. I'm sick of the yanks doing this shit in over people's county's ! While they
stuff there fat faces with burgers and donuts! The dirty games they play on over country's,
should now be played in America with all the brutality that they have used on others. Until
that happens things world wide will continue to detriate. Natural justice is all that
remains. They'v curupted all else.
@19 "The US already started to plan an invasion of Afghanistan in januari & february of
2001."
Well, to be fair the USA probably has plans to invade lots of countries.
Indeed, it would be more interesting to consider how many countries there are that the USA
*doesn't* have invasion plans gathering dust on the shelves.
It's just been reported on the bbc news---- the man responsible for the Manchester bombing
had been 'rescued from Lybia when Gadafi was overthrown and tracked ever since. Even in
Britain up to the day of the bombing ! And now on this post we discuss America uk
transporting terrorists from Syria to Afghanistan . Not to mention the white helmet bunch and
where Ther going! The Manchester bombing, Westminster bridge and London Bridge atacks were
done by the Tory party to win a general election ! This is the reality of the world we live
in.full on oppression !!!
Indeed, I agree with the sentiments here. But missing a big part of the picture.
Afghanistan and Pakistan have sky-high fertility rates. Forget the rubbish peddled by
economist-whores like Milton Friedman, under these conditions no country without an open
frontier has ever developed into anything other than a larger mass of poverty. In Pakistan
something like half the children are so malnourished that they grow up stunted, and it is
this misery that is starting slow population growth. Pakistan is yet another example of the
Malthusian holocaust, which is not a global catastrophe: it is slow grinding poverty that
results when people have more children than they can support.
Bottom line: these places will remain poor and unstable no matter what lunacy the United
States does or does not do. The traditional approach to such places is to leave them alone,
and only keep them from escaping. Bottled up, the Afghanis and Pakistanis will kill only each
other. 9/11 is a consequence of allowing people from these places free access to the Untied
States.
The 'war on terror' is a consequence of 'there shall be open borders.' It's a big and
messy world, and even if the government of the United States was not criminally incompetent,
there would be a lot of misery and hatred in it. Open borders means that now the Untied
States has to intervene in every country all over the world to ensure that nowhere can there
develop terrorist cells. An impossible task.
Charles Michael @ 44
I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next
target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true
fighters as well as stronger economic planning.
The US still has some resources and some use but needs to continue to make friends in the
pattern of Kim and Putin and give up on its self defeating economic and military sabotage
planning which has been exposed as morally bankrupt as well.
"... Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright. ..."
"... Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The
American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America
doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial
ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American
empire," outright.
Gottfried writes (abridged):
Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the
provocative title The Virtue of Nationalism, I encountered a distinction drawn by the late
Charles Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the
editors of the Weekly Standard, for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was
unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the U.S. actively spread its
own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said,
he and those who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to
accuse them of "imperialism."
Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even
if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory.
Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist
position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in
demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without
outright annexation.
The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's
response (which I suspect would have been more devastating had Hazony not been afraid of
losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?
It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both
morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a
"value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race.
Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building.
The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give
it.
"... As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives. ..."
"... Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers. ..."
Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.
Sort of.
While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled
as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.
Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won't arrive at the Republican convention with enough
of them to secure the nomination outright.
If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican Party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which
would rightfully be his.
It's been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being "torn asunder."
Some Republicans say they simply won't vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party "conservative" candidate.
However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney's anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it's that
refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.
Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let's backtrack a bit and try to put this man's candidacy
into context. If possible, a Catholic context.
American "exceptionalism"
Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have
hubristically argued that it is America's duty to advance "freedom" and "democracy" to "the people" of the world, all in the name
of bringing about a lasting "peace."
Of course, when these men speak of "freedom" what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when
these men speak of "democracy" what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not "the people" get to pick.
(See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)
Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing
about this so-called "peace" is a dirty business.
For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.
Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they're assassinated. Of course,
the more diplomatic way to put it is "so and so has to go! "
And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like
Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to "moderate rebels" in countries most people can't locate on a map.
As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined
in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands,
if not millions, of lives.
The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised
decades ago they wouldn't do) so that "liberal democracy" can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly,
in Russia.
Globalism
Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing
a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats
and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.
While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state's rights these war hawks hijacked
the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international
elites.
Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals
was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan's warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2)
the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4)
the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of
the corporate media.
Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than
cogs in the globalist's wheel.
Enter Trump
Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can't give specifics to half the
things he talks about. And I don't trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American
Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does
.
For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.
At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected.
No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.
People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the
frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards
the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social
and economic decay of the United States.
Against the neocons
Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies
that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.
In
an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from
the war hawks in his party.
First, according to Mcadams Trump states "the obvious" when he says "the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative
movement" and that it was a "total disaster" for the rest of us who "are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination."
Second, Trump wants to "actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out
without a potentially world-ending nuclear war."
Third, although Trump is "arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel" he is "nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role
in the Israel/Palestine issue the US side should take a neutral role in the process."
Fourth, Trump is also calling out the "idiotic neocon advice" that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya that has led
to "the red carpet" being "laid down for ISIS" in that failed state.
And lastly, Trump is "suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want
to just sit back and let that happen for once."
Push back
The ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.
By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human
and monetary, spreading "freedom" and "democracy" necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya,
Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes
voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.
By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a "thug," Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President
as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having
a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading "liberty."
Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.
Furthermore, by taking a "neutral" stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist
interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as
others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit
against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with,
you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.
Going forward
Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for
a short while.
To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry
Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don't know.
But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic
neocon community. Read
here .
Now, don't expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious.
We've already seen how quickly they brought up "the 1930s." Additionally, more than 100 self-identified "members of the Republican
national security community" have signed an
open letter
excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Unsurprisingly, some of them have said
they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.
So much for party loyalty.
In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America's economic and foreign policy.
Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear
to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.
Indeed, far from being a "breaking" of the GOP in two, wouldn't a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party
to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of global elites?
I utterly despise Neocons, whether in Politics & Government or as Catholic Church Commentators.
This is why I come to akacatholic.com, The Remnant Newspaper & Catholic Family News.
In Politics, Conservatives would use The Bomb, while Neocons would engage in "Protective Reaction", whatever that means.
In The Case of Louie, Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Dr John Rao & Ann Barnhardt, one is told the truth as it occurred.
There are no "Sweeps Week Specials" by People who are financed by Fat Cats & sound like Shills for said Fat Cats, while broadcasting
from a Miniaturized Version of The CBS Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, from a Suburb of The Motor City, who tells everyone
that what The Pope Said was a Mistranslation, while making Hay of Cardinal Dolan, passing wind on the Uptown Platform of the IND
6th Avenue Subway, all while the Polemicist is telling the World that The SSPX is in Schism. No, THAT Guy, despite the Bells &
Whistles, is a Neo Catholic, who in many cases, cannot get his facts straight.
The NeoCatholics are the ones telling people that Girl Altar Servers are OK because the Pope says so. Ditto, Sancte Communion
A Mano & Altar Tables facing the Congregation.You know WHO They Are.
But something I have noticed is that when it comes to Intelligent Conversation on the message boards, the Neo Catholics will
not tolerate dissent vis a vis their position. The one with his broadcast centre is a classic example, with commenters practically
forced to pay homage to The Fearless Leader's Position, even when not well researched.
Those who hold the Traditional Catholic Position, allow True Discussion on matters Catholic.
Traditional Catholic is true Freedom, without being patronizing. I cannot say that for a certain site, which charges $10 per
month for Premium Membership.
You've reminded me of how the totally neocon and cuckservative National Review now rigorously–with all the fanaticism of the Stasi–polices
its comments section. It's unreal.
The United States seems ready to give up on Afghanistan.
After the World Trade Center came down the U.S. accused al-Qaeda, parts of which were hosted
in Afghanistan. The Taliban government offered the U.S. to extradite al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin
Laden to an Islamic country to be judged under Islamic law. The U.S. rejected that and decided
instead to destroy the Afghan government.
Taliban units, supported by Pakistani officers, were at that time still fighting against the
Northern Alliance which held onto a few areas in the north of the country. Under threats from
the U.S. Pakistan, which sees Afghanistan as its natural depth hinterland, was pressed into
service. In exchange for its cooperation with the U.S. operation it was allowed to extradite
its forces and main figures of the Taliban.
U.S. special forces were dropped into north Afghanistan. They came with huge amounts of cash
and the ability to call in B-52 bombers. Together with the Northern Alliance they move towards
Kabul bombing any place where some feeble resistance came from. The Taliban forces dissolved.
Many resettled in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda also vanished.
A conference with Afghan notables was held in Germany's once capital Bonn. The Afghans
wanted to reestablish the former Kingdom but were pressed into accepting a western style
democracy. Fed with large amounts of western money the norther warlords, all well known
mass-murderers, and various greedy exiles were appointed as a government. To them it was all
about money. There was little capability and interest to govern.
All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country.
For a few years the Taliban went quiet. But continued U.S. operations, which included random
bombing of weddings, torture and abduction of assumed al-Qaeda followers, alienated the people.
Pakistan feared that it would be suffocated between a permanently U.S. occupied Afghanistan and
a hostile India. Four years after being ousted the Taliban were reactivated and found regrown
local support.
Busy with fighting an insurgency in Iraq the U.S. reacted slowly. It then surged troops into
Afghanistan, pulled back, surged again and is now again pulling back. The U.S. military aptly
demonstrated its excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence. The
longer it fought the more Afghan people stood up against it. The immense amount of money spent
to 'rebuild' Afghanistan
went to U.S. contractors and Afghan warlords but had little effect on the ground. Now half
the country is back under Taliban control while the other half is more or less contested.
Before his election campaign Donald Trump spoke out
against the war on Afghanistan. During his campaign he was more cautious pointing to the danger
of a nuclear Pakistan as a reason for staying in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is where the U.S.
supply line is coming through and there are no reasonable alternatives. Staying in Afghanistan
to confront Pakistan while depending on Pakistan for logistics does not make sense.
Early this year the U.S. stopped all aid to Pakistan. Even the old Pakistani government was
already talking
about blocking the logistic line. The incoming prime minister Imran Khan has campaigned for
years against the U.S. war on Afghanistan. He very much prefers an alliance with China over any U.S.
rapprochement. The U.S. hope is that Pakistan will have to ask the IMF for another bailout and
thus come back under Washington's control. But it is
more likely that Imran Khan will ask China for financial help.
Under pressure from the military Trump had agreed to raise the force in Afghanistan to some
15,000 troops. But these were way to few to hold more than some urban areas. Eighty percent of
the Afghan people live in the countryside. Afghan troops and police forces are incapable or
unwilling to fight their Taliban brethren. It was obvious that this mini-surge
would fail :
By most objective measures, President Donald Trump's year-old strategy for ending the war in
Afghanistan has produced few positive results.
Afghanistan's beleaguered soldiers have failed to recapture significant new ground from
the Taliban. Civilian deaths have hit historic highs. The Afghan military is struggling to
build a reliable air force and expand the number of elite fighters. Efforts to cripple
lucrative insurgent drug smuggling operations have fallen short of expectations. And U.S.
intelligence officials say the president's strategy has halted Taliban gains but not reversed
their momentum, according to people familiar with the latest assessments.
To blame Pakistan for its support for some Taliban is convenient, but makes little sense. In
a recent
talk John Sopko, the U.S. Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR),
made a crucial point:
"We keep referring to Pakistan as being the key problem. But the problem also was that the
Afghan government at times was viewed very negatively by their local people and what you
really need is to insert a government that the people support, a government that is not
predatory, a government that is not a bunch of lawless warlords," observed Sopko.
He went on to say that the U.S. policy of pouring in billions of dollars in these unstable
environments contributed to the problem of creating more warlords and powerful people who
took the law into their own hands.
"In essence, the government we introduced, particularly some of the Afghan local police
forces, which were nothing other than warlord militias with some uniforms on, were just as
bad as the terrorists before them," said Sopko ...
This was the problem from the very beginning. The U.S. bribed itself into Afghanistan. It
spent tons of money but did not gain real support. It bombed and shot aimlessly at 'Taliban'
that were more often than not just the local population. It incompetently fought 17
one-year-long wars instead of a consistently planned and sustained political, economic and
military campaign.
After a year of another useless surge the Trump administration decided to pull back from
most active operations and to bet
on negotiations with the Taliban:
The shift to prioritize initial American talks with the Taliban over what has proved a futile
"Afghan-led, Afghan-owned" process stems from a realization by both Afghan and American
officials that President Trump's new Afghanistan strategy is not making a fundamental
difference in rolling back Taliban gains.
While no date for any talks has been set, and the effort could still be derailed, the
willingness of the United States to pursue direct talks is an indication of the sense of
urgency in the administration to break the stalemate in Afghanistan.
...
Afghan officials and political leaders said direct American talks with the Taliban would
probably then grow into negotiations that would include the Taliban, the Afghan government,
the United States and Pakistan.
Afghans have continued to burn for the last four decades in the fire of imposed wars. They
are longing for peace and a just system but they will never tire from their just cause of
defending their creed, country and nation against the invading forces of your
warmongering government because they have rendered all the previous and present historic
sacrifices to safeguard their religious values and national sovereignty. If they make a deal
on their sovereignty now, it would be unforgettable infidelity with their proud history and
ancestors.
Last weeks talks between the Taliban and U.S. diplomats took place in Doha, Qatar.
Remarkably the Afghan government was excluded. Despite the rousing tone of the Reuters
report below the positions that were exchanged
do not point to a successful conclusion:
According to one Taliban official, who said he was part of a four-member delegation, there
were "very positive signals" from the meeting, which he said was conducted in a "friendly
atmosphere" in a Doha hotel.
"You can't call it peace talks," he said. "These are a series of meetings for initiating
formal and purposeful talks. We agreed to meet again soon and resolve the Afghan conflict
through dialogue."
...
The two sides had discussed proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces
where they would not be attacked, an idea that President Ashraf Ghani has already rejected .
They also discussed Taliban participation in the Afghan government.
"The only demand they made was to allow their military bases in Afghanistan ," said the
Taliban official.
...
"We have held three meetings with the U.S. and we reached a conclusion to continue talks for
meaningful negotiations," said a second Taliban official.
...
"However, our delegation made it clear to them that peace can only be restored to Afghanistan
when all foreign forces are withdrawn ," he said.
This does not sound promising:
In a first step the Taliban want to officially rule parts of the country and use it as a
safe haven. The Afghan government naturally rejects that.
Participation of the Taliban in the Afghan government is an idea of the Afghan president
Ghani. It is doubtful that this could be successfully arranged. Norther Alliance elements in
the Afghan government, like the 'chief executive' Abdullah Abdullah, are unlikely to ever
agree to it. The Taliban also have no interest to be 'part of the government' and to then get
blamed for its failures. Their February letter makes clear that they want to be the
government.
The U.S. wants bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban, and Pakistan behind them, reject that
and will continue to do so.
It is difficult to see how especially the last mutually exclusive positions can ever be
reconciled.
The Taliban are ready to accept a peaceful retreat of the U.S. forces. That is their only
offer. They may agree to keep foreign Islamist fighters out of their country. The U.S. has no
choice but to accept. It is currently retreating to the cities and large bases. The outlying
areas will fall to the Taliban. Sooner or later the U.S. supply lines will be cut. Its bases
will come under fire.
There is no staying in Afghanistan. A retreat is the only issue the U.S. can negotiate
about. It is not a question of "if" but of "when".
The Soviet war in Afghanistan took nine years. The time was used to build up a halfway
competent government and army that managed to hold off the insurgents for three more years
after the Soviet withdrawal. The government only fell when the Soviets cut the money line. The
seventeen year long U.S. occupation did not even succeed in that. The Afghan army is corrupt
and its leaders are incompetent. The U.S. supplied it with expensive and complicate equipment
that
does not fit Afghan needs . As soon as the U.S. withdraws the whole south, the east and
Kabul will immediately fall back into Taliban hands. Only the north may take a bit longer. They
will probably ask China to help them in developing their country.
The erratic
empire failed in another of its crazy endeavors. That will not hinder it to look for a new
ones. The immense increase
of the U.S. military budget, which includes 15,000 more troops, points to a new large war.
Which country will be its next target?
thanks b.. it would be good if the exceptional warmongering nation could go home, but i am
not fully counting on it.. i liked your quote here "The U.S. military aptly demonstrated its
excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence." that is ongoing..
unless the usa leaves, i think the madness continues.. i suspect the madness will continue..
the only other alternative is the usa, with the help of their good buddies - uk, ksa, qatar,
uae and israel - will keep on relocating isis to afgan for future destabilization.. i watched
a video peter au left from al jazzera 2017 with isis embedded in the kush mtns... until the
funding for them ceases - i think the usa will have a hand in the continued madness... if the
usa was serious about ending terrorism they would shut down the same middle east countries
they are in bed with.. until that happens, i suspect not much will change.. i hope i am
wrong..
I dont believe it for a second. Especially with Iran looming as a potential target. US is
staying in Afghanistan also to counter China , keep opium production high and of course there
is the TAPI pipeline to "protect" that is backed by US as an alternative to the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline that would have tapped Iran's South Pars gas field. A hostile or
unfriendly Pakistan is just one more reason to stay
Just like US will never leave Iraq or Syria, they will stay in Afghanistan. There will be
ebbs and flows, and talk of disengagement from time to time primarily for domestic
consumption, but thats all it is IMO.
This is a fine recap of the situation. It's much too optimistic. The classic method of
American negotiation and warfare like the Roman before them is to divide and conquer. It was
very successful against the American Indians.
If the Taliban get free movement in two provinces, the Americans will demand an end to
attacks on their bases, their soldiers and their agents elsewhere in Afghanistan. Just as the
Iroquois Confederation enjoyed special privileges in what is now Upper New York for their
help against the French, the Taliban will have special privileges in their two provinces
while the Americans consolidate in the rest of Afghanistan. When the Americans feel strong
enough, just as with the Iroquois, they will break the previous treaties.
After the Revolutionary War, the ancient central fireplace of the League was re-established
at Buffalo Creek. The United States and the Iroquois signed the treaty of Fort Stanwix in
1784 under which the Iroquois ceded much of their historical homeland to the Americans,
which was followed by another treaty in 1794 at Canandaigua which they ceded even more land
to the Americans./b
(...continuation of the comment above, somehow got posted when I pressed the return
key)
Even the Soviet Union and Russians were unable to make the American respect their
commitments. The United States reneged on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as soon as it
could in 2001 (Russia was on its knees), reneged on its commitments not to expand NATO east
and has built ballistic missile bases all around Russia which seem to be preparation for a
pre-emptive nuclear strike/war against Russia.
The Afghanis (foolish to call them the Taliban, they are traditional Afghani patriots)
have always been wise enough to annihilate any invader to the last man. This salutary policy
keeps invaders out for decades at a time. The Taliban have a long row to hoe. It took almost
a hundred years and several massacres to finally curb British ambitions on Afghanistan (1838
to 1919). Afghanis' best hopes rely on forging tight alliances with Pakistan and China,
squeezing the Americans out completely right now.
The Americans burnt their bridges with the Russian already and are in the process of
burning their bridges with Pakistan while losing influence with China. The US is very short
of options right now. It's the ideal time for Afghanis to reclaim the whole territory, not
leaving a single American soldier or airbase operational. They'll need a technically
sophisticated ally to help them clear their skies of US drones. This role might appeal to
either the Russians or the Chinese. As a training exercise, extended anti-drone warfare could
be very useful.
What a great success the US achieved in destroying Yugoslavia. Murdering thousands went
almost unnoticed. It was able to break up the country into a number of tiny, impoverished
nations and got to put a US MIC Base in most of them.
You did not mention isis-k in your analysis. Its active mostly in eastern afghanistan in
areas close to or adjacent to Pakistan (it is also controlls a small area in Jawzjan, in
northern afghanistan). Many fighters are formerly pakistani taliban(not to be confused with
afghan taliban who are simply called taliban). Before isis-k appeared in afghanistan, the
areas which it now controls had pakistani taliban presence. TTP, or tehreek e taliban
pakistan was facilitated by afghan ggovernment to settle down in these areas after they fled
pakistan when its military launched a large scale offensive, Operation Zarb e Azb. The afghan
government planned to use them to pressurize Pakistan, basically to use them as a bargaining
chip. They operate openly in eastern afghanistan, but many of them joined isis-k.
Russians estimate isis-k's strength to be between 10k to 12k, although it might be a bit
inflated number. From here they plan attacks against afghanistan and pakistan alike, mostly
suicide bombings as of now. They have had fierce clashes with afghan taliban in eastern
Afghanistan but have held their territory for now. Afghan army simply doesn't have the
capacity in those areas to confront them. It was here that MOAB was dropped but as expected
against a guerrilla force, it was ineffective in every way. But it did make headlines and has
helped US in giving an impression its seriously fighting ISIS. The reports of unmarked
helicopters dropping god-knows-what have also been coming from these areas. Hamid karzai
mentioned that and also maria zakharova asked afghan gov. and US to investigate that which
shows these are not just rumors. Recently intelligence chiefs of Pakistan, russia, iran and
china as well(if i remember correctly) met in islamabad to discuss isis-k in afghanistan, no
details other than this of this meeting are available.
In Northern afghanistan, in Jawzjan, fierce clashes broke out between taliban and isis-k
after taliban commander in thiae areas was beheaded. ISIS-k has been beaten up pretty badly
there but clashes are ongoing. Many areas have been cleared but fighting is still ongoing. An
interesting aspect is taliban sources claiming that whenever they come close to a decisive
victory, they have to stop operations becauae of heavy bombardment by US planes. They made
similar claims when fighting daesh in eastern afghanistan. Anyway in a few days isis presence
will probably be finished in Jawzjan. ISIS fighters who have survived have done so by
surrendering to afghan forces. They will probably end up back in eastern afghanistan.
Africa. US AFRICOM has a huge playground, tactics won't change and logistics is far
easier.
There also will be a long Hybrid wr against Iran, but that will be much like the early
days of Syria. Proxies as "moderates". Insurgents, not US troops. ISIS and AQ crazies will be
on the ground.
The big money will go into Africa. You want to see Trillions "spent"? It will be
Africa.
The decision to invade Afghanistan had been taken before the 9/11 false flag coup. Had
nothing much to do with the CIA's al-Qaeda mercenaries.
As I understood it, there were many agendas at work: testing weapons and making money for
the MIC; controlling the lucrative (how many hundreds of billions of dollars ?) opium/ heroin
production/profiteering; military bases relating to Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and other
...stans, etc; control of oil and gas pipelines; access to increasingly valuable and sought
rare earth minerals; proximity to oil and gas actual and potential.
More generally, subjugating Afghanistan was a necessary part of the 'full spectrum
dominance' 'we will rule the earth' doctrine, dear til recently to too many mad hatters, and
still evoking a misty eyed longing in some, no doubt.
Ahhh...the US produces some of the lamest euphemisms approved for all audiences; such as
"Afgahn Security Forces." So sterile, innocuous. And benign. How could anyone question their
plight? (We did pick up the game a little bit in Syria with "Free Syrian Army..." Can I get a
hell yeah?) All the people hearing this in the US could do was shrug their shoulders and
speak, "I guess I should support them." That is, of course, after we took out OBL and the
mission in Afghanistan was a little more opaque. Just a little bit. Anyways...Hell, yeah! Get
some!
Thanks b for the brief history. Really invaluable.
Afghani patriots, resisting invaders since 330 BCE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan
The US military, the planet's costliest losingest military since 1946. The US military, like
its munitions manufacturers, doesn't win but it does get paid and is why we can have nice
things like oh, decent health care. Lack of health insurance kills more Americans than the
Russians ever will. The Russians aren't the enemy, Trump is. Lobbyists are too.
I haven't read anything about Blackwater wanting to replace the U.S. Military in Afghanistan.
Of course, the U.S. Treasury would continue to shovel those pallet loads of newly printed
$100.00 bills down the Blackwater hole. Any odds this might go forward from anyone's opinion?
robin cook before he was murdered stated that alqueda was a cia data base.
i believe bresinski knew obl as tim osman who was later killed by cia mi6 man omar blah blah
sheikh bhutto of pakisyan was assasinated after spilling the beans about sheikh.
christopher bolleyn on you tube will give you the sp on what 9 and 11 was shirley we are
past the point of the offecal theory.
the turd burger that is the official theory is clearly the worst and lowest grade of all the
conspiracy theories.
the taliban where in barbera bushes texas talking lithium opium and oil pipelines with the
paedo bush crime syndicate before 9 and 11
marvin bush ran security at the twin towers
christopher bollyn is the go to man in these regardings
The US wants peace talks but wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. US under Trump has built
new bases in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait.
SDF have been talking with Syrian government, and US in Talks with Taliban. Are these just
moves to buy the US a little time until it launches the war Trump has been building the US
military up for.
isis is israeli counter gang with support of usa usa and the city of
london,ukrainian,polish,uk sas,cia,kiwi,aussie,jordanian and donmeh satanic house of
saud.
talking of isis as if it is real entity rather than a frank kitson gang counter gang and
pseudo gang is polluting the well.
who has been providing extraction helicopters from syriana for the last 14 months.
who has been washing these bearded devils operating on them in kosher field hospitals making
them well shiny and new
who?
scchhhhh you know who
We are concerned about reports regarding the use of helicopters without any identification
marks in many parts of Afghanistan that are delivering terrorists and arms to the Afghan
branch of this terrorist organisation. We believe that reports to this effect made by Afghan
officials should be thoroughly investigated."
- Of course. The US wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. Surprise, surprise.
In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village
Hajji, the writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit.
The only question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous
it will be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam
War (1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and
the Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be
even more severe.
In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village Hajji, the
writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit. The only
question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous it will
be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam War
(1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and the
Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be
even more severe.
@uncoy.. i basically see it like you, however another proxy war involving usa-russia-china
sounds like a running theme now...
@13 bilal.. good post.. i agree about the analysis missing much on isis presence in afgan
as @6 jr also points out.. i think it is a critical bit of the puzzle.. it appears the usa is
using isis as a proxy force, as obama previously stated with regard to syria... the usa just
can't seem to help themselves with their divide and conquer strategy using isis as part of
it's methodology... it's exact opposite of what they profess..
@18 eugene.. isn't blackwater or whatever they're called now - headquartered in uae?
perfect place for them, lol... right on top of yemen, afgan, and etc. etc.. if isis can't do
the job for the west thru their good friends ksa, uae - well, then maybe they can pay a bit
more and get blackwater directly involved too..
Trump is serious when he said he would talk to anybody. The CIA is alleged to have been
stirring the pot with Islamic militants prior to the Soviet invasion when the country went
full socialist. I would suspect the Russians had a hand in that in 1978. US intelligence was
said to be helping along the backlash to socialism by Islamic militants back then in 1978.
The CIA station chief was promptly assassinated the next year.
Obviously you could dump 600,000 NATO and US soldiers into the country and not control it
short of executing every Muslim. What a foolish endeavor but what would you expect from these
buffoons and their death cult? These human sacrifices are holy to them. They worship blood,
death, power and money.
With their loss in Syria the NEOCONS can now make peace with the Taliban and use them and
ISIS to push into old Soviet Central Asia in an attempt to deny them what the Anglo American
Zionist alliance cannot have at this time, control of the commodities.
China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place.
Even the Brits knew when it was time to leave India and their Middle Eastern holdings. They
realized the costs of containment would wipe out their country.
No he doesnt, along with Israel and neocons. There was already nuclear deal, and US was
out of "all this crap", so why introduce Gordian Knot if he doesnt want it?
What Trump demands is Iran's surrender. 'b discussed it at length some time ago, the list
of Trump's demands is completely ridiculous and the goal is Iran as a client state.
From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to
meet, it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt
worth a toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even
endeavor to negotiate dead from the get go.
Congress went along with the Pentagon's 7 countries in 5 years plan. No investigation of 9/11
or even consideration of Ron Paul's bringing in an old idea of Letters of Marque and
Reprisal.
As to the US leaving the warlords in power to continue opium production, etc, Van Buren (We
Meant Well book) said some of the same happened in Iraq with some sheikhs still holding power
in local areas. General Garner looked forward to going in to rebuild (and was promising quick
elections) but was shocked to see no protection of ministries (except oil) which were looted
and burned. And then Bremer was put in charge. Complete mismanagement of the war, the
aftermath, etc. Like someone once said, if they were doing these things at random you would
expect them to get it right once in a while.
The Kunduz Airlift which allowed Pakistan a corridor to fly out Pak officials, Taliban,
and possibly al Qaeda was yet another snafu like paying Pakistan to supposedly block any
escape from their side of Tora Bora only to have a long convoy leave at night. It made one
wonder about the US supposed air superiority/domination. Again, complete mismanagement.
A comparison to the end situation in VietNam 1975 is apt.
Trump meeting Rouhani. Trump saays he wants a better deal. The nuke agreement took years to
negotiate and Iran accepted far more stringent inspections than any other country signed up
NPT. There is nothing more for Iran to negotiate other than to give away their
sovereignty.
The offer of a meeting by Trump is more along the line of "we tried to avoid war".
The US under Trump have scrapped the nuke agreement and made demands that are impossible for
Iran to meet without giving away its sovereignty.
Erik Prince's plan for fighting in Afghanistan.
He presented it to the WH. Military rejected it.
He is no longer Blackwater-connected.
Frontier Services Group Ltd. is his new military-security services corp.
He has extensive contracts with the Chinese government and their SOEs overseas.
did you see General Souleimani answer's to Trump rabid tweet
it went like this
Our president doesnt lower himself to answer someone like.I, a soldier answer someone like
you, you re someone who speaks in the vocabulary of a cabaret owner and a gambling house
dealer.(paraphrasing saker has the video on his site)
and then he went on to describe how your cowad troops wore adult diapers in Afghanistan
and Iraq
China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place.
dltravers @28
No. China, being development-oriented rather than imperialist, will leave Afghanistan
alone. China and Russia, but especially China, requires an Afghanistan that is not a
U.S.-controlled terrorist base. Because China needs the oil/gas link that it is building
through Pakistan to access Gulf energy resources, and that energy corridor would be the
primary target of U.S.-hired mercenaries ('terrorists').
How Afghanistan manages itself in the post-U.S. era is Afghan business, but it will almost
certainly involve the Pashtun majority (in the form of the 'Taliban') retaking power in Kabul
but with the traditional huge amounts of autonomy for the provinces. That arrangement reduces
pressure by Pashtun nationalists in Pakistan against Pakistan's government, and in general
seems to be the long-term stable set up, and stability is what China has to have in
Afghanistan.
Now is the time with perfect China partner Khan and the Pakistan military firmly in power.
Not instant, but over the next two years I think we'll see the Taliban's fighting capacity
hugely improve, with transfers of supplies, weapons and intelligence from Pakistan. It would
be very smart for Trump to get out in 2019. History is going to accelerate in that
region.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I worry a lot about Venezuela. See, it's a perfect
fit for the U.S. economy. U.S. shale oil is way too light to be useful, while Venezuelan oil
is way too heavy to be useful. They are destined for each other, i.e. to be mixed into a
blend that would be a good fit U.S. refineries. Plus, Venezuela is very import-dependent and
thus would make for a good vassal. It also has a rabid capitalist class that will do anything
-- any kind of atrocity or false flag -- to return to the good old days of exploitation. "But
Venezuela has a lot of arms!", I hear you counter. True, but the people are severely
demoralized because of the extreme economic hardship. Think of the USSR in late 80s/early
90s. It had the most powerful military in the world, and yet people were so demoralized and
disillusioned with the old system that they simply chose not to defend it. Same thing may
happen in Venezuela. After Colombia has signed peace accords with FARC, U.S. has been
steadily increasing its military presence in Colombia. I think there is a very real
possibility of a naval blockade combined with supply lines/air raids from Colombia supporting
the "Free Venezuelan Army" assembled from Venezuelan gangs and revanchist capitalists and
foreign mercenaries. It would be logistically impossible for Russia or China to provide
military help to far-away Venezuela. Neighbors will not come to the aid of Venezuela either
as there is a surge of pro-U.S. right-wing governments in the region.
Any moves the U$A makes will have to be approved according to which natural resources their
corporate masters covet at any particular moment. Lithium and other rare earth minerals,
strategic importance, whatever the corporate form needs to stay on top globally, will dictate
what the empire does.
Leave Afghanistan? I very much doubt it.
DJT will do what the "puppet masters" desire. Just like all his predecessors.
'Correction': No reliable census has been done in decades, but I don't think the Pashtun are
the majority in Afghanistan. They
are by far the largest minority however. British 'divide and rule' stategists long ago
deliberately separated them into Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Venezuela and Iran have two things in common. Both have large oil reserves and neither
recognize Israel.
Trump's wars will be about destroying enemies of Israel, and at the same time, achieving
global energy dominance.
I've posted this before. I met a Taliban leader and his two guards in a brutal area during
the Hearts and Minds Schtick, preparatory to Cheney getting all the oil and gas, and copper
and iron and coming coal lease awards.
He was a nice guy, the Taliban leader. His guards looked at me with absolute death in
their eyes. Not wanting them to hear him, as we finished our tea, the Taliban leader leaned
close, then whispered, 'I love your Jesus, but I hate your Crusaders.'
And I take issue with the US 'incompetence' meme. Ever since Cheney hosted the Taliban in
Texas in 1998, trying to get a TAPI pipeline, the US has deliberately and cunningly taken
over the country, assassinated the local-level leadership, and installed their foreign Shah,
first Karzai, then Ghani.
In that time of occupation, 18 years, Pentagon MIC disappeared TRILLIONS in shrink-wrapped
pallets of $100s, and ballooned from $340B a year, to now Trump is saying $840B a year.
That's not incompetence. Just the opposite.
Now, to honor my Afghan friends, who love to joke even after 35+ years of machine warfare,
a joke I wrote in their honor:
Ring ring ring ring
"Office of the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan!"
"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."
"Hold please."
President Reagan, it's the Iranian ambassador!"
"Well hello Mr. Assinabindstani, what can I do for you?"
"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."
"Well I'll get my staff right on it."
[Intercomm clicks]
"Hey Ollie, the Ayatollah wants more guns! Step on it!"
Actually, the British paid an annual tithe-tribute the the Afghan king to stop raiding
their India holdings, and agreed to a neutral zone between them. Then when the British pulled
out, they declared the neutral zone as Pakistan and shrunk India away from Pashtun territory
to create a bigger divide. The Afghan leaders had no say in the matter. I believe Baluchistan
was also carved away. At one time, Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley.
There is no way to defeat a nation of warriors who created a kingdom that vast, while William
the Conqueror was still running around in bear skin diapers.
@41 'Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley.'
You are probably referring to the Khalji Dynasty, a brutal bunch, who ruled India from
1290 to 1320 by which time William the Conqueror was long dead. You would be a lot more
credible if you got your history right.
IMHO the military Budget increase, and what an increase it is!
is part of worsening an already outrageous situation to reach a caricatural point. Typical of
trump repeated special "art".
Of course Nobody in USA, no President can go against the MIC and Pentagon.
But money is cheap when you print it.
It is sugaring the intended shrinking of foreign deployments (as in NATO), closure of
"facilities" and replacing them officially with total deterrence capacities (Space Forces
anybody ?).
While keeping classical projection capacities for demonstration against backward
tribes.
...
From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to meet,
it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt worth a
toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even endeavor
to negotiate dead from the get go.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 30, 2018 7:53:57 PM | 29
Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite
likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if you
feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what Iran
wants it to mean.
Trump jumped into the NK and Putin talks first because both were eager to talk. Iran will
be a good test of Trump's seduction skills. All he's got to do is persuade the Iranians that
talking is more useful than swapping long-distance insults. Iranians are rusted onto logical
principles and Trump will find a way to appeal to that trait, imo.
It's too late for the afghanis who have been driven into the urban areas during the regulaar
'Afghanistanisation' campaigns. Most of them will have become hooked on consumerism and the
necessity of dollars.
That leaves only two options for the Taliban when they take over as they undoubtedly will
altho that is likely to mean having to tolerate clutches of obese amerikans lurking in some
Px strewn green zone, the inhabitants of which are likely to have less contact with people
from Afghanistan than any regular user of a Californian shopping mall. The new government can
ignore the consumerists even when these rejects insist on getting lured into some nonsense
green revolution - the danger with this isn't the vapid protests which can easily be dealt
with by fetching a few mobs of staunch citizens from rural Afghanistan who will quickly teach
them that neither cheeseburgers nor close captioned episodes of daytime television provide
sufficient nutrition to handle compatriots raised on traditional food and Islam. Or the new
administration can do as other traditional regimes have done many times over the last 80
years or so, purge the consumerists by disappearing the leadership and strewing empty lots in
the urban areas with mutilated corpses of a few of the shitkicker class consumerists. That
option can cause a bit of a fuss but it (the fuss) generally only lasts as long as the purge.
I suspect the Afghan government will favour the latter approach but they may try to hold
off until the North has been brought back into line. OTH, consumerism is a highly contagious
condition so, unless the North can be pacified speedily which seems unlikely, initially at
least the Taliban adminsitration may have to fight on two fronts, agin the North while they
nip urban consumerists in the bud before those confused fools can cause any highly publicised
in the west but in actuality, low key, attempted insurrection.
My advice to the gaming, TV or cheeseburger addicted inhabitants of Kabul would be to
volunteer your services to the amerikan military as a 'translator' asap and join yer cobbers
in California.
It is unlikely that you will bump into Roman Brady especially not when he is in one
of his avuncular moods, but if you stay outta Texas, Florida or any other part of flyover
amerika chocka with alcohol induced blowhardism, you will discover than amerikan racism isn't
as lethal as it once was.
Apart from having to ignore being jostled in the line at fast food joints and being loudly
and incorrectly termed a motherf**in sand n***er mid-jostle. Certainly a whole lot less
lethal than trying to cover your Fortnite jones by waving a badly copywritten sign in front
of the al-Jazeera cameras for a one month
battle pass .
What was happening in Kabul, Afghanistan less than 8 hours after the WTC Towers turned into
dust in midair? Who here remembers the massive bombing/cruise missile attack?
Here is CNN's transcript:
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Well, Joie, it's about 2:30 in the morning here in
Kabul. We've been hearing explosions around the perimeter of the city. We're in a position
here which gives us a view over the whole city. We just had an impact, perhaps a few miles
away.
"If I listen, you can hear the ripple of explosions around the city. Perhaps you heard
there. The fifth explosion -- sixth explosion, I think. Gun bursts and star bursts in the
air. Tracer fire is coming up out of the city. I hear aircraft flying above the city of
Kabul. Perhaps we've heard half a dozen to 10 detonations on the perimeter of the city,
some coming from the area close to the airport. I see on the horizon what could be a fire
on the horizon, close, perhaps, to where the airport might be. A flash came up then from
the airport. Some ground fire coming up here in Kabul."
"I've been in Belgrade and I've been in Baghdad and seen cruise missiles arrive in both
those cities. The detonations we're hearing in Kabul right now certainly sound like the
detonations of loud missiles that are coming in. "
"Certainly -- certainly it would appear that the Afghan defense systems have detected a
threat in the air. They are launching what appears to be anti-aircraft defense systems at
the moment. Certainly, I can see that fire that was blazing on the horizon. It was a faint
yellow; it's now a bright orange blazing. Several other detonations going off around the
city, multiple areas. Rockets appear to be taking off from one end of the airport. I can
see that perhaps located about 8 or 9 miles away from where we stand, Joie."
The bombing/explosions continue for 10+ minutes of this broadcast.
Then, they cut to WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: who says the US is only
collecting intelligence. He says what we're seeing must be part of the "Civil War" (despite
the fact that neither side had an air force or cruise missiles). The Pentagon later denies
knowing anything about it.
Then, CNN returns to Nic Robertson, who- within 15 minutes of his first report - begins to
change his tune. Suddenly, the jet sounds are not mentioned. The cruise missiles (jet
engines) have transformed into possible rockets. The airport fire is now an ammunition
dump.
And voila! They lose their connection and Nic will not be heard from again. And this
little bit of history will essentially disappear.
Dear Mr. B,
"All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country."
These mistakes are by design. To cause and keep causing destabilisation.
I like to refer to it as the 3-letter Scrabble method of doing things.
Me living in the Netherlands as I do, let me take the example of Greece.
Greece had its regime changed in 1948 (Wiki says 46-49).
And how is Greece doing these days? ...
@37 yep, gotta agree with the more passimistic outlook here. Personally i'll eat my shoes if
US leaves Afghanistan within any reasonable time frame. In addition to plentiful natural
resources, there are very influential vested interests in Afghanistans booming opium
industry.
Off topic: Andrei Nekrasov's 'Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes' can be viewed in full on You
Tube at this moment (31 July, 08:15 Amsterdam time). Can it also be seen in the USA, I
wonder? How long will it take before Google take it down ? Watch it and learn about one of
the main drivers of the Russia obsession.
Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite
likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if
you feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what
Iran wants it to mean.
White House just explained what Trump's "no preconditions" means: 1) Iran should at the
core change how it deals with its own people. 2) Change its evil stance in foreign policy. 3)
Agree on nuclear agreement which would REALLY prevent them making a nuke.
In other words, Iran should capitulate and become a client state, thats what Trump means
by "no preconditions."
At this advanced stage of American insanity, I don't see why the devil should have all the
best tunes. I'm sick of the yanks doing this shit in over people's county's ! While they
stuff there fat faces with burgers and donuts! The dirty games they play on over country's,
should now be played in America with all the brutality that they have used on others. Until
that happens things world wide will continue to detriate. Natural justice is all that
remains. They'v curupted all else.
@19 "The US already started to plan an invasion of Afghanistan in januari & february of
2001."
Well, to be fair the USA probably has plans to invade lots of countries.
Indeed, it would be more interesting to consider how many countries there are that the USA
*doesn't* have invasion plans gathering dust on the shelves.
It's just been reported on the bbc news---- the man responsible for the Manchester bombing
had been 'rescued from Lybia when Gadafi was overthrown and tracked ever since. Even in
Britain up to the day of the bombing ! And now on this post we discuss America uk
transporting terrorists from Syria to Afganistan . Not to mention the white helmet bunch and
where Ther going! The Manchester bombing, Westminster bridge and London Bridge atacks were
done by the Tory party to win a general election ! This is the reality of the world we live
in.full on oppression !!!
Indeed, I agree with the sentiments here. But missing a big part of the picture.
Afghanistan and Pakistan have sky-high fertility rates. Forget the rubbish peddled by
economist-whores like Milton Friedman, under these conditions no country without an open
frontier has ever developed into anything other than a larger mass of poverty. In Pakistan
something like half the children are so malnourished that they grow up stunted, and it is
this misery that is starting slow population growth. Pakistan is yet another example of the
Malthusian holocaust, which is not a global catastrophe: it is slow grinding poverty that
results when people have more children than they can support.
Bottom line: these places will remain poor and unstable no matter what lunacy the United
States does or does not do. The traditional approach to such places is to leave them alone,
and only keep them from escaping. Bottled up, the Afghanis and Pakistanis will kill only each
other. 9/11 is a consequence of allowing people from these places free access to the Untied
States.
The 'war on terror' is a consequence of 'there shall be open borders.' It's a big and
messy world, and even if the government of the United States was not criminally incompetent,
there would be a lot of misery and hatred in it. Open borders means that now the Untied
States has to intervene in every country all over the world to ensure that nowhere can there
develop terrorist cells. An impossible task.
Charles Michael @ 44
I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next
target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true
fighters as well as stronger economic planning.
div
Charles Michael @ 44
I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next
target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true
fighters as well as stronger economic planning.
The US still has some resources and some use but needs to continue to make friends in the
pattern of Kim and Putin and give up on its self defeating economic and military sabotage
planning which has been exposed as morally bankrupt as well.
In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly
significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States'
relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on
July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from
time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't
necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could
just be an accident."
Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has
voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and
resurgence
of Russia necessitating a new global balance .
As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China,
signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing
becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians),
the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period."
Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."
Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between
Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power
game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to
discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.
Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no
secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and
Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for
'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David
became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.
But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River
in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing
the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials
show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One
particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War
history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack
on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher
Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal
year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a
basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger
to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.
Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin
will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US.
Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a
meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to
play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.
Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese
analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia
relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.
The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting
in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, "
Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia."
Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including
on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American
cooperation.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial
giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to
Russia -- China
can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable
reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the
global stage due to military power:
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total,
and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although
an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear
advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only
should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know
that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle.
And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create
a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that
they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.
"To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia."
So, what exactly can Trump offer Russia? Letting them "win" in Syria, when the Syrian
people, lead by Assad and aided by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, have already won?
Perhaps, it is the return of bankrupt and banderised Ukraine? Now that would be a
prize!
Perhaps, Trump could offer the withdrawal of NATO forces from Russia's borders and a
place in the "international community"? That worked out well in the 90s, didn't it?
Maybe, relief from sanctions could be the clincher? That would rescue the "tattered"
Russian economy, wouldn't it?
The Nixon to China gambit by Trump ignores the stark reality that Trump is in office but
not in power. The entire media and the "intelligence community" has been angling to
impeach him since his election, and they may well succeed after the mid-terms.
Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?
Besides, Putin and loyal Russians have seen through the true reasons behind what can only
be called anti Russian RACIST hysteria.
Its not ideological or cultural. It is an ancient urge: Russia must submit to the
US/EU/NATO Borg Collective, or be destroyed. Could anyone have missed the rant in the US
media, incited by the "intelligence community", which just happened to be "thrown under
the bus", by Trump, just because he met Putin?
Trump is also going to be the victim of the same urge.
He cannot be controlled, so he must be destroyed.
Simples!
The Yanks will start their endless electioneering soon, four years is nothing, the
dolts start the game going for new president years berfore the election date. Sure they
hate any nation that stands-up to them they actually beleive they have a god-given righ
to rule the world as they spread their sick ways around the globe calling them freedom?
choice?, playing one nation against the other is an old game, lets hope Russia never
crosses China, as together they can keep the war-monger, nation-destroyer two faced snake
USA in check.
"Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?"
There is not even room for that question. Russia is STRATEGIC partner of China and
they never contemplate under no circumstances to have that differently.... Whoever thinks
Russia might take some offer in consideration to turn against China is DEAD WRONG.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Philippics are good, but at some point they faile to exite. The key question that Phipip forgot to ander is: Dore Izreal acts
a alobbist of the US MIC or it hasits own l(local agnda) that conflicts the MIC interests in the region.
So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment
that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence
in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being
"others" that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media
has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and
the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are
reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.
Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located
in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere,
including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements
in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in
Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been
applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.
So how do the Chinese "others" bring about "change" short of a full-scale invasion by the People's Liberation Army? I do not know
anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected
government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.
First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt
the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA),
which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject
to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government
have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.
The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly
connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational
purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese
Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.
Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session.
They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative
offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship
with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.
As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for
that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful
everything is in the People's Republic.
Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery
of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed
as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of
the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.
The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names
like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign
coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards
and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit
about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been
accused of doing.
And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers
and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective
of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public
will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does,
ideally beginning to refer to it as the "only democracy in Asia" and "America's best friend in the whole wide world." Once the indoctrination
process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to
pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.
When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the
dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing
Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also
in your pocket, putting everything in place for the "slam-dunk." You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist
and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the
Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead
duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have
won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America's politics alluded
to by Donald Trump.
Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using
that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating
elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel
when he made his offhand comment about "others," the shoe perfectly fits that country's subjugation of many of the foreign and national
security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently
boasted
about how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.
The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary
intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale
in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.
To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump's campaign staff and transition team but
Israel did so over a vote on its illegal
settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.
Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government
and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are
taken to Israel on generously funded "fact finding"
tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel's nearly total control over
the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists
who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson,
who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America's most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC
to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice
that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.
Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and
all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the
U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives
26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who
are
"prepared to die" for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have
likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even
discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.
And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress
making
it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law,
which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.
And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are
true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel's interference in our
elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.
The New York Times should change its name to Tel Aviv Times. Everyday, it interferes in virtually every US election, on behalf
of Israel, attacking candidates who do not support Israel or those who are patriotic and want to ban immigration.
Same with CNN, WaPo, the Economist (a Rothschild publication), etc.
Our Congressmen are Gazans. They are forced to sign pledges supporting Israel, and forced to destroy their country through
3rd world immigration, or risk destruction of their careers, mockery or defamation by the Zionist controlled media, loss of campaign
contributions from their biggest donors, or even risk being framed.
When Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the pledge, she was forced out. When another freshman Congressman simply wanted to delay
a vote in favor of Israel, he was attacked, taken to Israel where he was softened up and now is totally under the Jewish Lobby's
control.
The "uncivil war" within the US neoliberal elite is getting a lot hotter... The problem for the American establishment is that it
doesn't like the way democracy worked out.
The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
Notable quotes:
"... Written by Eric Margolis ..."
"... But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted to hear the truth. ..."
"... In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve). ..."
"... Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war. ..."
"... For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations. ..."
"... It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks. ..."
"... The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them on CNN, snarling away at President Trump. ..."
"... Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching US TV one might think so. ..."
"... Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence. ..."
Comedy? Disaster? Mental disorder? Hearing loss? Even days after President Donald Trump's bizarre appearance in Moscow alongside
a cool, composed President Vladimir Putin, it's hard to tell what happened. But it certainly was entertaining. In case anyone in
the universe missed this event, let me recap. Trump met in private with Putin, which drove bureaucrats on both sides crazy. So far,
Trump won't reveal most of what was said between the two leaders.
But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts
to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence
agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted
to hear the truth.
In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the
Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim.
The whole thing was black comedy. Maybe it was due to Trump's poor hearing or to jet lag and travel fatigue.
Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted
her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had
rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve).
Yet many Americans swallowed this canard. If Russia's GRU military intelligence was really involved in the run-up to the election,
as US intelligence reportedly claimed, it's alleged buying of social media amounted to peanuts and hardly swung the election.
Back in the 1940's, GRU managed to penetrate and influence Roosevelt's White House. Now that's real espionage. Not some junior
officers and 20-somethings on a laptop in Moscow.
Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US
political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party
was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war.
For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary
of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover
political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia,
Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations.
Democrats and Republican neocons are in full-throat hysteria over an alleged Russian threat – Russia, whose total military budget
is smaller than Trump's recent Pentagon budget increase this year.
What we have been seeing is the fascinating spectacle of America's war party and neocons clamoring to oust President Trump. Included
in their ranks are most of the US media, led by the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and TV's war parties, CNN and
NBC.
It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds
total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state
operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them
on CNN, snarling away at President Trump.
Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals
tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching
US TV one might think so.
Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed
to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this
is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence.
"... While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War. Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. ..."
"... Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of "we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!" ..."
"... "Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures." ..."
"... Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs. The American people just have no say in the matter. ..."
"... Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians ..."
"... Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering (Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there. ..."
"... I'll go a step further and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. ..."
"... It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it. ..."
"... What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished." ..."
"... The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its people. ..."
We have no choice. The 17-year war in Afghanistan has failed at every level, while the violence is only
getting worse.
Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is
instructing
its senior diplomats
to begin seeking "direct talks with the Taliban." It's a
measure that would have been unthinkable at the start of the Afghanistan war yet today it's long overdue. Despite the
criticism it's elicited, such talks offer the best chance of ending America's longest and most futile war.
While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military
operations in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how
to end the fighting on military terms.
Possibly the biggest impediment to ending the war has been the definition of the word
"win." General
Stanley McChrystal
said in 2009 that winning in
Afghanistan meant "reversing the perceived momentum" of the Taliban, "seek[ing] rapid growth of Afghan national security
forces," and "tackl[ing] the issue of predatory corruption by some" Afghan officials.
Nine full years and zero successes later, however, Lieutenant General Austin S.
Miller, latest in line to command U.S. troops in Afghanistan, defined as America's "core goal" at his
confirmation hearing
that "terrorists can never again use Afghanistan as a
safe haven to threaten the United States."
The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that
these objectives
can't be militarily accomplished.
Predicating an end to the war on such is to guarantee perpetual failure. A major course correction is therefore in
order.
Keeping 15,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan does not,
in any way
, prevent terror attacks against the
United States from originating there -- and for this lack of success we will pay at least
$45 billion
this year alone. The real solution
is therefore to withdraw our troops as quickly as can be safely accomplished rather than throw more of them into a
fruitless conflict.
I personally observed in 2011 during my second combat deployment in Afghanistan that
even with 140,000 U.S. and NATO boots on the ground, there were still vast swaths of the country that were ungoverned
and off-limits to allied troops.
Meaning, at no point since October 2001 has American military power prevented
Afghanistan from having ungoverned spaces. What
has
kept us safe, however -- and will continue to keep us safe -- has been our robust, globally
focused
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that work in concert with the CIA, FBI, and local law
enforcement to defend our borders from external attack.
Many pundits claim that if the U.S. military withdraws from Afghanistan then chaos
will reign there -- and that is almost certainly true. But that's how we found Afghanistan, that's how it is today,
and -- wholly irrespective of when or under what conditions the U.S. leaves -- that's how it will be long into the future
until Afghans themselves come to an accommodation.
The question U.S. policymakers need to ask is which is more important to American
interests: the maintenance of a perpetually costly war that fails to prevent any future attacks, or ending America's
participation in that war?
Continuing to fight for a country that can't be won cements a policy that has drained
the U.S. of vital resources, spilled the blood of American service members to no effect, and dissipated the Armed Forces'
ability to defend against potentially existential threats later on -- while in the meantime not diminishing the threat of
international terrorism. To strengthen our national security, we must end the enduring policy of failure by prudently
and effectively ending our military mission.
While the fundamentals of a withdrawal plan are relatively straightforward, they would
still be met by considerable opposition. One of the arguments against leaving was voiced by McChrystal nine years ago
when
he pleaded
with the American public to "show resolve" because "uncertainty
disheartens our allies [and] emboldens our foe." Yet the facts can't be denied any longer: for all eight years of the
Obama administration and the first 500 days of Trump's tenure, we maintained that "resolve" and were rewarded with an
unequivocal deterioration of the war.
Since McChrystal's admonition to maintain the status quo, the Taliban have exploded in
strength to
reportedly 77,000
, more territory is now in the
hands of the insurgents than at
any point since 2001
, the Afghan government
remains one of the
most corrupt regimes
on the planet, and
civilian casualties in the first half of 2018 are the
highest ever recorded
.
The only way this permanent failure ends is if President Trump shows the courage he
has sometimes demonstrated to push back against the Washington establishment. That means ignoring the status quo that
holds our security hostage, ending the war, and redeploying our troops. Without that resolve, we can count on continued
failure in Afghanistan. With it, American security will be strengthened and readiness improved.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant
colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him on Twitter
@DanielLDavis1
.
While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War.
Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. The only way these wars of choice will ever end is
when Congress has the balls to cut off funding. Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these
wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures. Military madness indeed.
Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of
"we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!"
If Trump were going to leave, he
should have done so soon after taking office. At least then he could blame his predecessors.
The financial security of the National Security State and its suppliers now depends on no war ever ending or
being won. The new definition of defeat is having any war end. As long as it continues, that war is being won.
"Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to
re-build our country infrastructures."
Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the
war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs.
The American people just have no say in the matter.
There is only one reason why the USA is still in Afghanistan that makes sense (all the official reasons are an
insult to ones intelligence), it borders on Iran and thus serves as a means to open a new front against Iran.
The more the US pushes for war against Iran, the more this seems correct.
"Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is instructing its senior diplomats to begin seeking
"direct talks with the Taliban."
I have to give my Jr High response here:
"Well, duh."
__________________
"While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military operations in
Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks . . ."
Yeah . . . no.
1. They manipulated the game to make what was a crime an act of war to justify the an unnecessary,
unethical, and strategically unwise invasion. I remain now where I was 14 years ago -- bad decision in every
way.
2. It was even a poor decision based on reason for war. To utterly bend the will of the opponent to conform
to the will of the US. it is possible to win. But to do so would require such massive force, brutality and
will.
3. 9/11 was a simple criminal act, despite the damage. As a crime we should have sought extradition, and or
small team FBI and special forces operations to a small footprint in either capturing, and or if need be
killing Osama bin Laden and company.
Nothing that has occurred since 9/11 provides evidence that the invasion was either justified or effective.
It will if the end game is to quit be one of three losses suffered by the US.
They are: War of 1812
Iraq
Afghanistan
" . . . it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how to end the fighting on military
terms."
Sure leave. Though talking so as to avert whole slaughter of those that aided the US is the decent thing to
do.
Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation
Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians
Solving USA problems in Afghanistan an at the same time pushing for war with Iran is by definition classic
oxymoron. Afghanistan's problems can only be solved with cooperation and understanding with Iran. Conflict of
the USA with Iran will extend indefinitely the suffering of the Afghanis and the eventual lose of the
Afghanistan and Iran to the Russia. Always reigniting and keeping on the front burner the conflict with Iran by
the USA is exactly what Russia and V. Putin want. I can't see any other politicians except D. Trump, B.
Netanyahu and American 'conservatives' for the advancement of the Russia's goals in the Middle East and in the
globalistan. These are the new XXI century 'useful (adjective)'.
Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering
(Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there.
I'll go a step further
and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not
even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. This
should have been a dirty knife fight in all the back alleys of the world, but we responded to the sucker punch
as our attackers intended; getting into a brawl with somebody else in the same bar; eventually, with more than
one somebody else.
It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it.
Indeed, but as others have commented, the entire point of the Afghanistan war is that it is pointless. It can
suck up enormous amounts of money, and generate incredible profits for politically connected defense
contractors – and because Afghanistan is in fact pointless, it doesn't matter if all of that money is wasted or
stolen, how could you tell? The vested interest in these winless pointless foreign wars means that they will
continue until the American economy finally collapses – and anyone who opposes these wars is a fascist, a
Russian stooge, "literally Hitler." Because money.
Thank you for this. I am very surprised to learn that Trump is pursuing this, given his pugilistic nature. I
hope he does in fact, get us the hell out of there. He may be, like Nixon, the one who is politically able to
make this smart move. Can you imagine the Republican outrage if Obama had tried a diplomatic exit from this
sand trap?
We can still be proud of what we attempted to do there. A few years post-9/11, an Afghan colleague of mine
who had come to the US as a boy said, "9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan." He meant that
rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US would do, we
poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads, etc.
"He meant that rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US
would do, we poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads,
etc."
And we could have done a lot more if we had not invaded. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
The achievable operational level Military objectives in the Afghan war were accomplished in the first year; The
Taliban were out of power and hiding in Pakistan and the Afghans had a somewhat benevolent government that
wanted to guarantee security an property and a measure of individual liberty.
What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous
terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and
Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished."
This has been particularly true with the intense guerrilla actions enabled by the Pakistanis who have a
vested interest in an unstable Afghanistan.
I believe the noble goals 'might' have been doable – but it would have required a level of effort, and more
importantly a 'cultural confidence' on par with the Roman Empire of the 2nd Century to pull it off. That is no
longer us.
"9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan"? I bet none of his family members died or suffered.
Probably they are all living in the US. Are we supposed to feel proud that instead of carpet bombing and
killing millions our war killed only a hundred thousand?
Sadly, Kent, I do know people who still claim that our continued presence in Afghanistan is a good thing. Some
of these are otherwise fairly bright people, so I really can't comprehend why they continue to buy into this
idiocy.
Afghanistan must be Afghanistan and the US must be the US; this is such a simple tautology. If the US leaves,
Afghanistan will become what ever it can for its own reasons and options. If the US stays, it will be for the
US' reasons, not for the Afghans.
The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan
actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic
demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its
people.
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
I have read Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder, which exposes him
as the corrupt thug he is. Browder is no more interested in "democratizing" Russia than the
U.S. Deep State is in protecting the integrity of the U.S. election process! That Browder was
the "star witness" for the Congress before it overwhelmingly passed the latest sanctions bill
against Russia shows why it is important that he be exposed.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about the networks and
individuals acting to prevent a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.
"... [ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ] ..."
"... "I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion" ..."
"... Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or ..."
[ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please
click here ]
"I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can
lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark
places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is."
― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion"
In January 2015 I received a book titled "Red Notice" written by Bill Browder, once a hedge
fund manager running Hermitage Capital the largest foreign-owned hedge fund in Russia. In the
past, my path had crossed with Browder's on two occasions. In 2005, I was invited to his
presentation, only days before he was expelled from Russia. On that occasion Browder surprised
me because he was the first credible person I ever heard speaking positively about Vladimir
Putin. The next time I met Browder was in 2010 during an investment conference in Monaco. This
time he was very anti-Putin. When I received his book, it was recommended to me as an excellent
read.
Through his book, Browder presents himself in glowing colors. By contrast, he portrays
Russia as a sinister, backward tyranny and President Putin as the greediest, most ruthless
tyrant since Genghis Khan. The book's main plot shapes up as an appealing story about the
struggle of good against evil, about a lone maverick (Browder himself), taking on a powerful
network of dangerous criminals and corrupt government officials in selfless pursuit of justice.
It would be a beautiful story – if only it were true.
I was familiar with Parts of Browder's story, so his tale seemed fishy to me. A few days
after reading it I had to re-read it from the beginning. Sure enough, I discovered quite a
number of things that didn't add up which prompted me to do some research of my own. Much about
it bothered me enough that I ended up writing a whole book which I titled "The Killing of
William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." In August of this year I
finally finished it and self-published it on Amazon.com.
My book's main object is to unmask Browder's brazen and dangerous deception. Beyond this,
I've also sought to put his story into proper context by including a rather detailed account of
the relevant events that led to the collapse of the USSR, Russia's subsequent transition from
Communism to Capitalism and what
17 years of Vladimir Putin's leadership have changed . I've also included a section
discussing the person and character of Vladimir Putin (since Browder relentlessly demonizes
him). The book's last chapter discusses the history of the relations between the U.S. and
Russia from the beginnings of the 19 th century, including the U.S.
Civil War when Russia came to Abraham Lincoln's aid and played the key role in preserving the
Union and what the future relations between the U.S. and Russia might, or should be.
As it turned out, my book was surprisingly well received by its readers and during the first
few weeks it received very encouraging reader reviews (seven five-star and one four-star
review). Unfortunately, by mid-September "The Killing of William Browder" came up on Browder
team's radar and my problems began. It seems that in the free world, the freedom of expression
comes with some restrictions. Exposing Bill Browder is one of them.
On 13 th September, University of Tulsa professor Jeremy Kuzmarov cited some of
the materials from my book in his own Hffington Post article about Bill Browder, titled
"Raising the Curtain on the Browder-Magnitsky Story." I was flattered by that article, but
Huffington Post scrubbed it from their website within hours. A week later, Amazon's publishing
company, CreateSpace "suppressed" my book, purging it from Amazon.com website and from its
Kindle store.
CreateSpace explained that a third party claimed that my book "may contain defamatory
content," and that to resolve the issues I needed to contact Mr. Jonathan M. Winer, Mr.
Browder's legal counsel. Mr. Winer's word was all that was necessary for Amazon to oblige and
remove my book from its bookstore. My protest and subsequent communications with CreateSpace
had no effect and my only venue was to "work" with Browder's lawyers to "resolve the issues."
In other words, I was put in the situation to have Browder censor my book and decide on whether
it could be published or not. At first I rejected idea and refused to contact Mr. Winer
offering instead my book for free to whoever requested a copy. But subsequently I decided to
write to Mr. Winer anyway to find out what, if anything went wrong. So far, I have received no
response.
This is not the first time Bill Browder – and whoever is backing him – has
effectively censored what the Western public may or may not know about his story. In 2016,
Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov made the documentary film, "The Magnitsky Act – Behind
the Scenes."
Over the years, Nekrasov had built a reputation for producing documentaries that were
critical of the Russian government, and with the Magnitsky affair, he initially followed
Browder's narrative of the events and even envisioned Browder as the film's narrator. But his
research into the subject turned up a number of problems with Browder's story. Nekrasov reached
out to him for an explanation, but was unable to get in touch with Browder for several months.
Nekrasov finally tracked down Browder at a book signing event where he tried and failed to get
clarifications from him. Ultimately however, Nekrasov managed to meet with Browder and with the
cameras rolling, he began to lay out his findings. As he did so, Browder became visibly vexed
until at one moment he abruptly interrupted Nekrasov with an accusation that he was spreading
Russian propaganda.
When Nekrasov's film was completed, Browder took aggressive action to block its screenings.
With threats of lawsuits, he prevented an already scheduled screening to a group of Members of
the European Parliament in Brussels. He did the same with another screening in Norway, and even
managed to pressure the Franco-German television network "Arte" to call off the showing of
Nekrasov's film on its channel. In June 2016, Browder tried to force The Newseum in Washington DC to cancel the screening of
Nekrasov's film. Thankfully, The Newseum, whose laudable mission is to promote freedom of
expression and "the five freedoms of the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution," refused to
be cowed by Browder's intimidation and showed the film to a Washington audience.
No, unfortunately this did not happen. Freedom of expression – which should be
sacrosanct – is dangerously compromised in the west.
Open, civilized societies seek resolution of contentious issues by allowing proponents of
different sides in any dispute to present their respective points of view. An informed, open
debate is by far the best mechanism of conflict resolution because we can only arrive at
constructive solutions to problems by taking different stakeholders' points of view into
consideration. Browder's approach is contrary to that of civilized societies: he seeks to
silence all points of view but his own. He seeks to persuade not by initiating an informed
debate, but by suppressing all debate. This is not the conduct of a truth teller pursuing
elevated objectives like human rights, justice, and truth. Truth does not need such forceful
defense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, " Truth is tough. It will not break, like a
bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at
evening. " Browder is clearly anxious that his story cannot take any kicking at all.
Meanwhile in the western world, we appear to be at the mercy of lawyered-up elites for what we
are allowed to know and what we are not.
In the end, I have no doubt that truth will prevail and that Bill Browder will lose his
battle to keep his deception going. It is because there's something sacrosanct about truth and
most people will reject a lie once they are aware of it.
This shocking tale of alleged Russian official corruption and brutality drove legislation
that was a major landmark in the descent of U.S.-Russian relations under President Barack
Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
.But what the film shows is how Nekrasov, as he detected loose ends to the official story,
begins to unravel Browder's fabrication which was designed to conceal his own corporate
responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story
collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud
who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical
condition.
The cinematic qualities of the film are evident. Nekrasov is highly experienced as a maker
of documentaries enjoying a Europe-wide reputation. What sets this work apart from the
"trade" is the honesty and the integrity of the filmmaker as he discovers midway into his
project that key assumptions of his script are faulty and begins an independent investigation
to get at the truth .
The reason nekrasov has a following among European liberal snowflakes is that his
documentaries have had a sarcastic jaded and negative tinge with respect to Russia (even BBC
News has aired his documentaries as recently as 2016). He is rather pessimistic regarding
Russia. That's what makes this revelation that even he (Nekrasov, a darling of the debauch
liberals of the west, and Putin critic) found browder to not be credible. Coming from
Nekrasov, that allegation and documentary would really destroy the battering ram (and useful
fraud) that browder had provided the Western establishment.
Nekrasov is now getting a painful reality check as to how sophisticated the West's
totalitarian nature is: they are not crude like the Chinese who will arrest small time
nobodies for being too honest or critical, the West focusses it's blunt oppression for high
value targets; just as outlined in 1984, the higher up you are and the greater your reach,
the greater the scrutiny and the more blunt the instrument used to keep you in line. One must
admit that the Anglo empire and their hypocrit vassals/covert-competitors in the EU, have
refined this to an art and are far more efficient at it than their poor understudies in CCP
China, or the Soviet Union.
Krainer is right though, the truth is going to prevail and eventually browder will be
exposed (especially when the deep state decides he's too much of an annoying liability
– as times progresses or as the deep state finds browder's agenda and his supporters
getting in the way of the state's own agenda).
There is one thing that no one has clarified: Why was magnitsky allowed to die, why was he
denied medical treatment, who was responsible for that? What are the facts around magnitsky's
death?
Hi RC – a few great point. In Nekrasov's defence, I think I can understand him. I'm
Croatian and if we started discussing Croatia, you'd find me very critical. My inclination
would be to expose negative developments – not because I'm anti-Croatian but becauseI
would want to draw public attention to problems that need to be addressed. To his credit,
when he realized truth was different from what he initially believed, he made a turn to
pursue truth when he could have made the film that would have been far better for his career.
I agree with you that Browder will probably end up thrown under the bus. That's what I'm
afraid of (and the #1 reason for my book's title). But they will try to first make Browder a
household name (crusader for human rights and justice, bla, bla..) with their Hollywood
movie. Then they'll try to make it look like Putin had him killed.
As to why Magnistky died – that's a mystery. It was definitely a massive cock-up on
the part of Russian law enforcement, but there's also the angle that his death was VERY
convenient for Browder and his goodfellas.
I think that Magnitsky was such a pain in the ass ( he made 450 complaints about the
prison-conditions during 358 days in prison, most ofwhich nobody could solve without a much
larger budget) that doctors and staff prefered to not hear or to look the other way when
Magnitsky came into a psychosis. He got into this psychosis after a court case from where he
returned very disappointed. Future looked a lot worse than he had expected.
Parry's article
mentions that he viewed the film on Vimeo, using a password provided by Piraya Film, the
Norwegian production company.
This is a fairly standard way that independent producers shop their films around, looking
for a distribution deal. I.e., a journalist or distributor contacts them, and they are given
a Vimeo link and password for a private, limited-time viewing of the film. Journalists get
this access because their writing helps to promote the film. The simplest distribution deal
would then be through a subscription-based streaming platform. DVDs are more complicated and
usually happen later.
However, in this case, the film is a co-production with four other companies, including
ZDF and ARTE, which are large European networks, and all of whom have been threatened with
litigation, presumably by Browder's lawyers.
In effect, then, the film in its original version has been censored. It is not available,
unless or until somebody pirates it. There are several scammy-looking streaming sites that
claim to have it, but they want your credit card number and they might just have the same
Russian-dubbed version that you can watch for free via the link posted above.
I suspect the version of the film with the Russian voice-over was not done by Piraya Film,
as the production of the sound doesn't seem very high compared to the quality of the
original. This might have been done with authorization of Piraya, but if not, it means
somebody has a illegitimate copy of the film to which they added the Russian voice-over. This
means, they could also post the film in its original form. If they really want to increase
awareness in the West of how the new Cold War is playing out, such a move could help.
Given the legal threats and the fact that few small distribution companies have the
resources to fight legal battles, this might be a situation in which we are waiting for
somebody to pirate the film, somebody who has access to the original, and to distribute it
via a torrent.
I wonder whether Nekrasov himself knows of the level of interest (at least in some quarters)
in seeing the film, and could find a way to make one available somehow. . .
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
As recounted by the commentator Garret Epps in The
Atlantic in March 2018, "In 1973, the great Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn coined
the term 'Gulag Archipelago' to denote the Soviet system of political prisons and labor camps.
In the last 25 years, the United States has, without fanfare, brought into being a kind of
Enforcement and Removal Operations '
Archipelago -- secretive, loosely supervised, and, in human and constitutional rights terms,
deeply problematic. And the 'system' will, if the current administration carries forward its
enforcement plans, grow significantly larger year by year." The US gulag archipelago is firmly
in place.
But in the minds of so many of the Western world, that have been ever-so-gently brainwashed
over the years of the New Cold War, 'gulags' are forever Russian, and they are ready for pitch
invaders.
Cold War Two is thriving, having been initiated and fostered by West and especially by the
Pentagon and much of Congress, whose members benefit enormously from cash donations by weapons'
manufacturers whose generosity so far this election cycle has totaled $19,332,442 in
traceable hand-outs. The Pentagon
is reported as having calculated that "overseas weapons sales by US firms rose $8.3 billion
from 2016 to 2017, with American arms makers moving a total of $41.9 billion in advanced
weaponry to foreign militaries last year." There is profit in supporting confrontation.
Development of the new Cold War was
described succinctly in February 2018 by Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian
Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, in that "[President] Clinton pursued winner-take-all
policies consistent with viewing Russia as a defeated power, presiding over a massive intrusive
crusade to shape that former rival into 'the Russia we want'; beginning the expansion of NATO,
now on Russia's borders; and bombing Moscow's traditional Slav ally Serbia in 1999, despite
Yeltsin's protests. Indeed, the extreme vilification of Putin by former members of the Clinton
administration, including Hillary Clinton, who equated him with Hitler, are not unrelated to
their unwise Russia policies of the 1990s -- loudly applauded, it should be added, by media
journalists now also in the forefront of demonizing the current Kremlin leader."
The Western media and what is now called the ' deep state
' -- the power clique, somewhat akin or even complementary to the military-industrial
complex spotlighted by President Eisenhower almost sixty years ago -- are intent on
portraying Russia as a warmongering expansionist state, but they never mention the fact that,
as recorded in the
2018 World Report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute "In 2017 the USA
spent more on its military [$610 billion] than the next seven highest-spending countries
combined. . . . at $66.3 billion, Russia's military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than
in 2016."
The New York Times summed up the Washington Establishment's attitude to the
Putin-Trump July 16 talks with the headline "Trump
Opens His Arms to Russia. His Administration Closes Its Fist." Entirely coincidentally, three
days before the meeting, Washington's best and brightest announced that twelve Russians had been
indicted for allegedly interfering with the US elections in 2016. The word "allegedly" was
rarely used by the West's mainstream media, and the fact that no evidence of any sort has been
presented to backup up the allegations has been completely ignored. The automatic verdict is
that Russia is guilty of whatever charges might be levelled, just as in Britain the blame for
an
incident of poisoning has been laid firmly at Russia's door without a shred of proof that
Russia was involved.
Make no mistake: the man Trump is the worst president the US has ever had. He is, in the
well-chosen words of the commentator Robert
Reich , a "selfish, thin-skinned, petulant, lying, narcissistic, boastful megalomaniac."
But -- it seems he wants to talk and negotiate with Russia, rather than indulging in
ceaseless confrontation.
Trump has long expressed interest in improving ties with Russia, and the recent summit was
his first real opportunity for doing so. Yet it will be difficult for this progress to have any
permanence with so many in the Military-Industrial Complex uniting to undermine it. The Deep
State's fury and bitterness will not die down, and its propaganda campaigns will continue to
fuel the Second Cold War. Exporting weapons is most lucrative, and many big-ticket items are
scheduled to be sold to European countries, which is why it's important to keep Russia as an
enemy. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Brian Cloughley
Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay
sur Cure, France.
The author provides some interesting observations... He ignores the role of economics
though.
Looks like a replay of events in Baltic republics. Might increase emigration and
"provisialization" of Ukraine because Russian is suppressed but English did not became the second
language (which is probably impossible without switching education into English language).
Dominance of EU might be more harsh regime, then most of the supporters of Eurointergation
assume, especially in economic sphere -- the status of semi-colony and debt slave are given, but
it can be worse.
Economic suffering of population and pauperization of Ukraine are immense...
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, at least half of the population of all eight administrative regions of mainland South-East Ukraine viewed the Euromaidan as a coup, because, according to a survey conducted in early April 2014 by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, only a third of respondents in these regions (the survey was not conducted in Crimea and Sevastopol) considered Yatsenyuk and Turchinov legitimate heads of government and state, while half of respondents considered them illegitimate (Kiev International Institute of Sociology, 2014c). ..."
"... The conformism of the South-East elite, which only recently was at the head of the anti-Maidan movement, surpassed the conformism of society many times over, because this elite had much to lose. ..."
"... The situation with Crimea was another factor that objectively strengthened Kiev's position in the South-East. ..."
"... This predictably could not increase pro-Russian sentiments in the rest of Ukraine. ..."
"... anti-Russian forces took an increasingly tough position, describing all talk of federalization as separatism. ..."
"... the winners of the Euromaidan Crimea was not a reason but a pretext for starting a policy of de-Russification. However, these events influenced the political swamp, that is, citizens without a clear position, and strengthened the base of the current regime, as evidenced by the results of public opinion polls and elections. ..."
"... the Europeans played up to Kiev in criminalizing the notion 'federation,' because for the West the Ukrainian problem is part of the Russian problem ..."
"... The West views them as paramilitary organizations which established power in those regions with external help and imposed themselves on the population. ..."
"... This position of the West strengthened the attitude of the pro-Western liberal public in Ukraine towards people in the South-East as sovok ..."
"... the "discursive violence of the Ukrainian media" in late February-early April 2014 paved the way for the "brutality of the antiterrorist operation" by creating a negative image of people of the South-East. ..."
"... Ukrayinska Pravda, Livyi Bereg, ..."
"... At the same time, Ukrainian radical nationalism objectively was an instrument which Ukrainian [neo]liberals used to achieve victory. ..."
"... However, positive dynamics for either party to the conflict is not only measured by territories they seize -- it is seen in the fact that actions, formerly deemed impossible, turn out to be possible and not having obvious negative consequences. For example, the implementation of the political part of the Minsk Agreement (which both Kiev and the West consider imposed on Ukraine from the outside) now seems to be a much more illusory goal than it seemed in 2014-2015. ..."
"... In particular, Kiev has rescinded a bill on constitutional amendments regarding decentralization; an economic blockade of Donbass has been introduced; and several laws have been passed and measures taken to combat the Russian World, both inside and outside the country. ..."
"... The law on the reintegration of Donbass, passed by the Verkhovna Rada this January, was a logical development and a new stage of this policy. Its purpose is not so much to recognize the territories beyond Kiev's control as occupied by Russia. What is more important is that the law recognizes this state de facto without a formal recognition of the war with Russia de jure. ..."
"... This positive dynamics creates a situation where a critical mass of society thinks that at least Ukraine will not find itself in the same difficult situation as in the spring of 2014 and that, at best, it will restore full control over Donbass on its terms: Russia will not withstand the sanctions and will stop supporting the uncontrolled territories. The policy of the West does not contradict these expectations: the sanctions continue, there is almost no public criticism of Kiev's actions in Donbass at the state level, except for minor issues, and the U.S. has decided to supply Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, which is largely a symbolic gesture fitting perfectly into the aforementioned pattern of positive dynamics. ..."
"... Of course, very many of the above-mentioned elements of the positive (for Kiev) dynamics also have a great negative effect. For example, the existing format of the conflict in Donbass involves great military expenditures and leads to reduced ties with Russia, which is a significant burden for the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The present scale of losses of the Ukrainian army is not a factor that may spark a mass antiwar movement in the country, similar to the antiwar movement in the United States in the late 1960s, because the ratio of casualties to population in Ukraine is much smaller than that in the U.S. during the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Naturally, the economic situation in Ukraine is much less stable than that of the U.S. during the Vietnam War. However, in the public consciousness, the war is only one factor behind the economic problems (along with corruption, incompetence of the authorities, etc.). ..."
"... The war has advantages, too. Of course, they would have disappeared in the event of a full-scale conflict, but Kiev is confident that this will never happen. In a situation like this, it finds it simpler to mobilize society, convince it to put up with difficulties and, most importantly, format the political and information space in an advantageous way. Beneficiaries of this reformatting include not only the government but also a wide range of parties and politicians who supported the Euromaidan. ..."
"... So, the current format of the conflict strengthens the political regime in Ukraine, which is actually the closest to regimes of limited political competition, such as those that existed in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe during the interwar period in the 20th century, or some Latin American countries (Brazil and Guatemala) after the Second World War. There is formal pluralism and a real possibility of succession of power there, yet real power can be contested only by forces from one political spectrum, whereas forces that are beyond this spectrum are restrained and can only aspire to seats in parliament. ..."
"... support is limited -- the West will not fight for Ukraine and will not provide aid on a scale comparable to the Marshall Plan. ..."
"... Already now, due to migration, the population of the territory now controlled by Kiev is less than 30 million people (judging by bread consumption statistics). ..."
"... This means it has decreased by more than 40 percent since 1991. ..."
"... As regards Ukraine's admission to NATO, many Western European countries oppose this option. On the other hand, they have not proposed any detailed plan for Ukraine's non-aligned status. Objectively, such status would be best guaranteed by the specifics of the state's internal structure, when accession to a military alliance would require a consensus of the regions. ..."
"... If this state collapses due to external factors, the identity of a large part of its present population may change very quickly, as evidenced by the experience of the 17th century and recent decades. ..."
In Ukraine, however, the switching of sides takes place on a larger scale. For example,
President Kuchma and Prime Minister Yanukovich had a majority in the Verkhovna Rada elected in
2002, which decreased somewhat in the last few months before the 2004 elections. Yet, newly
elected President Yushchenko did not have any problems with the same parliament. The Ukrainian
parliament elected in 2007 supported Prime Minister Timoshenko, but after Yanukovich won a
presidential election in February 2010 he had a solid majority in it until the next election.
Yanukovich also had a majority in parliament elected in 2012 until the last days of the
Euromaidan. However, after the victory of the Euromaidan, a coalition was formed in parliament
that supported the new authorities. It united factions and groups of 235 deputies in the
450-seat parliament, of whom 69 did not belong to pro-Euromaidan parties. Also, 371 deputies,
including almost all deputies from the Party of Regions, voted to appoint Yatsenyuk as prime
minister.
Can these figures serve as grounds to classify the Euromaidan as a coup d'état and
accuse the new regime of failing to build a government of national accord, provided for by the
agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition? A coup d'état presupposes suspending
and resetting the functioning of government institutions, whereas this agreement did not
specify what a national accord government should look like. On the other hand, the essence of
such governments is to unite people of different political views, rather than make their
members and supporters give up their former beliefs.
Yet, at least half of the population of all eight administrative regions of mainland
South-East Ukraine viewed the Euromaidan as a coup, because, according to a survey conducted in
early April 2014 by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, only a third of respondents
in these regions (the survey was not conducted in Crimea and Sevastopol) considered Yatsenyuk
and Turchinov legitimate heads of government and state, while half of respondents considered
them illegitimate (Kiev International Institute of Sociology, 2014c). However, the elite
of the South-East did not question the legitimacy of the new government. The most it was ready
to do was consider this government undesirable and due to be replaced at the next election.
The conformism of the South-East elite, which only recently was at the head of the
anti-Maidan movement, surpassed the conformism of society many times over, because this elite
had much to lose. But in this situation, the masses of protesters who considered the
Euromaidan a coup found themselves without their usual leaders. New leaders emerged
spontaneously from among protesters and were not viewed as authoritative by those who did not
take part in the protests. The depth of the gap between the masses and the elites can be seen
from the following fact: There is the émigré Ukraine Salvation Committee in
Moscow, headed by former Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov, which positions itself as almost a
government in exile. The Committee considers the hostilities in Donbass a civil war and,
therefore, does not view the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics as
occupation administrations. Yet, it has no contact with the leaders of these republics, which
also consider themselves an alternative Ukraine.
Although there was less conformism among the masses than among the elites, it still made the
protests in the South-East less widespread than they might have been if there had been a sign
of dual power, for example, if Yanukovich and the part of the elite, including parliament
deputies, who did not recognize the new regime had tried to create alternative government
institutions. This conformism made many people accept on faith the assurances of the new
government about broad decentralization, including the humanitarian sphere.
The situation with Crimea was another factor that objectively strengthened Kiev's
position in the South-East. Beginning in March, Crimea and Sevastopol, which could have
been at the vanguard of protests for reformatting Ukraine, withdrew from the political field of
the country by joining Russia. This predictably could not increase pro-Russian sentiments
in the rest of Ukraine. Formerly, public opinion polls had invariably showed a good
attitude of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians towards Russia. However, during the
conflicts over Tuzla in 2003 and the gas dispute of 2009 their attitude deteriorated
significantly. Now it happened again, only this time the conflict was much more serious.
Attempts by the state which annexed part of Ukrainian territory to act as an arbiter and, at
the same time, pressure Kiev to reformat Ukraine into a federation, in which the voice of the
South-East should be heard, were predictably doomed to failure. Even potential supporters of
Russia doubted the impartiality of such arbitration, and anti-Russian forces took an
increasingly tough position, describing all talk of federalization as separatism.
True, Ukrainians who were firmly pro-Russian did not become more hostile to Russia because
of Crimea, while for the winners of the Euromaidan Crimea was not a reason but a pretext
for starting a policy of de-Russification. However, these events influenced the political
swamp, that is, citizens without a clear position, and strengthened the base of the current
regime, as evidenced by the results of public opinion polls and elections. EUROPEAN
INTEGRATION VS COMPROMISE
On the other hand, it would be legitimate to ask whether the victory of the Euromaidan
necessarily had to lead to a war, and whether a compromise could have been reached with the
masses of the discontented in the South-East at an early stage. My answer is "no."
The short history of independent Ukraine developed, on the one hand, as a history of steady
integration into European and world (but Western-controlled) organizations, and on the other
hand, as a history of crises which became increasingly explosive and which ended in
increasingly imperfect compromises. For some time, the relationship between these processes
could be easily overlooked, but now it is much more difficult not to notice it. The February
2014 agreement on the settlement of the crisis, for the first time achieved with the
participation of European guarantors, was also the first world agreement in the history of
Ukraine that was not fulfilled. It was after the signing of the economic part of the
Association Agreement that an anti-terrorist operation began in the East, and immediately after
the political part of this agreement was signed (June 27, 2014), this operation entered into
its largest-scale and bloodiest phase.
Of course, the West needed to put an end to Kiev's multi-vector policy and achieve
unambiguous certainty for it. Hence its position on the language issue and the territorial
structure of the country, which was most vividly realized in the April 2014 PACE resolution,
which spoke of the inadmissibility of any mention of Ukraine's federalization (Parliamentary
Assembly, 2014).
Obviously, the real problem was not in the word but in an optimal distribution of powers
(for example, Spanish autonomous communities have more powers than Austrian federal lands), but
the Europeans played up to Kiev in criminalizing the notion 'federation,' because for the
West the Ukrainian problem is part of the Russian problem . Its attitude to the protests
in the South-East and then the war in Donbass differed fundamentally from its attitude to an
overwhelming majority of internal conflicts around the globe.
In the cases of Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Kosovo, Aceh in
Indonesia, FARC in Colombia, etc., the West considered the leaders of separatists or insurgents
legitimate representatives of certain ethnic or social groups who had taken over powers not
provided for by the laws of their country. Their right to be a party to negotiations was not
questioned. But the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics are in no way seen as
self-proclaimed republics that reflect the views of their populations, even though
illegitimately from the point of view of Ukrainian legislation. The West views them as
paramilitary organizations which established power in those regions with external help and
imposed themselves on the population.
This position of the West strengthened the attitude of the pro-Western liberal public in
Ukraine towards people in the South-East as sovok (homo Sovieticus) and
vatnik (bigots), whose opinion could be ignored. A recent study (Baysha, 2017)
convincingly shows how the "discursive violence of the Ukrainian media" in late
February-early April 2014 paved the way for the "brutality of the antiterrorist operation" by
creating a negative image of people of the South-East. Importantly, these were not
state-run, oligarchic or party nationalist media, although they did the same. These were
popular websites, which are thought to be mouthpieces for liberal civil society (
Ukrayinska Pravda, Livyi Bereg, and Gordon ).
In other words, the conflict was a logical consequence of Westernization, rather than the
rise of nationalism. Welcoming the successes of the Ukrainian army in July 2014, the European
Parliament thus made it clear that this Westernization on the civilizational borders of Europe
may not resemble the practices of major European countries. At the same time, Ukrainian
radical nationalism objectively was an instrument which Ukrainian [neo]liberals used to achieve
victory. True, it is not willing to play this role and wants to be something more than
just an instrument. But behind the talk of the Banderization of Ukraine is a confusion of the
notions of customer and contractor.
WAR IN AN ACCEPTABLE FORMAT
Of course, many of those who took part in the Euromaidan did not fight there for renaming
Vatutin Avenue in Kiev as Shukhevich Avenue, or for banning the import of Russian books,
including memoirs of Princess Yekaterina Dashkova, or for banning songs by Russian singers
Vladimir Vysotsky and Victor Tsoi described as "tentacles of the Russian World" which leeched
onto Ukrainians (definition by Vladimir Vyatrovich, the head of the Institute of National
Memory, the most Euro-integrated organization of the Ukrainian government, which consistently
advocates the idea of a nationalist "recoding" of Ukrainians). The voices of people who do not
agree with this (for example, the poet and culturologist Evgenia Bilchenko) are sometimes heard
in the media space, but the problem is whether these voices, together with the voices of those
who were against the Euromaidan from the very beginning, can become a political factor.
I think this is almost ruled out under the most likely, inertial, scenario which provides
for the development of tendencies that emerged after the victory of the Euromaidan and the
preservation by Russia and the West of their behavioral models which have developed over recent
years.
When assessing this scenario, one should bear in mind that the armed conflict in Donbass has
over the last three years entered into a format that is the most advantageous (of all really
possible ones) for Ukraine -- a low-intensity smoldering conflict.
This situation objectively predisposes one to see dynamics, positive for Kiev, in the
conflict that began in 2014. At first, Ukraine surrendered Crimea to Russia and pro-Russian
forces without a fight. At the next stage, however, it localized the offensive of the Russian
World to Donbass, although it failed to take full control over the region. The result of this
phase of the fight can be regarded as a draw, or Ukraine's defeat on points. But Crimea was
lost through a knockout. After that, a defeat on points is still a better outcome.
The next, longest phase of the conflict has been going on without changes on the frontline.
However, positive dynamics for either party to the conflict is not only measured by
territories they seize -- it is seen in the fact that actions, formerly deemed impossible, turn
out to be possible and not having obvious negative consequences. For example, the
implementation of the political part of the Minsk Agreement (which both Kiev and the West
consider imposed on Ukraine from the outside) now seems to be a much more illusory goal than it
seemed in 2014-2015.
In particular, Kiev has rescinded a bill on constitutional amendments regarding
decentralization; an economic blockade of Donbass has been introduced; and several laws have
been passed and measures taken to combat the Russian World, both inside and outside the
country. The latter include the termination of air service, a ban on remittances,
restrictions on the import of Russian books, a ban on performances by some Russian
entertainers, the actual abolition of the law "On the Basic Principles of the Language Policy,"
restrictions on the use of the Russian language on the Ukrainian radio and television and its
abolition in education (with the exception of primary school), de-Russification of geographical
names, and the removal of monuments.
Kiev views all these measures as non-military blows to the enemy, and the scale of such
actions increases with every year.
The law on the reintegration of Donbass, passed by the Verkhovna Rada this January, was
a logical development and a new stage of this policy. Its purpose is not so much to recognize
the territories beyond Kiev's control as occupied by Russia. What is more important is that the
law recognizes this state de facto without a formal recognition of the war with Russia de
jure.
This positive dynamics creates a situation where a critical mass of society thinks that
at least Ukraine will not find itself in the same difficult situation as in the spring of 2014
and that, at best, it will restore full control over Donbass on its terms: Russia will not
withstand the sanctions and will stop supporting the uncontrolled territories. The policy of
the West does not contradict these expectations: the sanctions continue, there is almost no
public criticism of Kiev's actions in Donbass at the state level, except for minor issues, and
the U.S. has decided to supply Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, which is largely a
symbolic gesture fitting perfectly into the aforementioned pattern of positive
dynamics.
For the reasons mentioned above, the West does not advocate a direct dialogue between Kiev
and Donetsk/Lugansk, but considers the existing level of conflict with more and more victims an
obviously lesser evil than a possible strengthening of the self-proclaimed republics. This
clearly follows from the statement of German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel about the
inadmissibility of Russia's proposal on a UN peacekeeping mission, which provides for the
separation of the warring parties by peacekeepers, to be deployed along the frontline, and the
protection of the OSCE mission, because that would only mean freezing the conflict. (A meeting
between Vladislav Surkov and Kurt Volker, which took place in Dubai during the writing of this
article, showed that the Americans are nevertheless ready to accept the Russian format as the
first phase of a peacekeeping mission; yet its practical implementation is still far off.)
Of course, very many of the above-mentioned elements of the positive (for Kiev) dynamics
also have a great negative effect. For example, the existing format of the conflict in Donbass
involves great military expenditures and leads to reduced ties with Russia, which is a
significant burden for the Ukrainian economy. However, it is important to understand a
balance between positive and negative aspects from Kiev's point of view.
Of course, the mobilization was a straining factor for society, because it could affect
almost every family. But since the end of 2016, when all people mobilized a year before
returned home, only contract soldiers and professional officers have taken part in the conflict
from the Ukrainian side -- that is, only those who have made this choice voluntarily or who
have chosen military service as their lifetime career. This is the main reason why the format
of hostilities can be considered acceptable or, at least, not too burdensome for Ukrainian
society.
The present scale of losses of the Ukrainian army is not a factor that may spark a mass
antiwar movement in the country, similar to the antiwar movement in the United States in the
late 1960s, because the ratio of casualties to population in Ukraine is much smaller than that
in the U.S. during the Vietnam War.
Naturally, the economic situation in Ukraine is much less stable than that of the U.S.
during the Vietnam War. However, in the public consciousness, the war is only one factor behind
the economic problems (along with corruption, incompetence of the authorities, etc.).
The unpopularity of the idea of peace at any cost not only shows the specific character of
the Ukrainian regime but, above all, it shows that society does not view the crisis as a
catastrophe, which means that the conflict has acquired a format convenient for Kiev.
This format means, in particular, that, to paraphrase Trotsky, Ukraine is in a state of both
peace and war with Russia, taking advantage of each of these states. For example, over the
first 11 months of 2017, Ukrainian exports to Russia grew by 12 percent and brought Ukraine
U.S. $360 million more than a year before. Two-thirds of Ukrainian coal imports come from
Russia, including 80 percent of anthracite, which has become scarce due to the blockade of
Donbass.
The war has advantages, too. Of course, they would have disappeared in the event of a
full-scale conflict, but Kiev is confident that this will never happen. In a situation like
this, it finds it simpler to mobilize society, convince it to put up with difficulties and,
most importantly, format the political and information space in an advantageous way.
Beneficiaries of this reformatting include not only the government but also a wide range of
parties and politicians who supported the Euromaidan. For example, there is a segment
among supporters of the Batkivshchina Party, led by Yulia Timoshenko, and the Radical Party,
led by Oleg Lyashko, who, judging by public opinion polls, do not support either a
confrontation with Russia or the current policy of historical memory. Obviously, these are
former supporters of the Party of Regions and communists, who have realized that the successors
to these parties will not be allowed to win anyway and that power can be contested only by
pro-Euromaidan parties. Therefore, they side with forces that are close to their own
ideological position, guided by their social slogans and disregarding their greater
geopolitical and humanitarian radicalism in comparison with the current authorities. But such a
choice can be made only if one is confident that this radicalism will not lead to a great war
and catastrophe.
So, the current format of the conflict strengthens the political regime in Ukraine,
which is actually the closest to regimes of limited political competition, such as those that
existed in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe during the interwar period in the 20th
century, or some Latin American countries (Brazil and Guatemala) after the Second World War.
There is formal pluralism and a real possibility of succession of power there, yet real power
can be contested only by forces from one political spectrum, whereas forces that are beyond
this spectrum are restrained and can only aspire to seats in parliament.
History shows that such regimes can exist for a very long time, especially with external
support, which Kiev certainly has, if we mean support for its geopolitical policy, rather than
concrete persons in power. It is another thing that such support is limited -- the West
will not fight for Ukraine and will not provide aid on a scale comparable to the Marshall
Plan.
The Georgian scenario for changing this regime is theoretically possible but unlikely,
because several factors prevent the success of a would-be Ukrainian Ivanishvili. The conflict
in Ukraine is felt more sharply because in 2014 it lost territories that it had controlled all
the years of independence, while Georgia lost control over Abkhazia in 1993 and over South
Ossetia even earlier. The August 2008 war only showed the impossibility of regaining these
territories. But the most important thing is that, whereas Georgia was an obvious loser in that
war, Ukraine has some positive dynamics, which was discussed above. In addition, differences
between Georgians and Russians have always been obvious, whereas for Kiev the current conflict
is a way to recode a large part of the population and form the nation on the basis of the
thesis that "Ukraine is different from Russia." Finally, the evolution of Georgia should not be
exaggerated. Diplomatic relations between Tbilisi and Moscow have not been restored, while
relations between Kiev and Moscow have never been broken off. Although Georgia has toned down
its anti-Russian rhetoric, it keeps moving towards the Euro-Atlantic structures.
Ukraine is moving in the same direction. Its problems will obviously grow in the near
future. Already now, due to migration, the population of the territory now controlled by
Kiev is less than 30 million people (judging by bread consumption statistics).
This means it has decreased by more than 40 percent since 1991. In addition, the
largest, postwar, generation is now entering the mortality age, while the generation of
newborns is the smallest over the years of independence. Yet, the territory of the country has
retained its geopolitical value and, regardless of whether Ukraine is granted formal NATO
membership or not, American troops can be permanently deployed in its territory during the
current Cold War -- or, more precisely, their presence can be broadened, because several
thousand NATO troops, half of them Americans, have been involved in military exercises
permanently held at the Yavorovo test range since the spring of 2015.
As regards Ukraine's admission to NATO, many Western European countries oppose this
option. On the other hand, they have not proposed any detailed plan for Ukraine's non-aligned
status. Objectively, such status would be best guaranteed by the specifics of the state's
internal structure, when accession to a military alliance would require a consensus of the
regions. In an interview with the Atlantic magazine in November 2016, Henry Kissinger
echoed this idea: "I favor an independent Ukraine that is militarily non-aligned. If you remove
the two Donbass regions from eastern Ukraine, you guarantee that Ukraine is permanently hostile
to Russia, since it becomes dominated by its Western part, which only joined Russia in the
1940s. The solution, then, is to find a way to give these units a degree of autonomy that gives
them a voice in military entanglements, but otherwise keeps them under the governance of
Ukraine." (Goldberg, 2016)
But since this voice remains solitary, the negative attitude of Western European countries
to Ukraine's accession to NATO is only a short-term tactical choice which may change later.
It is also unlikely that the implementation of the Minsk Agreement will help create the
model described by Kissinger, because a "voice in military entanglements" is a trait of a
confederation. Meanwhile, the status of individual Donbass regions, as defined by the above
agreement, is far even from that provided for in a federation. Rather, it is similar to the
limited autonomy of ethnic Serbs in Croatia, which they received under the Erdut agreement.
Therefore, even if the Minsk Agreement is implemented, which is unlikely, the existing
political regime in Ukraine will hardly change.
As regards Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, in a situation where they cannot change
this regime through elections, they will try to adapt to the existing reality, at least
outwardly.
The described inertial scenario is basic and most probable. However, it is not the only
possible one due to the weakness of the Ukrainian state (in particular, due to the growing
influence of right-wing radicals who may obtain parallel power), the unstable situation in the
world, and the unpredictability of Russia's policy in the long term, as Moscow may decide that
Kiev has crossed certain red lines established by it. If this state collapses due to
external factors, the identity of a large part of its present population may change very
quickly, as evidenced by the experience of the 17th century and recent decades.
Alexei V. Popov is an expert with the Kiev Center of Political Studies and
Conflictology
"... an essential warning against a continuation of the frivolous and dangerous policies of regime change adopted by the West after the end of the Cold War ..."
"... The result is both a sophisticated, multilevel analysis of how and why Ukraine emerged as the key hotspot in East-West relations, and an indispensable guide for those wishing to understand the origins of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Gordon M. Hahn challenges simplistic and often misleading narratives by the media and politicians and provides a corroboration that the Maidan massacre was a false flag mass killing ..."
"... They show Maidan's quasi-revolution was driven by international geopolitics, supporting counterposed Western and Russian "civilizationist" beliefs, and deep divisions within Ukrainian society itself, not a wellspring of widespread aspiration to Western-style democracy. ..."
Review "Ukraine's 2013-2014 revolution, its civil war, and Russia's annexation of the
Crimea have been succeeded by newer crises, but political analyst Hahn uses detailed reportage
and geopolitical theory to argue for their long-term significance, presenting Ukraine as a
troubling turning point in Russo-American relations and a case study of how democratization
efforts can go awry...with Russia atop American headlines to an extent not seen since the end
of the Cold War, [this book] will be a strong addition to global studies collections" --
Booklist
"It was not only Ukraine that went over the edge in 2014, but the whole European security
system disintegrated, while a 'new cold war' chills relations between the great powers. In this
masterful study, Gordon Hahn examines how Ukraine's internal divisions combined with external
lines of fragmentation to create an explosive mix, which in turn intensified domestic
conflicts. The result is an internationalized civil conflict, with catastrophic consequences
for Ukraine and the world. Hahn is one of the few scholars with the knowledge and discernment
to make sense of it all. His impressively well-researched and well-written book is essential
reading."--Richard Sakwa, University of Kent
"This impressively researched and strongly argued book is an essential corrective to the
myths that have been generated concerning the crisis in Ukraine, and an essential warning
against a continuation of the frivolous and dangerous policies of regime change adopted by the
West after the end of the Cold War ." --Anatol Lieven, Professor, Georgetown University in
Qatar and author of Ukraine and Russia, A Fraternal Rivalry
Ukraine Over the Edge is a rigorous analysis of the cultural, historical, and
intellectual origins of the Ukrainian crisis. While stressing that blame for the latest phase
of this crisis is shared all around, Hahn traces its domestic origins to the militancy of the
opposition to president Yanukovych, and its international origins to NATO expansion, which he
regards as militarized democracy-promotion. The result is both a sophisticated, multilevel
analysis of how and why Ukraine emerged as the key hotspot in East-West relations, and an
indispensable guide for those wishing to understand the origins of the New Cold War.
"--Nicolai N. Petro, Silvia-Chandley Professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence, University of
Rhode Island
" Ukraine Over the Edge is a very useful contribution to understanding origins and
key developments of the crisis in this important European and post-Soviet country. Gordon
M. Hahn challenges simplistic and often misleading narratives by the media and politicians and
provides a corroboration that the Maidan massacre was a false flag mass killing ." --Ivan
Katchanovski, University of Ottawa About the AuthorGordon M. Hahn is an advisory
board member at Geostrategic Forecasting Corporation, Chicago, and at the American Institute of
Geostrategy (AIGEO), Los Angeles; a contributing expert for Russia Direct, and a senior
researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), San Jose, California.
He lives in Mountain View, California.
Preface
As I read, listened and watched Western sources on the events surrounding the mass
demonstrations on central square in Kiev during winter 2013-2014, a sense of deja vu
became undeniable. Having studied the nature of terrorism in Russia's North Caucasus, the
causes and course of the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war, and other events involving Russia, I
had seen a pattern of misrepresentation of these events by most Western, especially American,
media, academia and government sources. There was a clear sense that this pattern was being
repeated with regard to the events on the Maidan. Hence, I decided to investigate matters for
myself and have come to a distinctly different conclusion regarding them than that imparted to
the Western public.
Two years after the Maidan "revolution of dignity," it was already clear that the
Western-backed overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich was not entirely a revolution
and was ultimately in vain regardless of how one conceptualizes the events surrounding the
fall-winter 2013-2014 demonstrations and violence on Kiev's Maidan. The movement was based
initially on middle class opposition to corruption and soft authoritarianism and support for
European integration. Ultimately, the nascent pro-democratic revolution was hijacked by
neofascist elements that infiltrated the Maidan protests, overthrew the government, and then
were themselves superseded by several key oligarchs, who always have thrived under the
post-Soviet ancient regime. Thus, corruption and criminality have increased rather than
decreased, European integration has stalled, and authoritarianism is not just in the corridors
of power but on the streets under the yoke of roaming bands of neofascist groups seeking to
foment a second, truly "national revolution."
Despite the all-too-numerous adepts of democratization and democratic transition, this is
not the first, nor is it likely to be the last time when the West has misunderstood processes
it has hoped for, encouraged, and often funded and helped to organize. The "Arab Spring" is
only the most recent set of cases in point. Predictably, that spring's various revolutions
became an Islamist winter spread across parts of the Middle East and North Africa, except in
Egypt -- where a counterrevolution returned the status quo ante.
Similarly, in 1991 the adepts of democratic transitions or "transitology" got it wrong. Few
post-Soviet states became democracies because the "democratic revolution" that overthrew the
reformist late Soviet regime of Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika was assumed to be a "revolution
from below" led by societal opposition forces bent on living in a democracy. This was true in
the Baltic republics, but in most cases the elements of democratic revolution from below were
subsumed by a mix of less civil state bureaucrat-led revolutions from above and nationalist-led
revolutions from below. In Russia, the revolution was largely one led from above by the Russian
President Boris Yeltsin and the Russian state apparatus against the partially reformed but
crumbling central Soviet state and regime. In Central Asia and elsewhere, there was simply a
change of signboards, rebranding for still very authoritarian regimes. The partial exception is
Kyrgyzstan's tulip revolutions and counterrevolutions, which also had strong elements from
above. Thus, it is no surprise that both Ukraine's 2004 Orange revolution, as 1 noted at the
time, and the 2013-2014 Maidan "revolution of dignity," as I predicted, proved to be something
less than the democratic revolutions "transitologists" hailed.
In addition to elements of revolution from below, the Maidan revolt also has elements of
revolution from above led by some state officials and state-tied oligarchs. Moreover, the
revolution from below was under considerable influence from national chauvinist,
ultranationalist, and neofascist groups. The Maidan ultranationalist-oligarchic regime now has
little popular support and few accomplishments in democratization, and is little different from
the previous, except for a marked increase in western Ukrainian neofascism (both in the
corridors of power and on the streets) and a near catastrophic economy. Revolutions are indeed
unwieldy things, not very manageable once unleashed.
The international geopolitical consequences have been even more deleterious. A deepening
Russian-Western confrontation over Ukraine risks recreating a bipolar "world split apart," with
Russia more inclined than ever to forge alliances with regimes opposed to American and Western
power.
This book is dedicated to clarifying these events and their consequences, something that is
imperative given the misleading government and media characterizations of them. This study is
based on Western, Ukrainian and Russian sources, including media reports, reliable primary and
secondary Internet sources, and official documents of governments and international
organizations.
They show Maidan's quasi-revolution was driven by international geopolitics, supporting
counterposed Western and Russian "civilizationist" beliefs, and deep divisions within Ukrainian
society itself, not a wellspring of widespread aspiration to Western-style democracy.
Allies Against Russia & Iran
Main U.S. allies are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Israel, & Nazis
Eric Zuesse
July 27, 2018
4,900 Words
58 Comments
Reply
🔊
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Add to Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Today's Axis (the fascist powers) are
the heirs of Hitler's failed Operation Barbarossa to conquer the Soviet Union. After World War II, America's
CIA, along with Britain's MI6 and other governmental agencies, plus the Vatican, produced "rat lines" for
key Nazis (including their collaborators in other countries) to resettle in U.S., Argentina, and
Canada
(and in other countries, too, as
the CIA-edited and written account
at Wikipedia
focused upon
), and for these 'former' Nazis (who actually remained ideologically as nazis or racist
fascists, and the CIA knew and welcomed this) to continue working to conquer the Soviet Union. These secret
nazis carried out secret assignments not only for their new country's military and against the Soviet Union,
but also domestically against labor unions of all sorts, and against anything that the owners of the largest
U.S.-and-allied international corporations wanted to be targeted.
This was and is an officially secret
extension of the internationally coordinated farthest far-right, the few people who actually control the
international corporations. It consists of the operations on behalf of the Deep State, but the agents who
carry out these instructions are
only agents
; consequently, everything that they know regarding what
they are instructed to do is told to them only privately on a need-to-know basis, so that only the members
of the Deep State itself are aware of what the broader objectives of any given operation are. For example,
the CIA's operations aren't part of the Deep State but particular ones of these operations
represent
the Deep State -- the instructions they execute on these operations come from the Deep State; the CIA is an
agency for the international Deep State, but not all of what the CIA does represents the Deep State. Not
even the U.S. President himself is necessarily aware of what the agents of the Deep State are doing -- not
even of what the Deep State's agents who are on the federal payroll are doing.
For example, as soon as Franklin Delano
Roosevelt died in 1945, the Deep State (the controlling owners of the largest international corporations)
started to take over, and not everything that it was doing was known at the time by the leaders of the
official (elected) American government. Even U.S. President Harry S. Truman -- though the sign on his desk
said "The BUCK STOPS here!" and he meant it -- was kept in the dark, and was occasionally deceived, about
some things that the OSS (precursor to the CIA) and the CIA were doing. For example, Truman probably didn't
know that
in 1948 the CIA perpetrated its first coup and this coup in Thailand established the off-the-books funding
of the CIA from the international narcotics traffic
(more on that is also
here
), so that the CIA's actual budget wouldn't be restricted simply to the on-the-books funding, from
U.S. taxpayers. This illegal funding-source has been crucial for many of the CIA's operations, and makes
bribes untraceable.
A subversive right-wing coup, centered in
the United States but operating throughout all U.S.-allied countries, thus gradually took over in the
formerly anti-Nazi U.S.-allied countries. This slow coup was internationally coordinated amongst aristocrats
(the controllers of international corporations) from all participating countries. But it was internationally
led by America's aristocrats, starting when FDR died.
Some of the major operations of the
international Deep State were courageously reported in
a rare and classic BBC documentary, in 1992, shown in this video
. As it makes clear, these agents of the
Deep State considered themselves to be revolutionaries. They were heroes, in their own eyes. Here are two
brief excerpts from that video:
8:35-9:00:
"As the
[Nazi]
Germans withdrew, they left secret agents in the countries they had occupied. For the retreating
Germans, they were the staunchest elitists. They were selected from the SS and the fascist Black Legions.
They were to become the footsoldiers in the next war, about to begin.
10:25-10:55:
"Then
[OSS
second-in-command]
Jim Angleton
[James Jesus Angleton]
appeared in August
[1945]
. He
started recruiting fascists, because he said that the best way to control the communists was to hire
fascists. One of the most tough ones was Prince Valerio Borghese, who ran what was known as the tenth
flotilla. These are the guys that would execute partisans
[anti-fascists]
and hang them from lamp
posts all over Italy."
So: within just months of FDR's 12 April
1945 death, The West's Deep State was already in full start-up mode, to achieve ultimately a fascist
victory, not only against the U.S.S.R., but also against Western countries themselves. This is the
historical reality, about The West, after WW II.
As liaison officer between the O.S.S.
and the Fifth Army he assisted the military‐government mission in Italy and captured codes, card files
and documents important to American security.
After the war he returned to Italy and worked for the restoration of Italian business and industry and
for a stable, democratic government.
He was for many years president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Italy.
Instead of his having been born in 1917,
he had actually been born in 1889, which is believable.
So, one can reasonably infer that in
1945, the 56-year-old Hugh Angleton passed along to the 28-year-old Jesus Angleton, his contact list of
approximately 3,000 secret operatives of Hitler and of Mussolini in Europe, and that this son (Jesus)
proceeded promptly to recruit these secret Nazis and Fascists to work for the OSS. The father could retire
rich, while the son went on to grow and harvest his crops, for America's war against Russia (
not
actually against communism -- which was the cover-story
).
When the Soviet Union broke up and
ended its communism in 1991 and thereafter, their former Warsaw Pact military alliance became gradually
absorbed into America's NATO alliance -- and now
even a former part of the Russian Federation itself within the former Soviet Union (and which thus is no
mere Warsaw Pact ally), Ukraine, is being invited into NATO
, and is preparing for admission into the
anti-Russia military pact -- into the U.S. alliance against Russia -- and
hopes to conquer Russia totally
. The name for the broader U.S. plan here (
of
which the takeover of Ukraine is only a part
) is "Nuclear Primacy" -- the U.S. Government's goal is U.S.
victory in a nuclear war against Russia, and this goal can be achieved only if the U.S. nuclearly
blitz-attacks Russia, and if that blitz-attack eliminates Russia's retaliatory weapons (sufficiently to meet
the U.S. Government's top-secret standard of what would constitute acceptable damage to the U.S. from a
Russian retaliatory attack). This is the ultimate strategic plan (and all details of it are prohibited from
being made public).
"Nuclear Primacy" replaces the prior
meta-strategy, which was called "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "M.A.D." -- the belief that the purpose of
nuclear weapons is to prevent a World War III, not to win a WW III. This new meta-strategy starts from the
assumption that the number of people killed in the U.S. and allied countries by a counter-attack from Russia
responding to a sudden and unannounced blitz nuclear invasion of Russia, by the U.S. and its allies, will be
worth that (currently secret) cost.
Some experts say that since
even the proponents of "Nuclear Primacy"
have ignored instead of discussed nuclear winter, the only
reason for the continuation of the 'Cold War' (the potential for an intentional nuclear war between America
and Russia) after the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact and of its communism, is in order to
advance the stock-values of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, SAIC, and the other international corporations whose
sole main sources of income are the U.S. Government and its allied governments. These government-dependent
corporations have taken over the government,
just like U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower publicly warned the American people against at the very end of
his two terms of office
, at a time when the process was, by then, already almost complete, and he
himself had actually been the person who had done the most that anyone had yet done to advance the
military-industrial complex. His famous
"military-industrial complex"
speech (and
here is its broader context
) urged future Presidents to try to undo what he himself had actually already
set inevitably into motion in America. It was as if he was warning to close the barn door so that the horse
won't get out, but the horse had already been stolen and was no longer even subject to this person's
control. Sales of weapons that American corporations market to the American Government, and to its allied
Governments, thus came to wag the tail of America's future
'democracy'
; nobody any longer could stop this process from being completed.
Now that the 'anti-Islamic-terrorist'
excuses for selling and buying their weapons and services are declining, the focus is, yet again,
increasingly against Russia and its allies, in order that the owners of those corporations (the category of
corporations
that depend the most
upon their Government) will continue to grow in wealth, and not to
lose value of their investments. As the anti-Jewish writer Philip Giraldi said accurately (though I think he
misunderstands how the Deep State, of which he used to be an operative, actually functions),
"Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund
their campaigns."
He interprets the corruption in a tribal way, rather than as corruption itself and of
any type, as being the reason why the United States continues to try to achieve 'Nuclear Primacy'. But that
explanation would not explain why nuclear winter is not being discussed by the proponents of 'Nuclear
Primacy'.
None of the publicly available
estimates, behind the 'Nuclear Primacy' meta-strategy, even discusses nuclear winter, which physicists say
would follow such a nuclear war between U.S. and Russia, and would virtually eliminate agriculture and
produce mass-starvation throughout the entire world, including in any 'victor' country. It threatens all
tribes. The published studies regarding the possibility of "nuclear winter"
all concern the likely effect of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan
, or other and even lesser
pairings. Whether or not the U.S. Government has ever commissioned a study of what the likely effects of a
nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would be, is not publicly known. Possibly, this subject has been
examined but the findings are not disclosed; but, also possibly, the U.S. Government does not want such a
study to be done, at all, so that no one will know what the findings might turn out to be. The latter
possibility might, for example, be the case if America's weapons manufacturing and marketing firms control
the U.S. Government. If constant increases in their sales is the objective that drives the U.S. Government,
then there would be sound reason for the U.S. Government to prevent or at least suppress any such analysis
of the global effects, inasmuch as its findings could crash those corporations' stock-values, and the
billionaires who
control those firms and the U.S. Government
, might suffer enormous losses. This assumes that the U.S.
Government represents those owners and not the public. But in any case: marketing weapons that are suitable
only for traditional, non-nuclear, wars, such as against regular jihadists, has apparently run its course
and produced all of the sales-growth that that business-plan is likely to achieve; and, therefore, as has
been the case since at least the time of the Obama Administration, the U.S.
is actively gearing up for an invasion of Russia
. The U.S. Government is behaving as if America's
weapons-producers own it. The weapons-producers (that is, the owners of the weapons-producers) seem to be in
control of the U.S. Government.
Whereas Giraldi and most other writers
against U.S. imperialism -- against development of control over the entire world by U.S. billionaires --
allege that the origin of this imperialism is "Jews" (and specifically the Jews who joined together under
the banner of "neoconservatism" after 1960), insufficient public attention has been devoted to the
possibility that an even more crucial role in the Middle Eastern portion of the U.S. Government's plan is
being played by
the world's wealthiest family
, the royal Saud family of Saudi Arabia, who have the same obsession to
conquer Iran that Israel's Government does. Israel's powerful lobby in the United States is pressing the
same things that the Saud family do; each of the two (Israel and the Sauds) pushes the invade-Iran theme,
and each is at least accepting of all the rest of the other's foreign policies; but, whereas lobbyists for
Jews are viewed somewhat sympathetically by the American public, no lobbyists for Muslims have anything like
the same level of acceptance by the U.S. public. For a U.S. Senator or Representative to be championing
Israel is accepted by the American public far more than is for that same person to be championing the Saud
family, who own Saudi Arabia, or to be championing any of the 7 royal families who own UAE, or etc. (Kuwait,
Qatar, or even non-Arab governments, such as Pakistan). Whereas the Gulf Cooperation Council of
fundamentalist-Sunni Arab kings constitute, by far, the lion's share of foreign buyers of U.S.-made
weaponry, Israel not only doesn't have such enormous financial resources, but it even receives from U.S.
taxpayers $3.8 billion in U.S. donations to Israel's Government, each and every year, in order for Israel to
be able to afford to buy from U.S. makers the weapons that it does buy. In contrast to Israel's relative
pauper-status there, U.S. President Donald Trump personally sold to the Saud family $350 billion of U.S.
weapons shortly after becoming President, and
increased that to $400 billion soon afterwards
. His sale, to the Sauds, of U.S. weaponry, is
overwhelmingly the largest military sale in all of world history. It is Trump's major achievement thus far
in his Presidency. (Trump can meet privately with King Saud, and with Netanyahu, but the Deep State calls
him a 'traitor' for meeting privately with Putin.)
On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day,
commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was
held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.
Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This
mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima.
The United States Government was already
preparing for the time when the then-raging U.S. military buildup in order to deal with terrorism would need
to be supplanted with a return to the major-power, strategic nuclear, weaponry, which could carry U.S.
weapons-manufacturers back to the good old days of unlimited 'defense' spending, and unlimited war-profits
to these firms. Dr. Chossudovsky continued:
The Privatization of Nuclear War: US
Military Contractors Set the Stage
The post 9/11 nuclear weapons
doctrine was in the making, with America's major defense contractors directly involved in the
decision-making process.
The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had
set the stage for the "privatization of nuclear war". Corporations not only reap multibillion-dollar
profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons industry, which
includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery systems, etc., is controlled
by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon
and Boeing in the lead.
These are weapons-systems that cost in
the billions of dollars, rather than in the millions of dollars. America's generals and national-'security'
advisors and other individuals who take part in the U.S. Government's planning and weapons-purchases, rotate
between official government posts and international corporate boards; and, basically, as professionals in
their line of work, they play both sides of that revolving door (between the government and 'the private
sector') so as to maximize their own future likely income streams. They are not peace-planners. That's not
really what they get paid to do -- avoid weapons-buildups and invasions. The people who get paid to do the
peace-job don't have nearly as much to sell, and they've got far fewer and poorer buyers for their services
(maybe the public?). This is the reality of 'the free market'. Another word for it is: "corruption."
Whenever and wherever wealth is extremely concentrated in a few, corruption reigns, the public does not. For
a country to have vast inequality of wealth is to have vast corruption, and to be ruled by it.
The CIA-controlled Wikipedia article on
"Nuclear Winter"
is written to deceive about the subject; and, therefore, for example, it opens one of
its sections with a blatantly propagandistic title and introduction:
Soviet exploitation
[edit]
See also: Soviet influence on the
peace movement § Claims of wider Soviet influence
In an interview in 2000 with Mikhail
Gorbachev (the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985–91), the following statement was posed to him: "In
the 1980s, you warned about the unprecedented dangers of nuclear weapons and took very daring steps to
reverse the arms race", with Gorbachev replying "Models made by Russian and American scientists showed
that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on
Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act in that
situation."[216]
However, a 1984 US Interagency
Intelligence Assessment expresses a far more skeptical and cautious approach, stating that as the
hypothesis is not scientifically convincing.
Though the Wiki article discusses
several studies that had been done in the 1980s modeling the consequences of an India-Pakistan nuclear war
and comparably small ones, it mentions only dismissively the far-more-recent and inclusive study:
In a 2012 "Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists" feature, Robock and Toon, who had routinely mixed their disarmament advocacy into the
conclusions of their "nuclear winter" papers,[18] argue in the political realm that the hypothetical
effects of nuclear winter necessitates that the doctrine they assume is active in Russia and US,
"mutually assured destruction" (MAD) should instead be replaced with their own "self-assured destruction"
(SAD) concept,[200].
The propaganda is strictly by Wikipedia
there, not at all by Robock and Toon,
whose article
does
not
argue to replace "MAD" with "SAD" nor with anything at all, but instead
documents and affirms M.A.D. -- yes, Wikipedia outright lies, when it must -- and their article summarizes
studies published between 1980 and 2010, none of which modeled a U.S.-Russia war, but all of which were
consistent with the authors' conclusion; namely, that even those, much smaller, wars, would make things
vastly worse for both sides (both sides would enormously lose) and would also produce mass-starvation in
broader areas of the planet. Then, the article -- which, as noted, was current as of 2012 (not just as-of
those
earlier
periods) -- summarily stated, as follows, all work that had been done on the subject, up
till that time (and not since supplanted):
The new models show that a
full-scale nuclear conflict, in which 150 million tons of smoke are lofted into the upper atmosphere [the
minimum that a U.S.-Russia war would do], would drastically reduce precipitation by 45 percent on a
global average, while temperatures would fall for several years by 7 to 8 degrees Celsius [13 degrees
Fahrenheit] on average and would remain depressed by 4 degrees Celsius after a decade (Robock et al.,
2007a). Humans have not experienced temperatures this low since the last ice age (Figure 2). In important
grain-growing regions of the northern mid-latitudes [including both U.S. and Russia, as well as most of
Europe], precipitation would decline by up to 90 percent, and temperatures would fall below freezing and
remain there for one or more years.
The number of weapons needed to
initiate these climate changes falls within the range of arsenals planned for the coming decade (Toon et
al., 2008). For instance, the use of 4,000 weapons (the rough total for US and Russian arsenals in 2017
under New START), each with a yield of 100 kilotons (a typical yield for submarine weapons, but at the
low end for most nuclear weapons), against urban or industrial targets would produce about 180 million
tons of soot [30 million higher than that 150 million estimate]. A single US submarine carrying 144
weapons of 100-kiloton yield could produce 23 million tons of smoke if these weapons were used on densely
populated Chinese cities.
The effects of the nuclear contamination
itself are in addition to that estimation of the smoke-damages.
The U.S. weapons-manufacturers and their
agents might not want the public to know this (and so Wikipedia lies about it), but not only would both
sides lose from a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, but the entire planet would lose -- and drastically. The
cigarette-manufacturers long hid the harms of their business, but today's privatized weapons-manufacturing
firms dwarf the corruption and harm that the tobacco-industry perpetrated. The liars get well-paid, but the
truth is far grimmer, and far deadlier -- especially in this matter.
Unlike the CIA-Wikipedia fictionalized
version, M.A.D. wasn't "Soviet exploitation" -- it was instead the reality recognized by both sides, and is
the reality even today, despite what the U.S. weapons-manufacturers and their enormous sales-forces have
been deceiving their publics to believe since 2006.
Consequently, I infer, from the
evidence, that the leaders, of the operation to conquer Russia, are the controlling owners of America's
large 'defense' contractors, and of those individuals' largest non-U.S. customer, the Saud family. The
Sauds' biggest competitors in the international-energy markets (which are their own main markets) are:
Russia and Iran.
It makes sense for the Sauds to be the
#1 foreign buyers of American-made weapons. Not only do they get the weapons, but they get control over the
U.S. Government, which, in turn, determines which nations will be America's 'enemies' (the
'military-industrial complex's targets), and which nations will be America's 'allies' (the
'military-industrial complex's markets). The Sauds buy their allies wisely. Their business-plan includes, as
the most important ally, America's aristocracy; and (as a crucial ally to add greatly to the impact of
America's aristocracy, supplementing them to win the U.S. policies the Sauds need) Israel's aristocracy. The
combination of those two control-levers over the U.S. Government is powerful. Perhaps in the sudden global
cooling from nuclear winter, the Sauds' region will even become one of the world's greenest and most
fruitful. If anyone still exists then, at all.
Where does the EU, and where does the
anti-Russia NATO alliance, fit into this reality? Some of Europe's aristocrats are benefiting from alliance
with the U.S., but others are not. And, of course, America's aristocrats benefit enormously from having
their support -- i.e., from buying their support, bribing them in the legal ways. However, Europe's
aristocratic nazis weren't supposed to have been the winners of WW II. So: nazi Europeans are Europe's
enemies, not its friends -- just as nazi Americans aren't friends but instead enemies to the American people.
That hasn't changed, and can't change.
Only Europeans can decide what to do
regarding nazi Europeans. And only Americans can decide what to do regarding nazi Americans. (One idea might
be to refuse to vote for nazis, but, under existing circumstances, how would that even be possible?) Without
constant deceit, this situation couldn't exist anywhere. And if people are constantly deceived, they are
powerless. Deceit is the chief weapon of Operation Barbarossa II, the American aristocracy's war, not the
German aristocracy's war (which was more overtly physical -- military -- and was only secondarily based upon
deceiving the public).
When the Sauds became America's allies
in 1945 via the secret "Quincy Pact" between FDR and Saud, FDR probably expected that it would move Saudi
Arabia gradually toward democracy. What instead happened is that the Saud family and the losers of Operation
Barbarossa became carried forward toward ultimate victory over The West, by an alliance between the Saudi
and the American aristocracies. The Sauds and America's aristocrats won; FDR and his democratic legacy and
the American people ourselves, lost. The subterranean fascist forces turned out to be far more potent than
FDR imagined. Perhaps the OSS had been deceiving him.
Incidentally, any secret treaty
(including the Quincy Pact) is unConstitutional. None of this happened democratically. It was
a slow coup
. That's what created today's alliances, and today's targets.
To understand the Deep State, its basic
ideological principles need to be recognized. Under Hitler, hereditary rights and obligations were publicly
recognized; and democracy, the rule over a land by the residents on that land, was publicly condemned. Not
only the hereditary principle, but the imperialistic principle, the right of foreign conquest, was publicly
honored. The two principles go naturally together. The main reason why the Sauds and the other (all of them
fundamentalist Sunnis) Arab kings, want to conquer Iran, is that
Shia Islam denies the right of hereditary rule
. (This is also why in Syria, Bashar al-Assad claims no
hereditary right to rule; if he were to do otherwise, he'd violate Shia Islam and he would be rejected by
Iran.) The main reason why America's aristocracy wants to conquer Russia (other than the latter's
natural-resources wealth, which has always been a reason) is that
Vladimir Putin insists that only the residents in a land should possess sovereignty there, but the U.S. and
British aristocracies insist upon the right to conquer foreign lands
. As an ideology, nazism totally
affirms both the hereditary principle, and the imperialist principle. This is what the U.S.-Saudi alliance
likewise affirms. And that is why, for example, the CIA has always favored monarchies and opposed
democracies (or at least authentic ones, which the U.S. aristocracy cannot control).
I think this article goes much too far with the Nazi stuff but the simple fact that Saudi Arabia is the
third biggest military spender in the world, bigger than Russia, should inform people as to how much
influence Saudi has. Yet it is rarely mentioned.
The Saudis were just puppets installed by the British. It seems to me that the real "nazis", then and now,
are the banksters. Now as before they fund both sides of the conflicts that they initiate and after
digesting their profits they own what remains. As Tacitus wrote, solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. They
make a desert and call it peace
During WWII FDR was informed that in 30 years time USA
oil would be exhausted, so Harold L Ickes at the end of 1944 made Saudi Arabia THE USA's oil supplier.
To make the deal more official, FDR, in the beginning of 1945, received the Saud of the time aboard the
cruiser Quincy on the Bitter Lakes near the Suez canal.
As FDR said in his last speech to congress, seated, 'ten minutes with Saud had learned him more about
zionism than hundreds of letters from rabbi's'.
He also stated that he had promised Saud to limit jewish immigration into Palestine.
Both these statements do not seem to be in the offical record, they also were not in the text prepared for
him:
Robert E. Sherwood, 'Roosevelt und Hopkins', 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948)
In 1947, from memory, the then Saud published an interesting article on the folly of 'returning' in a USA
newspaper or periodical.
The Saudi regime just exists because of USA support, is my opinion.
Nothing special, all Muslim rulers in the ME are dependent on USA support, Quatar is the USA military
headquarters of the USA.
Iran is the exception.
Now it is possible that for the moment Israel is willing to cooperate with Saudi Arabia for the purpose
of destabilising the whole ME, present objective Iran.
The Iran regime quite well understands that Big Satan Sam controls a large part of the ME, thus they see the
Saudi regime as enemy.
If, if it succeeds, Iran has been destroyed, Israel is willing to cooperate with Saudi Arabia, I wonder.
Israel sees all neighbouring Muslim countries as threats.
If the Israeli destabilisation plans include the destabilisation of the European nations, more and more
people wonder.
Why does Soros want to force Muslim immigrants on Hungary ?
Brussels fears a new ME war, they fear the new wave of immigrants.
They do want these immigrants, a 2009 Brussels document states that the EU needs 60 million, but the
citizens of the member states more and more realise the burden of these migrants, they cost some € 30.000
per migrant per year in social security, thus it will lead to the collapse of social security, cultural
antagonies are more and more realised, as crime rates.
So a new ME war may be the end of the EU.
Therefore Brussels warned Netanyahu about Iran, also because of huge investments by European companies such
as Total in Iran.
I do hope that Trump will save us in Europe, also of course the people of Iran, from a new ME war.
He stated that immigration is destroying the European cultures.
Just want to add a comment on this Nazi-USA-Israel friendship. When I read the memoirs of Reinhardt Gehlen
(The Service, The Memoirs) there was one interesting place. Gehlen predicted in a meeting the exact time of
the Israel attack in the Six Day War some time before it. He comments in the book that he had sent to Egypt
old Nazi intelligence people and these people knew precisely what weapons Israel had before this 1967 war.
Apparently they knew of the coming attack (since Gehlen did) and that Israel would surely win if there came
a war (as German military, they could count the strengths), but they did not hint anything to the Egyptians
so that they could have had some planes in the air or tried to avoid a war (this failure to do so must have
been intentional).
This essay has an X-files feel to it. I find it hard to believe that Roosevelt and Truman didn't know that
Mega-Corporations were running the show.
Yes, there are a collusion of special interests. But no need for "spooky action at a distance" claims.
It's all very up front. This is why I don't buy the claim of Roosevelt and Truman being innocent puppets.
Roosevelt for sure came from the Oligarch class.
The POTUS effectively acts as a corporate lawyer for the Mega-Corporations whose job is to explain to the
MEGA-CEO just what they are able to get away with without provoking violent Peasant Revolt across the
US ..at any given point in time. The Ludlow massacre was a close one.
This illegal funding-source has been crucial for many of the CIA's operations, and makes bribes
untraceable.
Illegality is the main function of covert operations. If they were legal, there would be no reason for
them to be covert. Laws or legalisms (written behavior restrictions), are put in place by the powers that
be, whoever they are, to restrict the behavior of the masses. Not to restrict themselves.
Again. Ask yourself who you cannot criticize. Then you will know who they are. And have been, all along.
"Israeli arms are being
sent to a heavily armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine. IWI markets the Tavor as the "primary weapon" of the
Israeli special forces.
Fort, the Ukrainian state-owned arms company that produces the rifles under license, has a page about the
Tavor on its website. The Israel Weapon Industries logo also appears on its website, including on the "Our
Partners" page."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MywW6mOquSk
"A photo on Azov's website also shows a Tavor in the hands of one of the militia's officers. The rifles
are produced under licence from Israel Weapon Industries, and as such would have been authorized by the
Israeli government:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QopTJkI3_Fs
"... For many years some have seen the US as a form of corporatism* - as a country run in the interests of the corporations and those who lead them. There is considerable evidence that in many senses they are correct. However to see Trump as the epitome of this 'rule by corporations' I think misses something important. Trump is different from what went before in important respects. ..."
"... The government of Donald Trump is different. It is a selective plutocracy , and with one important exception that plutocracy is selected by Trump. In that way it can also be seen as a democratic dictatorship , where the complexity of government requires some delegation of power to other individuals. Like many dictatorships, some of those individuals are the dictator's family members. ..."
"... The photo above is taken from an extraordinary recent event (watch here ) where Trump walks down a line of senior executives, who in turn stand up and say what they are doing for the US and pledge to do more. Each statement is applauded with a positive statement by Trump, as his daughter trails behind. These are top companies: IBM, Microsoft, General Motors etc. It is all a show, of course, but of a kind the US has never seen before. It seems indicative that this is not just a continuation of past corporatism but something quite different. These are corporate executives doing the President's bidding for fear or favour. ..."
For
many years some have seen the US as a form of corporatism* - as a country run in the interests
of the corporations and those who lead them. There is considerable evidence that in many senses
they are correct. However to see Trump as the epitome of this 'rule
by corporations' I think misses something important. Trump is different from what went before
in important respects.
The way business influenced politicians in the past was straightforward. Campaigns cost a lot
of money (unlike the UK there are no tight limits on how much can be spent), and business can
provide that money, but of course corporate political donations are not pure altruism. The
strings attached helped influence both Republican and Democratic politicians. It was influence
that followed the money, and that meant to an extent it was representative of the corporate
sector as a whole. The same point can be made about political lobbying.
The government of Donald Trump is different. It is a selective
plutocracy , and with one important exception that plutocracy is selected by Trump. In
that way it can also be seen as a democratic
dictatorship , where the complexity of government requires some delegation of power to
other individuals. Like many dictatorships, some of those individuals are the dictator's family
members.
A dictatorship of this form would not be possible if Congress had strongly opposed it. That it
has not is partly because the Republican party chooses not to oppose, but also because Trump
wields a power over Congress that can override the influence of corporate money. That power
comes from an alliance between Trump and the media that has a big influence on how Republican
voters view the world: Fox News in particular but others as well. The irony is that under these
conditions democracy in the form of primaries gives Trump and the media considerable power over
Congress.
The distinction between traditional corporate power 'from below' and the current Trumpian
plutocracy can be seen most clearly in Trump's trade policy. It would be a mistake to see
past US trade
policy as an uninterrupted promotion of liberalisation, but I think it is fair to say that
trade restrictions have never been imposed in such a haphazard way, based on such an obviously
false pretext (US surpluses good, deficits bad). Trump's policy is a threat to the
international trading system that has in the past been lead by the US, and therefore it is a
threat to most of corporate USA. Yet up till now Congress has done very little to stop Trump's ruinous policy.
The photo above is taken from an extraordinary
recent event (watch here ) where Trump
walks down a line of senior executives, who in turn stand up and say what they are doing for
the US and pledge to do more. Each statement is applauded with a positive statement by Trump,
as his daughter trails behind. These are top companies: IBM, Microsoft, General Motors etc. It
is all a show, of course, but of a kind the US has never seen before. It seems indicative that
this is not just a continuation of past corporatism but something quite different. These are
corporate executives doing the President's bidding for fear or favour.
All this matters because it creates a tension that could at some stage drive events. So far the
Republican party has been prepared to allow Trump to do what he wishes as long as didn't
require their explicit approval (i.e their votes in Congress), but it has not as yet bent its
collective agenda to his. (Arguments that it already has tend to look at past
Republican rhetoric rather than actions.) This uneasy peace may no longer become tenable
because of developments on trade, or Russia, or the mid-term election results. If enough
Republicans think their future is safer by opposing Trump rather than indulging him, they still
have the power to bring Trump to heel. But the longer the peace lasts, Trump's influence on the
Republican party will only grow.
* Readers outside the US may be confused by my use of the term corporatism: it is one of those
terms with many meanings. I'm using it in the fourth and final sense described
here .
" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "
American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss the nether regions of those TBTF Wall
Street Casinos.
Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs -- eight of whom are Jews -- who stole hundreds of billions from Russia when
it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies
who also filled their pockets.
Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process server.
Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry life in a Super Max prison for his
thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.
"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton,
who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference
in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done
to it."
[emphasis mine]
So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage? #MeToo
Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here (especially relevant to your point is
the bolded part):
I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all things, a human rights advocate is
the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think the following information goes a long way in doing that:
1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for viewing
2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and
3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50 times and answers "I don't know"
fully 211 times.
Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians have issued a Red Notice at least
six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on each occasion.
The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert witness against Fusion GPS, arguing
that it should have registered under FARA because it was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian.
The irony of this scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely bought and paid
for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA. Totally surreal!
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC quietly held a series of closed-door meetings
with Russian authorities earlier this year regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly
managed Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country (22 million dollars I believe,
so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but it's something.)
"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.
Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?
(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country?
No jury in the world would reach a verdict based solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces
of other circumstantial and direct evidence.
(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would gazillionaire corporations cave in
to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations, etc.?
There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.
In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence, corruption and lies. So, no -- modern US
Congress is not respectable by people and numbers reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to
their country people will make it there.
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?
These are the ones I remember:
1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky
Who were the others? Thanks.
Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares
scheme. My understanding is that those who fled are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money
so long as they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of the Jewish oligarchs were
too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.
"... "Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) ..."
"... On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ." ..."
"... Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." ..."
"... That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions." ..."
"... The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government. ..."
"Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much
work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) So I thought I'd throw together some usage examples of
the term to see if I could find more significant readings than my own reaction, and then draw out some implications from that reading.
But first, let's look at how often that term is used, and where. We turn to
Google Trends
:
Some caveats: Google doesn't have enough data to track "our intelligence community," or so it says, so the search is for "intelligence
community" only.
Further, the search is for 2008 to the present, again because Google, or so it says, doesn't have enough data for
shorter time frames.[1] However, I think the chart shows that interest in the intelligence community is not general in time or space:
It spikes when there's gaslighting with reader interest in particular stories, and spikes along the Acela Corridor, in
Washington and New York. (We might also speculate,
based on HuffPost/YouGov
voter data , that interest in the today's stories about the intelligence is limited not only in space, and time, but in scope:
Primarily among liberal Democrats.[2]) With that, let's turn to our usage examples.
I used Google to find them, and of course Google
search is crapified and all but useless -- for example, it insists on returning examples of "intelligence community" along with "our
intelligence community" in normal search, even with when the search string is quoted -- but it is what it is; readers are invited
to supply their own examples.
On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller
was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence
community ."
No. Mueller provided no evidence and the case is unlikely to go to trial; the capability consists in the naming, not in the proof.
Verdict: Credulity .
The
intelligence community
determined
that the Kremlin intended to "denigrate" and "harm" Clinton, and "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic
process" while helping Trump.
And the same claim, July 10, 2018, Washington Post:
The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost Trump's candidacy
No. If you click through, you'll find that this is the "17 agencies"/"high confidence" report, whose agencies and analysts were
hand-picked by Clapper; that's just not the "intelligence community" as a whole[3]; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was not
involved in the analysis, for example. (I don't see how it's normal that such an important topic not to be the subject of a Presidental
Finding, but perhaps people were in a rush.) Verdict; Misinformation .
FLAKE: We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community . We need to say
that in the Senate. Yes, it's symbolic, and symbolism is important.
And a similar formulation, July 22, 2018, Senator Marco Rubio (R),
CBS News
:
We need to move forward from that with good public policy and part of that is, I think, standing with our intelligence
community .
Posturing aside, to my sensibilities, it's pretty disturbing when "support the troops" bleeds over into "support the spies," and
when supporting the conclusions of an institution bleeds over into supporting the institution itself, as such. (The whole of the
Federalist Papers argues against the latter view:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Verdict: Authoritarian followership .
WE UNIFY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER NATION
No. The DNI mistakes the hope for the fact; were the intelligence community in fact
unified
, Clapper would not have hand-picked agencies for his report, and a Presidential Finding would have been made. (And given the
source, "our" is doing even more work there than it usual does; it reminds of liberal Democrats talking about "our Democracy." Whose,
exactly?) Verdict: Wishful thinking .
Example 5, July 16, 2018, John Sipher (interview),
PBS
:
I do think the intelligence community is quite resilient. They put their head down and they do their work, but they
take this very seriously. And they see the president as their primary customer and they will do almost anything to get the president
the information that he needs to do his job.
No. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" -- was formulated by the Roman poet
Juvenal (d. 138AD) in the late first or early second century,
[checks calculator], about 1880 years ago. It's absurd to assume that "the intelligence" community has always served its "primary
customer" -- see the Bay of Pigs invastion at "
groupthink " -- or that they will
in the future, especially considering the enormous stakes involved today. Verdict: Historical ignorance .
Today I voted for H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. This
important legislation funds our Intelligence community and provides them the resources they need to effectively defend
our nation "This legislation makes sure that the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the Intelligence Community [caps
in the original] are fully equipped to fulfill their mission."
No. While Sipher urges (
as does Clapper
) that the intelligence community is in the business of serving customers, Comstock, through her language ("dedicated
men and women who serve our nation") identifies it with the military. That's pretty disturbing when you realize that the intelligence
community has a domestic component (and when you think back to Obama's 17-city crackdown on Occupy, or Obama's militarized response
to #BlackLivesMatter). Verdict: Militarization
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, head of the U.S. intelligence community , reaffirmed his conclusion
that Russia had indeed tried to sway the election in a statement published after Trump's remarks.
No. The U.S. has 17 intelligence agencies; the DNI is in no sense their head.
From the DNI site :
The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful
intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence
so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from
the IC to make educated decisions.
If you boil that bureucratic porridge down -- the Russian word for porridge is
kasha , in case kompromat has
worn thin for you -- you'll see that the 17 intelligence agencies do not have a reporting relationship to the DNI. Hence, the DNI
is not their head. QED. Verdict: Authoritarian followership
[BRENNAN:] What Mr. Trump did (Monday) was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA and NSA and others and betray the
American public. That's why I use the term, this was nothing short of treason, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He's giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Leaving aside Brennan's broad definition of enemy -- apparently a sovereign state with interests different from our own, as opposed
to a nation against whom Congress has declared war -- note that Brennan treats the agencies as individual entities, not as "unified,"
presumably betraying DNI Coats). More:
BRENNAN:] I still shake my head trying to understand what was discussed during the two-hour one-on-one, what was discussed
between the two sides in their bilateral meeting. We only saw what Mr. Trump said during the press conference. I can't even imagine
what he said behind closed doors. I can't imagine what he said to Mr. Putin directly. I am very concerned about what type of impact
it might have on our intelligence community and on this country."
No. Note well: What (
torture
advocate ) Brennan says contradicts the other two models expressed in this aggregation. If the President is the customer, it's
not Brennan's concern what that customer does (any more than it's Best Buy's concern what I buy in Starbucks after I pick up my flat-screen
TV). And if the intelligence community is a branch of the military, it's not their concern what their Commander-in-Chief does; he'll
tell them what they need to know.) Seriously, why does the Praetorian Guard need to know what the emperor is doing. Now, one could
argue that Brennan's ambition is counteracting Trump's ambition; well and good, but then one needs to think through the consequences.
And if Brennan, et al., really believe that Trump committed treason, then they -- as the good patriots they presumably are -- need
to indicate a path to removing him. If that path does not include full disclosure of the evidence for whatever charges are to be
made, then the country will have to deal with the consequences -- which I'd speculate won't be pretty -- of
a change in the Constitutional order where the "intelligence community" can remove a President from office based on its own internal
consensus . Praetorian
Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he
described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke,
in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable
for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the
late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."
One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting
behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions,"
Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:
That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads
containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons
and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt
was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in
9-11.
The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post, Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections,
wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted
for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we
had made the wise choice.
But as the evidence pours in the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence; David Kay's interim report on
the failure to find WMD in Iraq; an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board's critique; thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly; and
investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,
we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who
believed the intelligence were wrong . Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the
Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.
But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD,
connected the dots to the wrong conclusions . If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers,
including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty
about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Let me add that policymakers -- including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information
being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.
The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked
by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor,
exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional
leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow,
exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community
says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes
are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward
a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government.
Why are we doing that? Well, if you look at the verdicts after each of the quotes I've found, taking the quotes as a proxy for
elite opinion, one reason might be that the portion of our elites involved in the Russia narrative -- who, let us remember, are limited
in space and scope -- are:
Credulous Misinformed Prone to authoritarian followership Historically ignorant Militarized Praetorian
If power is lying in the street, beware of who picks it up. Matters might not improve.
NOTES .
[1] The hit count (100 for the spike in January 2017) is oddly low; sadly, although 100 looks like a blue link, we cannot click
through to check the data. However, even if the aggregates are low, I think we can assume that both the shape of the trend line and
its geographic distribution are directionally correct, because the spikes occur at reasonable places for them to occur. Sidebar:
Note the horrid user interface design, which uses inordinate amounts of screen space to no purpose, disrespecting the time-pressed
professional user.
[2] We might even go so far as to speculate that -- given these limitations in space -- that while "our" asserts Democrat leadership
as a National party, Democrats are in fact a State party. Removing the hyphen from "nation-state" is a neat way
of encapsulating our current legitimacy crisis.
[3] "Intelligence community," like "deep state," connotes unity among institutions that are in fact riven by faction.
ADDENDUM: Scott Horton
I didn't add this material to the post proper, because I only had screen shots, and I wasn't able to find the post in time using
Google, or Facebook's lousy search. So after ten minutes of plowing through Facebook's infinite scroll, here is the embed* from Scott
Horton that I sought:
And a screen shot personally taken by me:
Note the lead: "European intelligence analysts ," so reminiscent of Bush's "British intelligence has learned " (the
sixteen words ). What they "learned," of course,
was the faked evidence on Niger yellowcake. Go through my list of "verdicts," starting with "credulous," and see what does
not
apply to Horton.
Horton is a Contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine,
has a law practice in New York, and is affiliate with Columbia Law School and the Open Society Institute.
The key point, for me, is this: "Liberal Democrats do not view anyone outside of places like Orange and Lexington County (whom
they go all-out to court) as people fit to make their own choices." It's important to watch for outright denial of agency,
to others, not merely lack of agency. That's true for Horton, it was true for Clinton's "deplorables" comment, and it was true for
Obama's "bitter"/"cling to" Kinseley gaffe.
It would be nice if Senator Sanders didn't signal boost this stuff. Here's another usage example of "intelligence community":
Or, to put this another way, Sanders needs to get his supporters' backs, and fast, with messaging that doesn't take a "duck and
cover" approach by repeating the catchphrases of the current onslaught, but contextualizes and decontaminates it. I didn't say that
would be easy
NOTE * I like the picture the Time chose very much; apparently, the evul left is young, female, swarthy, and/or black.
No suburban Republicans here! The "AbolishICE" t-shirt -- and not, say, #MedicareForAll -- is also a nice touch.
"... The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon . It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign and then sabotage the presidency that resulted. ..."
"... she offered a bombshell confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen (keep in mind that there are many yet to be released). ..."
"... The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters. ..."
"... We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber , who is investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes. That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury sessions, if summoned. ..."
The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI
officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation
that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon
. It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure
the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign
and then sabotage the presidency that resulted.
Earlier reports indicated that Page has been answering questions from the House Judiciary
Committee quite frankly and may even have
cut a deal selling out her ex-lover Peter Strzok over their professional misbehavior (and
quite possibly worse) in targeting the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump with the
intelligence-gathering tools of the FBI.
Last night, John Solomon of
The Hill revealed that he has obtained information from sources who heard Page's testimony
in two days of sworn depositions behind closed doors that she offered a bombshell
confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen
(keep in mind that there are many yet to be released).
[T]here are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok
exchanged, that you should read.
That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. "There's no big there there," Strzok
texted.
The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy
Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein
named special counselRobert Mueller to oversee an investigation
into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to
the evidence against the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say – but Page,
during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way
that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple
eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome
powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving
the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was "there."
The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus
accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's
term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters.
We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber ,
who is
investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes.
That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering
questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury
sessions, if summoned.
The glacial pace of this probe is frustrating for Trump-supporters. But doing it right and
observing the ethical and legal constraints takes time and does not generate leaks.
Nevertheless, I am deeply encouraged by this leak to Solomon, as it seems to indicate that the
truth will come out.
Appearing on Hannity last night, Solomon elaborated: watch video
here .
Not only "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our
ethics and our personalities", it crushes the will to resist presenting psychopathic dictate in
forms that make it difficult. Such as performance reviews waterboarding or putting individual in
the way too complex and self-contradictory Web of regulations.
Notable quotes:
"... An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities. ..."
"... Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other. ..."
"... Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults. ..."
"... Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security system. ..."
"... The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us. ..."
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics
and our personalities.
Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and
privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If
you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism
favours certain personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is
articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be
superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really be
noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know
a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they
were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel
little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli
and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who
has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist
by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist
on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial
crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone
countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury
and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more
profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does
emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in
psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from
performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on
external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has
aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of
temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell
white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of
revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently
and that fails to treat employees as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely
depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes
to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who
needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough,
all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and
exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and
ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever
before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those
who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security
system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe in the fairytale
of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political
messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible
individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of
this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox
of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed
freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new
laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these
things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by
indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a
bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything,
from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that
is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled
individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good
job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy –
unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school
teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in
economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet
our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be
lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed
ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the
worst in us.
Panic attacks, anxiety attacks, nervous breakdowns, depression, suicidal thoughts alienation,
cancers, withdrawal are all symptoms of the de-humanizing aspects of a market-driven life. In
its worst forms it manifests periodically in mass shootings at strangers. So what do people
do to cope? Drugs, pain killers, shrinks, alcohol, potato chips and soda. They then develop
obesity, diabetes and heart diseases and cancers. How to save a human species terminally
intoxicated with technology and enslaved by the market while the inner spirit is running
empty may not be possible given the advanced nature of the disease.
...what?
You fail to really acknowledge that time and again we've failed to exercise constrain within
the capitalist models. The the meritorious are often inadequately rewarded - when any person
in work cannot afford to home and feed themselves and their family then a reasonable balance
has not been struck - in that sense at no time in history has capitalism functioned
adequately.
To suggest that socialism is anti-human is to ignore how and why as a species we formed
societies at all, we come together precisely because there is a mutual benefit in so doing;
to help another is to help oneself - the model itself fails to operate in practice for the
same reason that capitalism does - the greed of the power holder.
You reserve your sharpest barbs for socialism, but at least within the socialist agenda
there is a commitment to the protection of the citizen, whoever they are, even the
'unmerited' as you describe them - a capitalist's paraphrase for 'those that create no
value'.
The socialist at least recognises that whilst the parent may be 'unmerited' their
dependants should be entitled to receive equality of opportunity and protection from the
'law-of-the-jungle' i.e., the greed of others.
The ability to generate wealth, simply by already having wealth and therefore being able
to thrive off the labour of others carries little merit as far as I can tell and does indeed
create the soul-crushing command-and-control empires of the capitalism that millions around
the world experience daily.
Neoliberalism is indeed a huge self-serving con and ironically the Thatcher/Regan doctrine
which set out to break the status quo and free the economy from the old elitist guard has had
exactly the opposite effect.
Capitalism cannot differentiate between honest competition and cheating. Since humans will
cheat to win, capitalism has become survival of the worst not the best.
The bottom line is the basic human condition prizes food, shelter, sex, and then goes
directly to greed in most modern societies. It was not always that way, and is not that way
in ever fewer societies. As it is, greed makes the world go around.
In capitalistic societies greed has been fed by business and commerce; in communist
societies it has been "some pigs are more equal then others"; and in dictatorships or true
monarchies (or the Australian Liberal Party) there is the born to rule mentality where there
are rulers and serfs.
Nobody ever seems to address the paradox of the notion of an absolute free market: that
within a free market, those who can have the freedom to exploit do exploit, thereby thus
eliminating the freedom of the exploited, which thence paradoxically negates the absoluteness
of the free market. No absolute freedom truly exist in a free market.
As such, the free market is pipe dream - a con - to eliminate regulations and create
economic freedoms only where they benefit the elite. The free market does not exist, is
impossible, and therefore should cease to be held as the harbinger of a progressive socio
economic reality.
If we are to accept the Christian assumption that we, humans, are all self-serving and
acquisitive, then we must, therefore, negate the possibility of an absolutely "free" market,
since exploitation is a naturally occurring byproduct of weak-strong interactions.
Exploitation negates freedom, and therefore, it must be our reality, as it is in all peoples'
best interests, to accept directly democratic regulations as the keystone to any market.
It sounds very like the Marxist critique of capital. And similarly, points to real problems,
but doesn't seek evidence for why such a sick situation not only persists, but is so popular
- except by denigrating 'the masses'.
Surely what is particular about our time, about industrialisation generally, is the
fragmenting of long term social structures, and orientation around the individual alone. It
seems to me the problem of our times is redeveloping social structures which balance the
individual and the socials selves, as all not merely stable but thriving happy creative
societies, have always done.
Their propaganda is the same- an obsessive hatred of the state in any form, a semi-religious
belief in the power of the individual operating in the free-market to solve humanity's ills.
Granted, they aren't social libertarians, but then, in the US, libertarians don't seem to
be either.
Pretty typical that the assumption is the Marx "nailed it" and any dissenters are
just "scared".
I'm scared by it too, as I said, it's a sensible fear of change. The question remains. What
if Marx's analysis, just the analysis, is broadly correct? What if markets really are the
road to ruination of our planet, morality and collective welfare in roughly the way that he
explained?
It's not a trivial question, and clearly the current economic orthodoxy has failed to
explain some recent little problems we've been having, while Marx explains how these problems
are structurally embedded and only to be expected. It is intellectual cowardice to
compulsively avoid this, in my view. Better minds than ours have struggled with it.
So beware of the fallacious argument from authority - 'You are stupid while I am
axiomatically very clever, because I say so, hence I must be correct and you must shut it.'
It goes nowhere useful, though we are all prone to employing it.
But it is not 'sixth form' thinking, surely, to consider these problems as being worth
thinking about in a modern context. It is a plain fact that Stalinism didn't work as planned.
We know it, but it doesn't make the problems it was intended to solve disappear to say
so.
If you believe human nature can be changed by enforcing your interpretation of Marx's
road to human freedom (a quasi-religious goal) you condemn millions to starvation,
slaughter, gulags, misery etc.
Please read what I actually wrote about that. I'm not remotely quasi-religious, nor do I seek
to enforce anything. My intention is only to expose a particularly damaging mythology. The
extent of my crimes is persuasion as a prelude to consensual change before necessity really
bites us all.
Markets conjure up the exact forms of misery you describe. Totalitarians of the right are
highly undesirable too. I am against totalitarians, as are you, but an admirer of Marx's
work. Do I fit into your simplistic categories? Does anyone? The freedoms we are permitted
serve the market before they serve people. Markets are a social construct, as is capital,
that we can choose to modify or squash. A child starving in a slum for lack of
competitiveness, for its inability to serve the interests of capital, is less abstract
perhaps.
The thing about selfishness and a brutal form of dog eat dog capitalism.
You see, it is a truth axiomatic that we human beings, as all living beings, are
fundamentally selfish. We have to be in order to survive, and excel, and advance and
perpetuate.
It is not theory but hard biology. You breathe for yourself, eat for yourself, love for
yourself, have a family for yourself and so on. People are most affected and hurt if
something happens to something or someone who means something to them personally. This is why
concepts such as religion and nationality have worked so well, and will continue to even if
they evolve in different ways, for they tap into a person's conception of theirself. Of their
identity, of their self-definition. People tend to feel worse if something bad happens to
someone they know than to a stranger; people tend to feel less bad when something happens to
a cockroach than to a dog, simply because we relate better to dogs than to insects...So even
our compassion is selfish after a fashion.
Capitalism and Socialism are two ends of the the same human spectrum of innate and
hardwired selfishness. One stresses on the individual and the other on the larger group. It's
always going to be hard to find the right balance because when you vest excessive power in
any selfish ideology, it will begin to eat into the other type of selfishness..
The world revolves around competing selfishnesses...
The global economy is based upon wasting lives and material resources.
Designer landfill is no longer an option and neo-liberalism, which places importance of
the invention called money over that of people (which is a dehumanising process), was never
an option.
It is time for the neo-liberal fake politicians (that is 99.99% of them) to take up
politics.
It really is, as ever since it is only another word for change, time for revolution.
By extension, moving away from a system the shuns those who 'fail' people would be
emotionally better off, and with the removal of the constant assessment and individualistic
competition, people may feel better able to relate to one another. This would imply that
healthy communities would be more likely to flourish, as people would be less likely to
ignore those on lower income or of 'lower status'.
Move to what system? What system would achieve this?
Whether you agree or not, it is pretty clear what was being said.
Of course it's clear. George and his followers dislike market based systems. It couldn't
be clearer. Even when the subject has little to do with the market, George and his followers
always blame it for everything that is wrong with this world. That's pretty much the whole
point of this article.
What's never clear is what alternative George and his followers propose that wouldn't
result in all of the same flaws that accompany market driven systems. How can they be so sure
some of those problems won't be worse? They always seem a bit sketchy, which is remarkable
given the furor with which they relentlessly critique the market. We are told of alternatives
concepts painted in the broadest of brushes, rich with abstract intangible idealism, but
lacking in any pragmatism. We are invited to consider the whole exercise simply as
academically self-indulgent navel gazing by the priviledged overeducated minority that
comprise much of the Guardian's readership. It's quite disappointing. This article correctly
details much of the discontent in the world. But this isn't a revelation. Where are the
concrete ideas that can actualy be implemented now? frontalcortexes at least makes a stab at something a bit more practicle than a 17
paragraph esoteric essay citing ancient Greek.
One of the worst thing is that the winners in the market race are showered with things which
are fundamentally valueless and far in excess of what they could consume if they weren't,
while bare necessities are withheld from the losers.
"... The workplace has been overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance
and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers ..."
"... The same forces afflict those who can't find work. They must now contend, alongside the other humiliations of unemployment,
with a whole new level of snooping and monitoring. All this, Verhaeghe points out, is fundamental to the neoliberal model, which everywhere
insists on comparison, evaluation and quantification. We find ourselves technically free but powerless. Whether in work or out of work,
we must live by the same rules or perish. All the major political parties promote them, so we have no political power either. In the
name of autonomy and freedom we have ended up controlled by a grinding, faceless bureaucracy. ..."
I was prompted to write it by a remarkable book, just published in English, by a Belgian professor of psychoanalysis, Paul Verhaeghe.
What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based
Society is one of those books that, by making connections between apparently distinct phenomena, permits sudden new insights
into what is happening to us and why.
We are social animals, Verhaeghe argues, and our identities are shaped by the norms and values we absorb from other people. Every
society defines and shapes its own normality – and its own abnormality – according to dominant narratives, and seeks either to make
people comply or to exclude them if they don't.
Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as neoliberalism. The story it tells is
that the market can resolve almost all social, economic and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better
off we will be. Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be freed from social control.
In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan
came to power. It is rapidly colonising the rest of the world.
Verhaeghe points out that neoliberalism draws on the ancient Greek idea that our ethics are innate (and governed by a state of
nature it calls the market) and on the Christian idea that humankind is inherently selfish and acquisitive. Rather than seeking to
suppress these characteristics, neoliberalism celebrates them: it claims that unrestricted competition, driven by self-interest,
leads to innovation and economic growth, enhancing the welfare of all.
At the heart of this story is the notion of merit. Untrammelled competition rewards people who have talent, work hard, and innovate.
It breaks down hierarchies and creates a world of opportunity and mobility.
The reality is rather different. Even at the beginning of the process, when markets are first deregulated, we do not start with
equal opportunities. Some people are a long way down the track before the starting gun is fired. This is how the Russian oligarchs
managed to acquire such wealth when the Soviet Union broke up. They weren't, on the whole, the most talented, hardworking or innovative
people, but those with the fewest scruples, the most thugs, and the best contacts – often in the KGB.
Even when outcomes are based on talent and hard work, they don't stay that way for long. Once the first generation of liberated
entrepreneurs has made its money, the initial meritocracy is replaced by a new elite, which insulates its children from competition
by inheritance and the best education money can buy. Where market fundamentalism has been most fiercely applied – in countries like
the US and UK – social
mobility has greatly declined .
If neoliberalism was anything other than a self-serving con, whose gurus and
thinktanks were financed
from the beginning by some of the world's richest people (the US multimillionaires Coors, Olin, Scaife, Pew and others), its
apostles would have demanded, as a precondition for a society based on merit, that no one should start life with the unfair advantage
of inherited wealth or economically determined education. But they never believed in their own doctrine. Enterprise, as a result,
quickly gave way to rent.
All this is ignored, and success or failure in the market economy are ascribed solely to the efforts of the individual. The rich
are the new righteous; the poor are the new deviants, who have failed both economically and morally and are now classified as social
parasites.
The market was meant to emancipate us, offering autonomy and freedom. Instead it has delivered atomisation and loneliness.
The workplace has been overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance
and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers . It destroys
autonomy, enterprise, innovation and loyalty, and breeds frustration, envy and fear. Through a magnificent paradox, it has led to
the revival of a grand old Soviet tradition known in Russian as tufta . It means falsification of statistics to meet the
diktats of unaccountable power.
The same forces afflict those who can't find work. They must now contend, alongside the other humiliations of unemployment,
with a whole new level of snooping and monitoring. All this, Verhaeghe points out, is fundamental to the neoliberal model, which
everywhere insists on comparison, evaluation and quantification. We find ourselves technically free but powerless. Whether in work
or out of work, we must live by the same rules or perish. All the major political parties promote them, so we have no political power
either. In the name of autonomy and freedom we have ended up controlled by a grinding, faceless bureaucracy.
These shifts have been accompanied, Verhaeghe writes, by a spectacular rise in certain psychiatric conditions: self-harm, eating
disorders, depression and personality disorders.
Of the personality disorders, the most common are performance anxiety and social phobia: both of which reflect a fear of other
people, who are perceived as both evaluators and competitors – the only roles for society that market fundamentalism admits. Depression
and loneliness plague us.
The infantilising diktats of the workplace destroy our self-respect. Those who end up at the bottom of the pile are assailed by
guilt and shame. The self-attribution fallacy cuts both ways: just as we congratulate ourselves for our success, we blame ourselves
for our failure, even
if we have little to do with it .
So, if you don't fit in, if you feel at odds with the world, if your identity is troubled and frayed, if you feel lost and ashamed
– it could be because you have retained the human values you were supposed to have discarded. You are a deviant. Be proud.
"... Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. ..."
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and
selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market"
delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should
be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective
bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility
and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more
equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired
their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and
class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their
failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are
unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out,
you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing
field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall
behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of
self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia.
Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously
applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale
reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the
globe
he International Monetary Fund has admitted that some of the decisions it made
in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis were wrong, and that the €130bn first
bailout of Greece was "bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have
been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that
it went along with its partners in "the Troika" – the European Commission and the
European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF, put the
interests of the eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch
their pearls and splutter with horror that they could be accused of something so petty as
self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece.
Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up
the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity", have
cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a
suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that
financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They
know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the
merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will
happen again, but more quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off,
not a repair job. The response from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the
way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as
the philosopher John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached:
adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big State.
Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome,
too centralised and faceless, to be efficient and responsive. I agree. The problem is that the
ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who
will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen
to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any
state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom.
That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result,
governments have been obliged to limit their activities yet further – some setting about
the task with greater relish than others. Now the task, supposedly, is to get the free market
up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group
of consumers – and the more sophisticated the market is, the more expensive it is to
cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves,
having been brought up believing in material aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should
access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be
conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda. But how can
the privatisation of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high,
working people are turning to food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry
that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up bargains in the form of busted
high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you
have to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly
obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets
have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But
even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because
they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to
encourage private profit and shareholder value, then lend governments the money they need to
create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them for their
profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister, Anna
Soubry , suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up
families were putting the NHS under strain. The compartmentalised thinking is quite
breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while
working part-time – thus having the leisure to consume – the better. No doubt these
female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the
myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its
disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more
important than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your
own. You couldn't make these characters up. It is certainly true that women with children find
it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima facie
example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it
is so often presented – evidence that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many
aspects of financial services – that Britain enjoyed during the second half of the 20th
century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all else,
forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family
members. All of those things have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists
that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even
Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory ,
did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they
refuse to invest in making. Their refusal allows them to rail against the Big State while
producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their folly become
ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering
with their allies instead of waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that far too much of
it is sold through Starbucks.
So most folks never heard of a guy named Hillel. He was a Baghdad Jew who moved to Judea
about 60 years before Christ was born.
His great influence on Judaism was a novel invention to get around the Jubilee which many
civilizations employed snd was part of Judaism Mosaic Law. Basically every 7 years debts were
cancelled to prevent the elites from accumulating all the land and wealth and enslaving the
bottom 99% and causing rebellion. Much of the debt forgiven was owed to the state in the form
of taxes but individuals and business also were indebted to money lenders . Debt of
individuals acquired to pay taxes, farm, etc was forgiven by the Jubilee. Business /Merchant
debts had to be repaid
The rabbiis of the Pharisees under the suggestion of Hillel the Elder, created a loophole
in Jewish law, in which a legal document would accompany the interest-free loans (charging
interest to fellow Jews was forbidden in the Torah) issued by individuals that stated that
the loans were to be transferred to the courts as the law of remission does not apply In this
case.
It was called a Prosbul.
This led to great unrest among Jews and non Jews alike. This unrest led to a Jewish
activist named Jesus leading a protest against the Pharisees and the money lenders. Michael
Hudson has a theory backed up by historical documents in the original Aramaic,Hebrew and
Greek that Mosaic Law is mostly about the prohibitions of the sins related to debt and the
sinful practices of creditors to secure repayment. Translations into English and other
languages have obscured this.
Christianity was formed after Jesus was executed to protect the money lenders .
Unfortunately the Romans were pro creditor and then Constantine hijacked the religion a
couple of centuries later , and aside from a prohibition on usury by the Roman Church the
Jubilee was no more. When the Roman Empire fell the Byzantine Emperor reinstated the Jubilee
from 7th-10th Century and abandoned this . I imagine this wad due to the Islamic Wars that
required external loans to finance at interest.
Judaism still use the prosbul today , at least in Orthodox , to escape the Jubilee called
for in Mosaic Law . That applied only for loans to Jews in any event. Prohibitions of usury
in the Christian world ended pretty much with the Reformation and Calvinism. Even so in the
US their were limits on usury in many US states until early 1980's when neoliberalism crushed
that. Now the poor get charged as much as 30% on credit card debt while earning 2% on savings
and they cant even declare bankruptcy like Trump did 6 times
Islamic banking is interest free though under Sharia Law. "Loans are equity-based,
asset-backed. In lieu of interest the banks rely on cost-plus financing (murabaha),
profit-sharing (mudaraba), leasing (ijara), partnership (musharaka) and forward sale
(bay'salam).
"This prohibition is based on arguments of social justice, equality, and property rights.
Islam encourages the earning of profits but forbids the charging of interest because profits,
determined ex post, symbolize successful entrepreneurship and creation of additional wealth
whereas interest, determined ex ante, is a cost that is accrued irrespective of the outcome
of business operations and may not create wealth if there are business losses. Social justice
demands that borrowers and lenders share rewards as well as losses in an equitable fashion
and that the process of wealth accumulation and distribution in the economy be fair and
representative of true productivity.
"Risk sharing. Because interest is prohibited, suppliers of funds become investors instead of
creditors. The provider of financial capital and the entrepreneur share business risks in
return for shares of the profits."
"Money as "potential" capital. Money is treated as "potential" capital -- that is, it
becomes actual capital only when it joins hands with other resources to undertake a
productive activity. Islam recognizes the time value of money, but only when it acts as
capital, not when it is "potential" capital."
"Prohibition of speculative behavior. An Islamic financial system discourages hoarding and
prohibits transactions featuring extreme uncertainties, gambling, and risks."
So maybe the war against Islam has another component?
Getting back to Jesus. Hudson says the Pharisees decided that Jesus' growing popularity
was a threat to their authority and wealth.
"They said 'we've got to get rid of this guy and rewrite Judaism and make it about sex
instead of a class war', which is really what the whole Old Testament is about,"
"That was that was where Christianity got perverted. Christianity turned so
anti-Jesus, it was the equivalent of the American Tea Party, applauding wealth and even
greed, Ayn-Rand style."
"Over the last 1000 years the Catholic Church has been saying it's noble to be
poor. But Jesus never said it was good to be poor. What he said was that rich people are
greedy and corrupt. That's what Socrates was saying, as well as Aristotle and the Stoic Roman
philosophers, the biblical prophets in Isaiah."
"Neither did Jesus say that it was good to be poor because it made you noble.
"What Jesus did say is that say if you have money, you should share it with other
people."
"American Fundamentalist Christians say don't share a penny. King Jesus is
going to make you rich. Don't tax millionaires. Jesus may help me win the lottery. Tax poor
people whom the Lord has left behind – no doubt for their sins. There's nothing about
the Jubilee Year here."
Hudson has a book coming out next week on the subject
If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound
political disunity within the elites pop out:
1. The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence
agencies: it is now commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a
sitting president of treason in the mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics
is now nothing but politics.
2. The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would
stand up in a court of law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and
exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition
of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the governed.
... ... ...
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently
the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the
"Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public,
less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of
the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay
of the nation's moral/political center.
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and
the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a
(virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.
One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A
situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far
still does not add up to the
disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.
The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the
military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want
more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital
does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support
Trump and his policies:
[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters
when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said
they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a
hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled
the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded
these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties
conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.
The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and
long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated
target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless
weapons.
Trump does not buy the
nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not
believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.
Trump grand foreign policy is following a
realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese
camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia
out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better
tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.
Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes"
in holding a friendly summit with Putin.
It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire
political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.
Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for
a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five
assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit
now".
Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John
Kelly rallied
others against him:
According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not
respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker
Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.
Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia
included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed
interview for that:
The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's
team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare
him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and
was comfortable talking with her.
Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment
-- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides
present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the
intelligence community.
FBI Director Wray also
undermined his boss' position:
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a
"straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat
remained active.
A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his
president's policy:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement
about new military aid to Ukraine:
"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its
illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish
to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to
Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations
with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."
Pat Lang
thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who
is overseeing the Mueller investigation.
My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in
Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and
is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter
stage.
But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political
appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.
The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who
leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in
that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for
him.
Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but
publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their
rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the
lawful policy directives of their higher up.
All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies.
But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and
doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating
their policies to him.
It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work
'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these
people or the borg will have won.
"... Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? ..."
"... There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason? ..."
Who is actually in charge over there, among the Borg? And how much in charge? They cannot function yet as the collective electronic
mind of science fiction, can they?
Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? That looks very
much like an act of desperation. There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but
who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public
supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason?
Who are the 'globalists' actually and which is their chain of command? Which positions do Soros, Bezos, CIA-MI6 have? What
is the role of Mossad?
As it appears, after the ascendance of Trump, the actors are not sure themselves anymore about any of this, that is about who
is in charge, or in particular about how much authority and insurance their actual real-life handlers do possess and vouch for.
They waver, in the case of media hysterically so.
"The Intelligence Community", in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the circus, in collaboration with MI6 and
the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that
they are perhaps little more a paper tiger by now? If this fact, with the help of Trump and allies, would be perceived clearer
by the political classes of the USA, much good would be the result.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy
#1. How very - American - of them.
After another week saw leading Republicans accosted in public places, many on the left are
arguing that harassment is legitimate
The day after Sarah Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, Maxine
Waters, the representative for the California 43rd who has become a leader of the anti-Trump
resistance within Congress, addressed a rally in Los Angeles. Up until that point, national
Democratic leaders had mostly urged respectful protest in response to the Trump
administration.
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up," she said to cheers from the crowd.
"And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline
station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them
they're not welcome any more, anywhere."
In the days that followed, other leading Democrats, among them Nancy Pelosi and David
Axelrod, distanced themselves from the comments and called for civility. Trump personally
attacked Waters, calling her an "extraordinarily low IQ person". But Waters gave voice, and
perhaps legitimacy, to what has become a prominent form of activism since Trump took office:
accosting members of his team in public places.
Over the weekend, Steve Bannon was called "a piece of trash" by a heckler at a bookstore; a
bartender gave Stephen Miller the middle finger, apparently causing Miller to throw away $80 of
sushi he'd just bought in disgust; and Mitch McConnell was chased out of a restaurant in
Kentucky by protesters, who followed him to this car yelling "turtle head" and "we know where
you live".
These follow similar encounters for other members of Trump's top team. The homeland security
secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, was confronted by protesters chanting "shame" while she ate at a
Mexican restaurant. Last week, Scott Pruitt was accosted by Kristin Mink while he was eating
lunch. Mink, a teacher, held her two-year-old child as she asked him to resign "before your
scandals push you out". Days later, Pruitt did resign, and although he was probably asked to do
so by Trump, in his letter he cited "the unrelenting attacks on me" as his reason for
leaving.
After each case, the merits of such an approach have been debated – many have called
for civility or argued that protesters leave themselves open to attack if they pursue
Trump-like techniques. There has been some consensus that encounters like Mink's, which are
eloquent and non-aggressive, are more acceptable than when protesters chant personal attacks or
use threatening language
... you don't stand with most of C99 and most of progressive society. He is wrong, on this
and many other things. Where was his (and your) outrage when Obama was droning American
citizens, destroying Libya and creating Europe's current refugee crisis, and helping Saudi
Arabia wreak havoc on Houthi civilians? How many pies did he throw then? How many Obama
administration officials did he publicly shame?
administration too? He did many of the same things that Trump is doing to immigrants. He
deported more of them then any president including 56% of them who hadn't committed any crimes.
How about shaming them for his drone policies, killing 3 Americans without due process, bombing
wedding parties and then the people who came to their rescue? Or the many, many other things he
and his admin members did that were absolutely heinous?
Should we have done that to the people in the Bush administration too or how far back should
we have been shaming people who worked in a president's administration?
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to pass
Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 5:49pm
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to
pass Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Where it should -- with the non-voluntarily-complicit.
the publicly harassing, embarrssing, and running off the oposition then we're really fucked.
Or do you seriousy think those tactics won't be repaid in kind?
on public shaming.
#7
Especially in public restaurants.
There is no better way to protest this admin than to shame them in a public place, confront
them while they attempt to swallow a bite of pork chop.
up 0 users have voted. --
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes,
okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa Submitted by gulfgal98 on
Thu, 07/19/2018 - 12:00pmCritical thinking skills seem
to be non-existent over there.
Again, Markos and his staff refuse to discuss policy from a positive perspective. Instead,
they focus their readers on the outrage de jour and tribalism. The entire purpose of that site is
a massive propaganda push designed to keep us divided. And the narrative they keep pushing are
not only divisive, but extremely dangerous.
I rarely go there any more, mostly because I would like to keep as many of my remaining brain
cells intact. But when I have visited that place, it is a very frightening place to see how
Markos (post purge) has herded the remaining members into a small corral, all of them nodding in
agreement with whatever gruel Markos and his front pagers are serving up. Submitted by
snoopydawg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 6:29pmDaily Kos should change its name
to
@gulfgal98
BAR Book Forum: Jeremy Kuzmarov's and John Marciano's "The Russians are Coming, Again"
"The American people have been constantly manipulated and made to fear the Russian threat when
it is the United States that has been the aggressive power."
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This
week's featured authors are Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano . Kuzmarov is Jay P. Walker
Assistant Professor of American History, University of Tulsa. Marciano is Professor Emeritus at
SUNY Cortland. Their book is The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy,
the Second as Farce.
Roberto Sirvent: How can your book help BAR readers understand the current political and social
climate?
Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano: Our book provides a historical perspective on
contemporary affairs by showing how the Russo-phobia that has been prevalent in our political
discourse over the last four to five years has deep and long historical roots, and has often
been used by government leaders to turn public attention away from domestic inequalities by
channeling societal resources towards the military sector. During the early Cold War, a period
of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism
and the Cold War.The Korean War brought on huge military budgets that have never left us and an
expansion of the U.S. overseas military base network. These policies were underlain by
exaggerated views about the Soviet Union which were stoked by political elites, who had worked
for companies that reaped enormous profit from the permanent warfare state. The same forces are
behind the renewed efforts to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and exaggerate the
Russian threat, with serious adverse consequences for society that have already been evident.
The consequences include a revitalization of the arms race, waging of proxy wars, and a further
poisoning of the domestic political culture through the reinvigoration of a McCarthyist
discourse and tactics.
"During the early Cold War, a period of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of
the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism and the Cold War."
"... Read the first piece in Patrick Cockburn's latest series, 'Catastrophic drought threatens Iraq as major dams in surrounding countries cut off water to its great rivers', here . ..."
"... Part II, 'For this Iraqi tribe massacred by Isis, fear of the group's return is a constant reality', here ..."
"... Part III, 'After series of calamitous defeats, is Isis about to lose its last town?', here . ..."
"... Part III, 'Iraq unrest: Chaos reigns in the country even Saddam Hussein 'found difficult to rule', here. ..."
"The people want an end to the parties," chanted protesters, adapting a famous slogan of the
Arab Spring , as
they stormed the governor's office and the international airport in the Shia holy city of
Najaf.
Part of the wave of demonstrations sweeping across central and southern Iraq, they demanded
jobs, electricity, water and an end to the mass theft of Iraq's oil wealth by the political parties.
Beginning on 8 July, the protests are the biggest and most prolonged in a country where
anti-government action has usually taken the form of armed insurgency.
The demonstrations are taking place in the heartlands of the Shia majority, reflecting their
outrage at living on top of some of the world's largest oilfields, but seeing their families
barely survive in squalor and poverty.
The protests began in Basra, Iraq's third largest city which is at the centre of 70 per cent
of its oil production. A hand-written placard held up by one demonstrator neatly expresses
popular frustration. It read:
"2,500,000 barrels daily
Price of each barrel = $70
2,500,000 x $70 = zero !!
Sorry Pythagoras, we are in Basra"
The protests quickly spread to eight other provinces, including Najaf, Kerbala, Nasariya and
Amara.
In several places, the offices of the Dawa Party, to which the Prime Minister Haider
al-Abadi belongs, were burned or attacked, along with those of parties whom people blame for
looting oil revenues worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the 15 years since the overthrow
of Saddam Hussein.
As the situation deteriorated, Mr Abadi flew to Basra on 13 July, promising to make $3bn
available to improve services and provide more jobs. After he left, his hotel was invaded by
protesters.
The credibility of almost all Iraqi politicians is at a low ebb, the acute feeling of
disillusionment illustrated by the low 44.5 per cent turnout in the parliamentary election on
12 May that produced no outright winner.
The poll was
unexpectedly topped by the Sairoun movement of the populist nationalist cleric, Muqtada
al-Sadr, who has encouraged his followers to start protests against government corruption and
lack of services since 2015.
The Sadrists, who emphasised their socially and economically progressive programme by
allying themselves with the Iraqi Communist Party in the election, are playing a role in the
current protests.
The demonstrations are also backed by the prestigious Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. At ground
level, political activists and tribal leaders have set up a joint committee called "the
Coordination Board for Peaceful Protests and Demonstrations in Basra", its purpose being to
produce a list of demands, unite the protest movement, and keep their actions non-violent.
"The ends don't justify the means," says the committee in a statement. "Let us, being
oppressed, not lead to the oppression of others."
A list of 17 demands is headed by one asking for a government timetable for supplying water
and electricity, both of which are short at a time of year when the temperature sometime
exceeds 50C, making it one of the hottest places on earth.
Local people claim that the last time that the port city of Basra, once called the Venice of
the Gulf, had an adequate supply of drinking water was in 1982. Iran had been supplying some
extra electricity, but has cut this back because of its own needs and failure of Iraq to pay on
time.
The second demand of the protesters is for jobs with "priority to the competent sons of
Basra", the discharge of foreign labourers and employment for a quarter of people living in the
oilfields.
Lack of jobs is a source of continuing complaint all over Iraq. Much of its oil income
already goes on paying 4.5 million state employees, but between 400,000 and 420,000 young
people enter the workforce every year with little prospects of employment.
Anger towards the entire political class is intense because it is seen as a kleptocratic
group which syphoned off money in return for contracts that existed only on paper and produced
no new power plants, bridges or roads.
Political parties are at the centre of this corruption because they choose ministries,
according to their share of the vote in elections or their sectarian affiliation, which they
then treat as cash cows and sources of patronage and contracts.
Plundering like this and handing out of jobs to unqualified people means that many
government institutions have become incapable of performing any useful function.
Radical reform is difficult because the whole system is saturated by corruption and
incompetence. Technocrats without party backing who are parachuted into ministries become
isolated and ineffective.
One party leader told The Independent that he thought that the best that could be
done "would be to insist that the parties appoint properly qualified people to top jobs."
The defeat of Isis in 2017 with the recapture of Mosul means that Iraqis are no longer
absorbed in keeping their families safe so they have they have more time to consider
"corruption" – a word they use not just to mean bribery but the parasitic nature of the
government system as a whole.
There is a general mood of cynicism and dissatisfaction with the way things are run.
"Bad government, bad roads, bad weather, bad people," exclaimed one Iraqi friend driving on
an ill-maintained road.
Corrupt motives are ascribed to everything that happens: a series of unexplained fires in
Baghdad in June were
being ascribed to government employees stealing from state depots and then concealing their
crime by setting fire to the building and destroying it.
Given that the Iraqi security forces are primarily recruited from the areas in which the
protests are taking place, the government will need to be careful about the degree of
repression it can use safely.
The armed forces have been placed on high alert. Three regiments of the elite
Counter-Terrorism Service, which led the attack on Mosul and is highly regarded and well
disciplined, has been ordered south to cope with protests and away from places where there is
still residual activity by Isis.
The protests are largely spontaneous, but the Sadrists, whose offices have not been attacked
by crowds, want to put pressure on Mr Abadi, Dawa and other parties to form a coalition
government with a reform programme.
Many protesters express anti-Tehran slogans, tearing up pictures of Iranian spiritual
leaders such as Ayatollah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. They blame
Iran for supporting
corrupt parties and governments in Iraq.
Protesters have so far escalated their actions slowly, gathering at the entrances to the
major oil and gas facilities, but not disrupting the 3.6 million barrel a day production. If
this happens, it would affect a significant portion of world crude output.
Iraq's corrupt and dysfunctional governing system may be too set in its profitable ways to
be reformed, but, if the ruling elite wants to survive, it must give ordinary Iraqi a larger
share of the oil revenue cake.
Read the first piece in Patrick Cockburn's latest series, 'Catastrophic drought
threatens Iraq as major dams in surrounding countries cut off water to its great rivers',
here .
Part II, 'For this Iraqi tribe massacred by Isis, fear of the group's return is a
constant reality',
here
Part III, 'After series of calamitous defeats, is Isis about to lose its last town?',
here .
Part III, 'Iraq unrest: Chaos reigns in the country even Saddam Hussein 'found difficult
to rule',
here.
"Oh for the good old days when Saddam was running things."
Electricity production in Iraq overall is superior to what it
was during Saddam's rule. But availability is not 24/365, which is presumably what they're
demanding:
Prewar Baghdad had electricity 16 to 24 hours per day and was favored for distribution.
The remainder of Iraq received 4–8 hours of electricity per day.[6] Post war, Baghdad
no longer has priority and therefore both Baghdad and the country as a whole received on
average 15.5 hours of electricity per day as of February 2010.[7]
If they want some facsimile of Saddam's rule back, they could easily elect the Sunni Arab
parties to power. Which they haven't. Demonstrations were rare during Saddam's reign because
he killed the opposition and consigned those he did not kill to Abu Ghraib, where they were
raped and/or beaten to within an inch of their lives.
Shiites were unhappy with American occupation because they thought the only thing keeping
them from becoming a Shiite version of Saudi Arabia, economically-speaking was an American
plot to steal their oil and sow division in the country. After GI's left, they discovered,
through ISIS's long record of victories, that Sunni Arabs really, really don't like being
ruled by Shiites, and that Iraq's Sunni Arabs really are better at military endeavors than
the Shiites or the Kurds. They are fortunate that Uncle Sam came to their rescue, yet
again.
It's becoming clear that the Iraq's Shiite Arabs and Kurds could never have lifted the
Sunni Arab foot from their necks by their own efforts. The question is whether their history
books will ever reflect this truth.
"... Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory. Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example , has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
"... The belief that the U.S. is a supremely good nation founded on universal principles has consequences that go well beyond electoral politics. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and co-owner of the website Townhall.com, extols American exceptionalism, which he says springs from American values. ..."
Neoconservatives like Max Boot are fooling themselves if they think imposing 'values' on the rest of the world isn't a matter
of empire.
Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the provocative title
The Virtue of Nationalism , I encountered
a distinction drawn by the late Charles
Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the editors of the Weekly Standard ,
for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the
U.S. actively spread its own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said, he and those
who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to accuse them of "imperialism."
Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly
annexing territory. Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further
than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for
example , has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright
annexation.
The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's response (which I suspect would have been more
devastating had Hazony not been afraid of losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?
Certainly the use of protectorates to increase the influence of Western powers in the non-Western world goes back a long time.
As far back as the Peloponnesian War, rival Greek city-states tried to impose their constitutional arrangements on weaker Greek societies
as a way of managing them politically. According to Xenophon, when the Athenians then surrendered to the Spartan commander Lysander
in 403 BC, they had two conditions imposed on them: taking down their great wall ( kathairein ta makra teixe ) and
installing a regime that looked like the Spartan one. Thus is arguing that territory has to be annexed outright in order for it to
become part of an American empire so utterly unconvincing.
One reason the views offered by Krauthammer and Boot did not elicit more widespread criticism -- and have enjoyed enthusiastic
favor among Republicans for decades, culminating in the oratorical wonders of George W. Bush -- may have been the embrace of another
neoconservative doctrine: "American exceptionalism." The belief that the U.S. is a supremely good nation founded on universal
principles has consequences that go well beyond electoral politics. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and co-owner
of the website Townhall.com, extols American exceptionalism, which he says springs from American values.
Those values have "universal applicability,"
according to Prager, and are "eminently exportable." Glenn Beck has taken up
the same theme of "American exceptionalism"
as
an exportable "idea " that is meant for everyone on the planet. The "ideas" or "values" in question are variously defined by
the neoconservative media as "human rights," "universal equality," or just making sure everyone lives like us. Whatever it is, we
are told that to withhold it from the rest of the human race would be uncharitable. Our efforts to bring it to others therefore cannot
be dismissed as "imperialism" any more than the Spanish government of the 16th century thought it was doing wrong by forcing its
religion on indigenous people in the Americas.
Although I'm hardly a fan of his political views, former president Barack Obama once said something that I thought was self-evident
but that offended even members of his own party. According to Obama, "Americans believe they're exceptional. But the Brits and Greeks
believe they're special too." Obama was merely observing that it's okay for others to believe they're special, even if they're not
Americans imbued with "the idea." Yet his statement was received with such uproar that he felt compelled to backtrack. Speaking later
at West Point,
he made it clear that "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being." This from someone whom Fox News assures
us hated America and spent every minute of his presidency denying our greatness! (And, yes, I've heard the rejoinder to this: Obama
was only pretending to believe in the creed he dutifully recited.)
It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both morally superior and less dangerous than
ethnically defined societies because we advocate a "value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race. But this is hardly
a recipe for peace as opposed to what Krauthammer called a "value-driven" relationship with the rest of the world. Australian journalist
Douglas Murray, in his intended encomium Neoconservatism: Why We Need It
, tries to praise his subjects but ends up describing a kind of global democratic jihadism. While Douglas admits that "socially,
economically, and philosophically" neoconservatism differs from traditional conservatism, he insists that it's something better.
He commends neoconservatives for wishing to convert the world to "values." Their primary goal, according to Murray, is the "erasing
[of] tyrannies and [the] spreading [of] democracy," an arduous task that requires "interventionism, nation-building, and many of
the other difficulties that had long concerned traditional conservatives."
Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks
the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He
is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
"... There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds. ..."
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
-- Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the
culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal
activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all
kinds.
This situation was even more pronounced in "non-aligned" Yugoslavia who for years had
maintained CIA and American and West European business contacts.
In effect, the "cold war" witnessed a rapid convergence between the economic and power
interests of both Western and Communist elites.
The "Communists" (in name only of course) quickly realized the economic benefits available
to them through at times open at times clandestine cooperation with Western business/criminal
interests.
Eventually, Communist elites realized that they had an unprecedented economic opportunity on
their hands: state privatization made possible, in part, with active Western participation.
For them, "Freedom" meant the freedom to get rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And the 1990's were just that. A paradise for thieving on an unimaginable scale all under
the rubric of the rebirth of "capitalism and freedom".
The true outcome of that decade was that the old communist elites not only retained their
social and political power behind the scenes; they also were able to enrich themselves beyond
anything the communist dictatorships could ever hope to offer them in the past.
Yes, the price was to give up imperial, national, and ideological ambitions. But it was a
very small price to pay; since the East European elites had ceased to believe in any of those
things years earlier.
The only firm belief they still held was the economic betterment of themselves and their
families through the acquisition by any means of as many asset classes as possible. In effect,
they became the mirror image of their "enemy" the "imperialist capitalist West".
This was not a case of historical dialectics but historical convergence. What appeared as a
world divided was actually a world waiting to be made whole through the basest of criminal
business activity.
But being clever thieves they knew how to hide themselves and their doings behind
superficially morally impeccable figures such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Wałęsa, to
name just a few. These "dissidents" would be the faces they would use to make a good part of
the world believe that 1989 was a narrative of freedom and not outright pubic theft which it
was.
Yes, people in the east, even in Russia, are freer now than they were. But it should never
be forgotten that the events of 1989/1990 were not even remotely about those revolutionary
dreams.
It was about something much more mundane and sordid. It was about greed. It was about the
maintenance of power. And finally it was about money.
How deep has the Western nexus of power and wealth gone into the heart of the East? So far
indeed that one can easily question to what extent a country like Russia is truly a "national"
state anymore and rather just a territory open to exploitation by both local and global
elites.
For that matter, we can ask the same question about the USA.
Most of you must have heard of the Magnitsky Act or even maybe of William Browder himself. You
probably know that Browder was a British businessman who founded Hermitage Capital Management
investment fund which Sergei Magnitsky represented as a lawyer
and auditor. Finally, you must have heard that Magnitsky died (was killed) in a Russian jail
while Browder was placed by the Russian government on a black list and denied entry. For the
vast majority of you, that is probably as much thought as you ever gave this topic and I have
to confess that this is also true for me. I never bothered really researching this issue
because I knew the context so well that this, by itself, gave me a quasi-certitude that I knew
what had happened. Still, when I read this book I was amazed at the fantastically detailed
account Krainer provides to what is really an amazing story.
In his book Alex Krainer offers us the truth and truly shows us how deep the rabbit hole
goes....
As Congress still swoons over the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky narrative, Western political and
media leaders refuse to let their people view a documentary that debunks the fable, reports
Robert Parry.
ill-gotten goods are undeserving of protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate
expectation of privacy in their combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
It's been imputed that the Russians did this to damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton. To
take the alleged damage to reputation angle to its conclusion, truth is an entirely sufficient
defense to any charge of libel. What was revealed by an alleged hack was the truth, something
that is entirely lacking in the rest of this affair.
As for the alleged theft and public release of email, ill-gotten goods are undeserving of
protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their
combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
The Russian GRU is accused of revealing that the people who run the DNC and Clinton campaign
committee colluded with each other to steal the nomination. The allegedly hacked emails show
what they really did and thought during the fraudulent nomination of Hillary Clinton. It might
be argued, that whomever revealed the truth actually did a public service for the American
people. An odd sort of "act of war," that.
Finally, individual officials and military officers have a limited immunity and are not
normally indicted by foreign states for intelligence activities such as electronic surveillance
and hacking across borders. That is where the element of harm comes in. The only real precedent
for this is the Rainbow Warrior case. In 1985, French intelligence officers blew up and sank a
Greenpeace ship by that name anchored in Auckland, NZ harbour, killing a passenger, a Dutch
photographer. A UN arbitrator held in that case the French agents were not immune under
customary international law to prosecution in a New Zealand court and could be individually
tried and jailed, but only because of the death of the victim as part of "a criminal act of
violence against property in New Zealand . . . done without regard for innocent civilians."
Greenpeace was additionally awarded damages in the UK under international Maritime Law because
the vessel was a British-flagged ship.
Also bear in mind, the US and UK both provide immunity to their own intelligence officers
and law enforcement officers for hacking and related computer crimes committed against foreign
powers. The UK takes that a step further and exempts police officers for domestic hacking:
This is a dangerous precedent, and the likely result is to ignite retaliation and further
exacerbate U.S.-Russian tensions. The entire staffs of the NSA, GCHQ and GRU could be similarly
"prosecuted," but what will that accomplish? Even if every word of the indictment is fact, the
indictment itself violates the norms of international law and this latest "Russiagate"
escalation by Mueller seems intended to ratchet up the New Cold War.
That is why "Russiagate" is a legal sham, in my opinion. Even if the alleged Russian hack of
the DNC email actually happened as claimed, and even if the hack was with bad intent, there was
no real crime or harm in the release of that information. That information was no more the
private property of the DNC and Clinton Campaign than a plan to rob a bank belongs to the
robbers. Isn't that so, Mr. Mueller?
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence
had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously
thought we could control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the
start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
... that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain
and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails ... the conversation we need
to be having [about lies/corruption from the deep state and powerful actors acting against US citizens interests, and decline
of institutions that support US citizens' freedom], but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on
Vladimir Putin.
I agree with Mish on all this, including " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria
from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise" though he doesn't qualify/define "Left and Right" as the Left and Right establishment
aka. the Uniparty. The statement wouldn't have applied to say the Left and Right establishment that existed when our founders
created the country and were united to create a government that defends our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness with an
extremely limited (by today's standards) government. You don't see the Freedom Caucus getting hysterical about Trump's meeting
Putin.
Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers.
the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.
I've never been enthralled with Neil Cavuto due to considering him inferior as a host on things financial. Today he just crapped
in his mess kit with me. He has to be dirty, the way he was defending the wonderful intelligence "community" of the USA, and was
hinting that treason may not be a strong assessment of Trump with Putin. He is a real POS along with girly-man Shepard Smith.
Not one criticism of any Cabalist about graft and corruption, and especially no mention of the uranium to Russia by Obama's and
Hillary's REAL treason.
I repeat, all of you goofy imbeciles, Trump is sucking you down into the depths of embarrassment once the hammer drops. I expected
the fruity Smith but must admit the Cavuto stupidity is a bit of a surprise. Someone has pics of that dumb fuck in a compromising
situation.
Putin statement about $400 million 'donation' to Hillary Clinton by MI6-connected Bill Browder in his Helsinki presser is
obviously of great interest. This has given some new insights into the DNC false flag operation dynamics.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. ..."
"... IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol. ..."
"... What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means to do this. ..."
PT, regarding your questions: "How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC
and DCCC servers", "what is the source of the information?",
"how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?", I believe
the answers are implicit in the first part of this news article:
It describes in considerable detail how, STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015, the FBI tried
strenuously to alert the DNC to the fact that it was being hacked by Russia, but the DNC,
remarkably, chose to ignore these warnings.
Here's how the article begins:
When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the
Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its
computer network, he was transferred, naturally [ sic! ], to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C.
had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named "the Dukes," a
cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the
Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and
even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government's best-protected networks.
BTW, I sincerely thank TTG for providing this link in one of his previous comments.
The FBI warned the DNC of the Dukes (aka APT29, Cozy Bear) in September 2015. These are
the hackers that the Dutch AIVD penetrated and warned the NSA in real time when they attacked
Pentagon systems in 2015. Their goal seemed to be intelligence collection as one would expect
as the Dutch said they are affiliated with the SVR.
The Fancy Bear hackers (aka APT28) are the ones referred to in the recent indictment of
the GRU officers. They penetrated the DNC systems in April 2016 and weren't discovered until
CrowdStrike identified them. They're the ones who took data and released it through DCLeaks,
Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks as part of a coordinated information operation (IO). I'm not at
all surprised that the GRU would lead this IO as a military operation. The FBI would get
info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network
logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI
investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info
directly. There is absolutely no need to take physical possession of the servers.
The detail of some of the GRU officers' online activity indicates their computers were
penetrated by US or allied IC/LEA much like the Dutch AIVD penetrated the FSB computers. This
was probably a main source for much of the indictment's evidence. That the IC would release
information about this penetration for this indictment is extraordinary. Normally this stuff
never sees the light of day. It sets the precedent for the release of further such
intelligence information in future indictments.
IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did
propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this
incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist
and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol.
What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and
then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that
Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means
to do this.
Now we also see a DNC motivation of keeping the content of affected servers from FBI eyes
-- Browder money.
"... Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel ..."
"Part of my mission was to investigate, discover, and expose all acts of "waste, fraud,
and abuse" by Terrorist Financing Operations Director Dov Zakheim who was my senior
supervisor. It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to
be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller."
Scott Bennett
Gregory Herr , July 15, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Double WOW. Great catch Joe.
"Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11,
2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in
N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack
on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the
Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of
overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political,
cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel."
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the
protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of
pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook.
It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.
Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world
can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone
else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.
Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a
lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich,
not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our
old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during
the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that
your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.
And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.
I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination,
but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and
we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all
wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock
and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was
also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.
I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you
that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.
I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a
casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump
in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep
State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and
doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.
But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II
a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated
that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions
of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of
service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against
fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.
What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties.
But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than
shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties
by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that
there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.
Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State.
Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.
Which brings us to the courts.
There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people
don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from
the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?
Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our
American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman
with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966,
three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle
name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath
of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard
Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder
there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world.
You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's
family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who
hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out
of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.
Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He
became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K.
Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program
and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally
control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong,
coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later
wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to
a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.
When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.
One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's
"terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles
agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked
to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in
the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental
behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of
the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad
Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black
militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader
in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The
SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.
I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed
her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return
to Patty Hearst shortly.
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He
prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was
a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling
without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.
For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that
brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given
the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying
twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for
al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation
was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation
Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.
Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the
time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly
be circumstantial.
There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in
London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing
flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew
gave them the warning.
There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate
American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were
returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings
of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.
That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.
He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine
he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom
Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas.
One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton.
At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson
later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.
Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in
time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated
BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though
fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money
chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did
not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's
equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes
into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane
was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was
prosecuted at Huffman.
Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.
Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building
within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead,
he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the
equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly
"committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two
of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest,
the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist,
the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search.
For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone
or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.
***
It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any
consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of
the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given
the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation
into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION
CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon
Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops
in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob
Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA
and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.
I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike
Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump,
like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the
great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there.
Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered
as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to
me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be
obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a
means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.
When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors,
judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may
not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.
There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked
as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal
trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later
work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a
shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise
also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San
Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence.
"Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before
he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously
opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above
the law.""
When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.
That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.
I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government
that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.
My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.
It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.
LOL.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
@arendt even
considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters
and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.
Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that
went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.
Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed
to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up
through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...
Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...
Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure
on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...
For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing
scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with
our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out,
the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and
the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is
never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man
until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain
category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out
to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect"
and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it.
He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another
man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a
certain category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are,
the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by
the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies
wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?
Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called
"a right wing attempt to bring them down."
I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which
I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.
But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling
overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.
Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.
from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John
Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.
Joe posted this
linkthat explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary
forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."
Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.
conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the
Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm
sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in
February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers
for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the
firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order
to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed
on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe
that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or
are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly
recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going
to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they
did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents,
but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.
Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia
that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what
Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was
that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere
with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front
pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive
statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason
why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're
blatantly lying in their statements.
Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted
to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround
Russia's borders.
The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the
election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian
lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.
#13#13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people,
or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted,
but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..
It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than
you are.
If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller
has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers
just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference,
so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and
spying.
Oops. From the article ..
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
off the hook. @snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots
a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case
closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR
stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin.
It's ridiculous.
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than
a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I
posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
While "marriage of governmental and corporate interests is the very definition of fascism" this marriage also occurs under neoliberalism,
so the author augment is weak, although some of his observations are astute and have a distinct value. Fascism imply far right nationalism
and far right nationalist party in power, often under false pretext of "saving nations from a coming collapse".
Neoliberalism while is also displays high level of merger of corporate and state interests operation of globalist agenda (or at
least used to operate before Trump, who invented "national neoliberalism" regime, aka neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization)
Can Trump "national neoliberalism" be called a flavor of neo-fascism? Hillary probably will tell you yes ;-) But it is impossible
to deny that the US Deep state launched color revolution against Trump (with CIA under Brennan as a coordinating center and FBI as "muscles")
and, essentially emasculated him in just first three month of his Presidency by appointing Mueller as a Special Prosecutor.
So we can talk about gradual sliding into national security state under neoliberalism, but it is not necessary take form of neofascism.
Classic neoliberalism, for example, is cosmopolitan ideology and as such is hostile to nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Remember, people used to scoff at the notion of a Deep State (a.k.a. Shadow Government), doubt that fascism could ever take hold in America , and sneer at any suggestion that the United States was starting to resemble Nazi Germany in the years leading up to Hitler's rise to power. We're beginning to know better, aren't we? The Deep State (" a national-security apparatus that holds sway even over the elected leaders notionally in charge of it ") is ..."
"... Indeed, to anyone who's been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we're already under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State, a powerful cabal made up of international government agencies and corporations. ..."
"... It is as yet unclear whether the American Police State answers to the Global-Industrial Deep State, or whether the Global-Industrial Deep State merely empowers the American Police State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically enmeshed and interlocked. ..."
"... Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the technology sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, and the pharmaceutical industry. ..."
"... All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels to increase their profit margins: Walmart, Alphabet (formerly Google), AT&T, Toyota, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Lockheed Martin, Berkshire Hathaway, UnitedHealth Group, Samsung, Amazon, Verizon, Nissan, Boeing, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup these are just a few of the global corporate giants whose profit-driven policies influence everything from legislative policies to economics to environmental issues to medical care. ..."
"... The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T's massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies." ..."
"... Now magnify what the U.S. government is doing through AT&T on a global scale, and you have the " 14 Eyes Program ," also referred to as the "SIGINT Seniors." This global spy agency is made up of members from around the world (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, India and all British Overseas Territories). ..."
"... War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best buyers and sellers . In fact, as Reuters reports, "[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry ." ..."
"... The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70% of the countries worldwide). ..."
"... A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State ..."
"There are no nations. There are no peoples There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those
are the nations of the world today. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of
business."
There are those who will tell you that any mention of a New World Order government -- a power elite conspiring to rule the world
-- is the stuff of conspiracy theories
.
I am not one of those skeptics.
What's more, I wholeheartedly believe that one should always mistrust those in power, take alarm at the first encroachment on
one's liberties, and establish powerful constitutional checks against government mischief and abuse.
I can also attest to the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have studied enough of this country's history -- and world history -- to know that governments (the U.S. government being no
exception) are at times indistinguishable from the evil they claim to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of
terrorism ,
torture, drug trafficking
,
sex trafficking , murder, violence, theft, pornography,
scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.
And I have lived long enough to see many so-called conspiracy theories turn into cold, hard fact.
Given all that we know about the U.S. government -- that it treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to
be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; that it repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the
laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; and that it wages wars for profit, jails its own people
for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad -- it is not a stretch to suggest that the government has
been overtaken by global industrialists, a new world order, that do not have our best interests at heart.
Indeed, to anyone who's been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we're already
under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State, a powerful cabal made up of international
government agencies and corporations.
It is as yet unclear whether the American Police State answers to the Global-Industrial Deep State, or whether the Global-Industrial
Deep State merely empowers the American Police State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically
enmeshed and interlocked.
This marriage of governmental and corporate interests is the very definition of fascism. Where we go wrong is in underestimating
the threat of fascism: it is no longer a national threat but has instead become a global menace.
Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven
interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the technology
sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, and the pharmaceutical industry.
All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels
to increase their profit margins: Walmart, Alphabet (formerly Google), AT&T, Toyota, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Lockheed Martin,
Berkshire Hathaway, UnitedHealth Group, Samsung, Amazon, Verizon, Nissan, Boeing, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup these are
just a few of the global corporate giants whose profit-driven policies influence everything from legislative policies to economics
to environmental issues to medical care.
The U.S. government's deep-seated and, in many cases, top secret alliances with foreign nations and global corporations are redrawing
the boundaries of our world (and our freedoms) and altering the playing field faster than we can keep up.
Global Surveillance
Spearheaded by the National Security Agency (NSA), which has shown itself to care little for constitutional limits or privacy,
the surveillance state has come to dominate our government and our lives.
Yet the government does not operate alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs
of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the
corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy.
Take AT&T, for instance. Through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government
with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. According to The Intercept , "The NSA considers
AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company's 'extreme willingness to help. '
It is a collaboration that dates back decades.
Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T's customers. According to the NSA's documents, it values AT&T
not only because it 'has access to information that transits the nation,' but also because it maintains unique relationships with
other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T's massive
infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies."
Now magnify what the U.S. government is doing through AT&T on a global scale, and you have the "
14 Eyes Program ," also
referred to as the "SIGINT Seniors." This global spy agency is made up of
members from around the world (United States, United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Singapore,
South Korea, Japan, India and all British Overseas Territories).
Surveillance is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these global alliances, however.
The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated
to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the
military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70%
of the countries worldwide).
Although the federal government obscures so much about its defense spending that accurate figures are difficult to procure, we
do know that since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $1.8 trillion in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (
that's $8.3 million per hour ). That doesn't include
wars and military exercises waged around the globe, which are expected to
push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053 .
It's not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.
Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons
better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America's military empire abroad
and domestically, calling on Congress to approve
billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs
that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in
its clutches.
Global Policing
Glance at pictures of international police forces and you will have a hard time distinguishing between American police and those
belonging to other nations. There's a reason they all look alike, garbed in the militarized, weaponized uniform of a standing army.
There's a reason why they act alike, too, and speak a common language of force.
Then you have the
Strong Cities Network program .
Funded by the State Department , the U.S. government has partnered with the United Nations to fight violent extremism "
in all of its forms and manifestations " in cities and communities across the world. Working with the UN, the federal government
rolled out programs to train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as
address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal. The cities included in the
global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo. What this program
is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.
It sounds like a good idea on paper, but the problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing
and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.
When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source:
racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. In other words, police -- acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations -- will
identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.
Of course, the concern with the government's anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise
lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist. Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American
"extremists" will carry out their objectives -- to identify and deter potential extremists -- in concert with
fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies,
behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance,
facial recognition,
predictive policing , biometrics, and behavioral
epigenetics
(in which life experiences alter one's genetic makeup).
... ... ...
And then, as I make clear in my book
A Government of Wolves:
The Emerging American Police State , if there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march
towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of communities and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics
and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
"... the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing. In the case of the Central Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe. The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source. ..."
"The systematic attempts to get the president on one's side inevitably are more
successful with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to
measure the power points they are seeing against"
I recall how a friend of mine who once served as a senior Pentagon intelligence briefer
described what he called "breaking in" a new president. Today, incoming presidents receive some
intelligence briefings so that they do not land in office on a cold January day totally
unprepared for what awaits them. But generally speaking, the real surprises are unveiled during
the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both
to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing. In the case of the Central
Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to
convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe.
The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or
being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source.
The thinking is that if you get the new president on board in his first few days he will be
yours forever, signing off on budget increases year after year while also providing political
cover when things go wrong. While the Defense Department and intelligence community benefit
from the process and are frequently able to get the president's ear because they are able to
unveil some sensational "secrets," other government agencies also competing for dollars do not
have that appeal and do not do so well. State Department, for example, rarely makes much of an
impression because its work is basically prosaic.
The systematic attempts to get the president on one's side inevitably are more successful
with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to measure the
power points they are seeing against. President George H. W. Bush, emerging from years spent as
a naval officer, a congressman and CIA Director, is unlikely to have been much influenced by a
briefing. President Bill Clinton, harboring a negative perception about CIA, did not even see
his Director James Woolsey for over a year. But, on balance, most new presidents are willing to
be seduced by the inside-the-Beltway establishment as represented by the Pentagon and the
intelligence community.
Donald Trump in particular appears to have succumbed, deferring to generals and intelligence
chiefs much more often than not, but he has also taken the message of American omnipotence too
much to heart. Trump, with no military or government experience, defers to the national
security advocates without any sense of the hard reality that all actions have
consequences.
The Pentagon is still planning for a military parade in Washington on Veterans' Day in
November, a huge waste of resources that will do little more than stroke the presidential ego.
And the open admiration for the armed forces makes it easy for Trump to think first of using
weapons and coercion instead of diplomacy, to launch cruise missiles and endorse an admitted
torturer as the new CIA Chief. The president is very much wedded to the idea that the United
States can go it alone if necessary and the rules that constrain other nations need not apply,
a very dangerous conceit.
There have been several ominous developments in Syria, which could bring the U.S.
nose-to-nose with Russian forces in the country. A recent
Israeli airstrike , initially credited to Washington, appears to have killed 52 Syrian
soldiers. There have also been rumors in Washington that the Administration is preparing for
something "big" in Syria, possibly related to warnings from the Pentagon that Syrian forces
have been threatening the unilaterally declared "de-escalation zone" in the country's
southeast. This suggests that the U.S. will block attempts by the government in Damascus to
regain control of areas until recently dominated by terrorists. Trump has also quietly restored
funding to the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group much loved by Hollywood and
Congress.
All of these steps in Syria serve no real American interest. More ominously, Trump has now
revealed that he has ordered the Pentagon to create a
military Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces. He explained " Our destiny,
beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security.
It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance
in space."
How other nations will adapt to American rule over outer space and the planets is difficult
to predict, but if the past seventeen years of Washington's assertion of its supremacy are
anything to go by, the result will be very, very bad. And it is quite unsettling to also
observe that a nation that clearly cannot provide access to decent health care for its citizens
is now aspiring to turn the moon into a fortified bastion.
There are 16 intel agencies in the US. Is this necessary or a waste of money when they
all failed to predict or stop 9/11 or even know for sure if Russia meddled in the 2016
election? Are they tripping over one and other to get Trump's ears or have they got
competing agendas? Who should the President listen to? Its madness.
"... Damascus and Moscow welcomed Iran's critical contribution to defeating the opposition and giving Washington and its allies a diplomatic bloody nose in the bargain. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledges that Iran's presence in Syria -- at the invitation of the regime -- is legitimate and that it would be "unrealistic" to demand its ouster. ..."
"... But instead of viewing the end of the war as an opportunity to lessen Iran's value to the regime and to reduce its footprint in the country, Washington is continuing heedlessly with failed policies created for an environment that no longer exists. As long as the fighting continues and the regime's efforts to reassert sovereignty over the entire country are frustrated by U.S. deployments in the northeast and southeast, Iran's military presence in the country is secure. Likewise, Washington shows no sign of reconsidering international sanctions against the regime, which also forces Syria into the arms of Tehran. ..."
"... A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter. ..."
"... Confronted with the disintegration of its diplomatic and military strategy, the Trump administration is reduced to playing spoiler, obstructing the inevitable restoration of the regime's sovereignty over the country and continuing the punishing sanctions that have removed the battered but resilient Syrian private sector from international capital and commercial markets. This policy fails on two fronts -- it creates more gratuitous misery for the Syrian people and it undermines the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence in the country. Indeed, continuing to pursue the current policies will leave the U.S. isolated among friends (Jordan and Israel) as well as frenemy Russia, and will postpone rather than speed the day that Iran leaves Syria. ..."
Washington has been on the offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran for close to half
a century. Largely as a result, Iran, a rounding error in the superpower sweepstakes, has gone
from strength to strength, challenging American power throughout the region, most notably in
Iraq and Syria.
U.S.-led regime change in Iraq created Tehran's historic opportunity to return to Baghdad
for the first time since the creation of the Ottoman caliphate in the 15th century. This
unscripted but entirely predictable outcome was no mean feat, all the more so for being the
opposite of what Washington intended.
The Bush administration knew that it no longer wanted Saddam in the chair, but could not
think beyond this one, giant, uncharted leap into the future. Iran has a far greater and more
lasting interest in the affairs of its neighbor and often bitter enemy. As a consequence, the
mullahs are playing a far longer, and more successful, game.
The legacy of unintended consequences continues to define Washington's policy towards Iraq a
generation after the first Gulf War ended. And so too with Syria. In both countries, U.S.
shortcomings have created a historic opportunity for Iran to enhance its influence in Arab
arenas that when not actively hostile to it (Iraq) are at best lukewarm (Syria).
When asked about Syria's relationship with Iran, Farouk Shara'a, longtime foreign minister
and vice president, once explained to a mutual friend, "You don't have to love the woman you
are sleeping with."
Syria has been in bed with Iran for decades. Saddam's war against Iran in the '80s, the rise
of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most recently the war against the Assad regime in Syria, have
conspired to throw these two unlikely allies into a cold embrace.
Washington has been oblivious to this essentially ambivalent Syrian attitude towards Iran,
and remains equally so to the opportunities it creates to reduce Iran's footprint in postwar
Syria. Now that the war is winding down, the value of Iran's military contribution to Syria is
declining. In parallel, Syria's interest in reducing the power of its erstwhile Iranian and
Russian friends over its destiny increases.
Damascus and Moscow welcomed Iran's critical contribution to defeating the opposition
and giving Washington and its allies a diplomatic bloody nose in the bargain. Russian foreign
minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledges that Iran's presence in Syria -- at the invitation of the
regime -- is legitimate and that it would be "unrealistic" to demand its ouster.
But while Iran's wartime contribution proved critical to victory, neither Assad nor Putin
was displeased to distance Iranian-backed elements from the recent battle front in the south.
Neither has an interest in enabling Tehran to pursue a postwar Syrian agenda towards Lebanon
and Israel. Nor is either enamored with Iran's continuing efforts to reshape the Syrian
military in its image. On these important issues, Iran stands all but alone against an
invisible, de facto coalition that includes Washington and the EU alongside Israel, Moscow, and
the Assad regime itself.
But instead of viewing the end of the war as an opportunity to lessen Iran's value to
the regime and to reduce its footprint in the country, Washington is continuing heedlessly with
failed policies created for an environment that no longer exists. As long as the fighting
continues and the regime's efforts to reassert sovereignty over the entire country are
frustrated by U.S. deployments in the northeast and southeast, Iran's military presence in the
country is secure. Likewise, Washington shows no sign of reconsidering international sanctions
against the regime, which also forces Syria into the arms of Tehran.
A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest
that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being
outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter.
Apart from the lingering campaign against ISIS, in every other respect the U.S. effort in
Syria is imploding. Washington under Obama and now Trump has been forced to uneasily
acknowledge the regime's staying power. It has now been reduced to bickering over the details
of Syrian constitutional reform in the postwar era, a waste of time if ever there was one.
Lately, the U.S. secretary of state, from his respected perch, has personally threatened
Iran's key military strategist and architect of its advances in Iraq and Syria, Qassem
Sulemani, a sure sign that the policymaking process at State is frozen.
In the field, Washington has ignominiously abandoned allies in the southern front. And in
the northeast, the Kurds have embarked on the road back to Damascus, imperiling Washington's
deployment there.
Confronted with the disintegration of its diplomatic and military strategy, the Trump
administration is reduced to playing spoiler, obstructing the inevitable restoration of the
regime's sovereignty over the country and continuing the punishing sanctions that have removed
the battered but resilient Syrian private sector from international capital and commercial
markets. This policy fails on two fronts -- it creates more gratuitous misery for the Syrian
people and it undermines the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and
Hezbollah influence in the country. Indeed, continuing to pursue the current policies will
leave the U.S. isolated among friends (Jordan and Israel) as well as frenemy Russia, and will
postpone rather than speed the day that Iran leaves Syria.
Geoffrey Aronson is chairman and co-founder of The Mortons Group and a non-resident
scholar at the Middle East Institute.
A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest
that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is
being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the
latter.
US foreign policy is controlled by the Israeli lobby and to a lesser extent, by the Saudi
lobby. The illegal and unprovoked attacks by the US on Iraq, Libya and Syria were done at the
behest of these lobbies. The only country that has benefited from all this bloodshed is
Israel, which now dominates the Middle East.
Since this obvious truth cannot be said out aloud, we need to pretend we don't know who is
behind all the mayhem in the Middle East, like this pointless article does.
The writer can't see the forest for the trees. Successive U.S. administrations have behaved
irresponsibly to enhance Israel's position in the guise of bring "democracy" to the region.
Washington's failures have created ongoing misery in Iraq, a failed state in Libya and the
destruction of the ancient land of Syria.
The U.S. continues to
pretend it had no role in the creation of the huge refugee problem that followed its
interventions in Libya and Syria.
No lessons learned, the folly is being played out daily in Yemen where the Pentagon is
leading the a campaign of death and destruction alongside its "democratic" allies, the Salman
clan of Arabia and the sheikhs of the Persian Gulf minnow petrostates.
"the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence "
I've yet to see a compelling reason for this "stated objective". If you want to argue that
it's an American interest because the Israel Lobby wants it, well, OK, there are politicians
who can be bribed to do Israel's will, but no real American would agree.
One of these days an American president will make an "opening to Iran" as Nixon once made
one to China. Surely we can bury the hatchet with Iran for the sake of a grand bargain that
accomplishes America's one real interest in the Middle East, which is to free ourselves of the
various parasites who entangle us in their messes, and get the hell out of there. Some of us
hoped that Trump might be that president, but it wasn't meant to be.
"The U.S. continues to
pretend it had no role in the creation of the huge refugee problem that followed its
interventions in Libya and Syria."
Which is ridiculous. When you bomb, invade, and arm insurgencies in people's countries, a
lot of people run away. Everybody knows that.
In the case of our bombing, invading, and/or arming insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, and Syria, a lot of people ran away.
Millions ran into Turkey. Millions more ran through Turkey into Greece and then up through
the Balkans into other NATO countries. And still more came up from Africa and sailed away from
the shores of ruined Libya to our NATO allies Italy, Spain, and France.
We did this. Everybody knows we did it. It's absurd to deny it. What's worse is that many of
the allies destabilized by the refugees warned or even begged us not to start those wars. With
no American interest at stake, no real risk assessment, and no exit strategy formulated, we did
it anyway.
Much simpler explanation: For decades, the United States has been the loyal servant of Israel,
and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia, faithfully carrying out its masters' every dictate.
As an unintended consequence of Israeli/Saudi policy, Iran has grown much stronger.
The only reason that the US foreign policy establishment is rushing headlong into a war with
Iran is because Israel and Saudi Arabia are terrified of the Iran that they have created.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the clergyman who defied the German Nazi regime and got executed for his
resistance, once observed that "war is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite
of peace." I might also add it is the opposite of freedom and civilization as well, because
both require trust.
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to
carry out "targeted assassinations."
Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events
point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.
"Almost all the Syrians who fled to the border with Jordan from an army offensive have
now returned to their homes, a top UN official says."
Just days ago they reported that "The offensive in Syria's south-west had earlier forced
more than 320,000 people to flee," and were bleating that Jordan should open their border
and let them all in.
Today "Anders Pedersen, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Jordan, said that "around
150 to 200 people (are) right now at the border".
320,000 became <200 in a matter of days. LOL
So, once again we see that the civilians were fleeing the fighting, NOT the Syrian
government. And once the SAR regains control of an area, almost everyone returns.
Yes, you are correct about that. The Yugoslav attack was on March 24, 1999. It was three
weeks later than the last Purim – March 3 – Shushan Purim (walled city Purim
– Jerusalem). Erev Purim (Eve of Purim) March 1 and March 2 – Purim. It wasn't
exactly on the date of Purim as the middle east attacks in 1991 – Iraq, 2003 Iraq and
2011 Libya. But near enough to it for the Neocons.
Charles Krauthammer, a neocon who recently died, wanted civilians to be attacked in
Yugoslavia in the 1999 NATO attack and he got his wish. This is his lovely quote.
"Finally they are hitting targets – power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports,
television transmitters – that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby."
The'Balkan Action Committee' formed during the NATO 1999 attack on Yugoslavia consisted of
neocons who lobbied hard for war against Yugoslavia. Committee members included these neocons
– Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld – three men would later lobby
again for another war in Iraq.
In an exclusive interview, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh talks about his recent
report on the assassination of Osama bin Laden, what the Obama administration will not let the
public know and the holes in the presented narrative. Watch the interview with RT's Anya
Parampil.
Shoot, Bin Laden died in a cave in Tora Bora 14 years ago or something from kidney
failure. This raid was fake, fake, fake. For one thing, a dessert people have a tradition of
burial at sea? Come on. Footage used of Bin Laden was all old, and he was yellow from kidney
failure in the late 1990's. The most of the SEAL team was wiped out in what can only be
called a murder by proxy, as they were sent into a known hot zone with a crappy helo.
Coverup. I don't trust anything in the government or the MSM, Watch the Corbett Report from
yesterday to see how we operate. Sickening.
"Obama did authorize a raid to get Bin Laden and the American SEAL Team Six DID fly into
Pakistan and killed Bin Laden and after that everything is simply not true" WTF Hersh? OBL
been dead since 2001 or so. I hope he's just mistaken w/ his 'sources' and not being an
intentional gatekeeper!
I just can't shake the confusion of how much this man sounds and looks like a mix of Alan
Alda (M*A*S*H) and Hickok45. As for the story, if true then all parts of the US government
that were involved in this deserve no better than what Bin Laden got. As for all the people
shouting that Bin Laden was already dead, maybe you should all check your sources, for the
info that this conclusion was based on is not all that reliable/credible either. This version
of events now put forward by Hesh makes more sense than most other theories so far. At least
to those who actually know some about what is happening on the world theatre away from the
public eye. The White House can deny all they want, the net will eventually close around
them.
"Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is
accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a
series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.
An affidavit sworn at the time of the arrest says that, between August 19 and August 28,
Mr Goldberg "distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives,
destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that
constitutes a Federal crime of violence".
US Attorney Lee Bentley III, said Goldberg instructed a confidential source how to make a
bomb similar to two used in the Boston Marathon bombings two years ago that killed three
people and injured more than 260 others.
"Goldberg further admitted that he believed the information would create a genuine bomb,"
Agent Berry alleged.
In the leadup to an exhibition in Garland, Texas, at which pictures of the Prophet
Mohammed were to be displayed, "Australi Witness" tweeted the event's address and reposted a
tweet urging people to go there with "weapons, bombs or with knifes".
Yes, Jews can be evil little sh*ts just like Muslims and indeed anyone can. It is the
trend that matters, as nothing is all or nothing, but I repeat myself!
Anyway, I've got a question for you KA, to see if you can be consistent and whether you
possess the supposedly stereotypical Middle Eastern shame mindset of all or nothing.
I'm a British anti-imperialist and I firmly believe that millions of British people should
not start moving to Arab and Muslims countries and colonise them.
As I am an anti-imperialist I also believe that millions of Arabs and Muslims should not
be allowed to move to Britain and furthermore that those who have already come here should go
home.
Do you agree with me? Are you a consistent anti-imperialist? Or are you just playing for
your team to win and conquer all?
From comment of chet380, Jul 7, 2018 7:03:08 PM (19): "Notwithstanding the counter-evidence and the strong counter-arguments, the decision by the OPCW to include references to 'chlorinated
chemical compounds' guaranteed that the 'attack' scenario would continue to be advanced.Is it possible that the UK, US and/or France
put pressure on the OPCW to make the inclusion so they would not have to admit they were wrong and that they were fooled? The fraud
of the White Helmets should have been exposed by the OPCW inspection, but this interim report will give them continued life."
Notable quotes:
"... Interestingly the MI6 outlet in Coventry, the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR), does not confirm a 'gas' incident. ..."
"... The "Sarin" organophosphate use the 'rebels' claimed is thereby debunked. No degradation products of such chemicals were found. The "various chlorinated organic chemicals" are unsurprising. Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and "chlorinated organic chemicals" will be found in any household. ..."
"... The preliminary OPCW report says nothing about the concentrations in which these substances were found. Without knowing the concentrations, which may may be extremely low, one can not come to further conclusion. The report includes none of the witness statements the fact finding mission took. In various TV reports the medical personal of the one hospital involved in the stunt said that none of their patients were affected by chlorine or chemical weapons. ..."
"... After the 'rebels' claimed the 'chemical attack' and published their staged videos of stacked bodies U.S. President Trump tweeted that he would retaliate for the strike. Politically he could not pull back from that even when Secretary of Defense Mattis voiced his doubts about the 'rebel' claims. Trump attacked Syria with a series of cruise missiles most of which were shot down by the Syrian air defense. A civil chemical laboratory was destroyed during the attack but no one was hurt. ..."
"... They cannot admit everything was staged. And the report is not at all clear, so anyone can give it the desired spin. ..."
"... They didn't find anything relevant. See Appendix 3 of the report. There's no mention of traces of chlorine which I would find hard to believe anyway, they refer to chloride Cl- as in NaCl (table salt) or organic chlorides, of which they do name at least one. ..."
"... The Guardian employs Olivia Solon, a digital journalist (whose specialty is in writing about and recommending particular IT consumer hardware or software products) based in California, with no knowledge or access to knowledge about Syria, its politics or history, to write an article defending the White Helmets and defame the investigative journalists Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. That practice seems to be par for the course for The Guardian and other print and online newspapers. ..."
"... And yes, the corporate MSM is definitely profit-driven. When "news" was separate from "entertainment," there was some free press possible, but once they were combined, any imaginary wall between sponsors and newscasters was removed. ..."
"... Here in the US, CBS was founded by William Paley, who had been in charge of radio propaganda for the US Army Office of Psychological Warfare. CBS was owned by Westinghouse, which became the world's largest military contractor during WW II. ..."
"... Neither CBS and NBC ever generated even 5% of their parent companies revenues. The real profits were in consumer products and war. And so, not just their news, but all of their programming promoted world views that encouraged consumption and war. ..."
"... Almost all reporters covering international news are working for the various government and private intelligence agencies/think tanks and many domestic reporters as well. ..."
"... This has been the case for over 50 years if not a century. Many of the critical reports are likely written by the agencies/think tanks. Many CIA interns work at MSM for example and reporters are recruited as early as college if not high school through thr corporate government education system. ..."
"... Regarding comments of journalists, the problem may not always be with them. There have been countless discussions on the influence of intelligence agencies. Most people would choose to do the right thing when given the choice. However, if the choices are following orders or "suicide by nailgun", most people would choose to live another day. ..."
"... The British-created Anglo-American funded black propaganda organisation, the so-called White Helmets were the primary source for the claims of Sarin use by the SAG in Douma. In as just world, the White Helmets as proven liars would now become international pariahs. That they will still be hailed as heroes in the West and western MSM so just how sick the West and western MSM really are. Perhaps now that the OPCW is free to cast blame for "chemical weapons incidents", they should name and shame the United Kingdom for its black propaganda. ..."
"... Well, we all knew a false flag op was pending. So here it is. Also Trump is a POS. ..."
"... When the White Helmets and the rebels staged the 'Douma' chemical attack they were probably expecting that Douma would not be liberated and that no serious inspection would take place to debunk the 'fake' attack. That was bad luck for them. Contrary to the other chemical "attacks" locations, an inspection on location has taken place early enough and the masks may be falling. ..."
"... There are critically important information here from Vanessa Beelley False Flag Fail: How Syrian Civilians Derailed White Helmet 'Chemical' Stunt in Eastern Ghouta that Bernhardt has not mentioned. ..."
"... The White Helmets specifically stated that the protesters had ruined their chemical attack and ruined their communications with the UN, and that the Americans would not come to their assistance because of it. This incident explains important aspects of the false flag: ..."
"... 1) So close to impending defeat, the terrorists were really desperate to induce the Americans to save them, and really believed they would do so; ..."
"... the conflicting signals given out by the MI6 proxies SOHR I would read as a damage limitation act specifically in response to the civilian protest; ..."
"... It would appear that MI6 feared news of this protest would be spread, so that they needed to protect their proxies. ..."
"... Unfortunately, despite this information being published by Vanessa Beeley, I haven't seen any other mention of it. The protesters endangered their lives by this protest, at least one of them [or another hostage? - this is not clear] was shot dead for it, and all of them were sentenced to death. They deserve due publicity for it and it is really important to an understanding of the incident as a whole. ..."
"... Bernhardt, I am afraid I don't share your apparent confidence in this OPCW report. It is far too little and lopsided after months of investigation, and appears to be designed to test the waters for a decision confirming that chlorine was used as a weapon, and to coordinate with the MSM to prepare the ground for such a decision. In that case, the MSM reaction to the report is highly consistent with such an objective. ..."
"... Why did the the report make no caveats about the chlorine compounds, why did they include no data about concentrations, why did they emphasise the chain of custody of the (probably trivial) chrorine compound samples (and only those samples), why no information on witness testimony, why no mention of the witness testimony in the Hague, why mention (totally irrelevant) testimony of alleged witnesses in Turkey and biological samples taken in Turkey for which no plausible chain of custody exists? ..."
"... This report is a scandal, an outrage. This report itself is a false flag, it is designed to appease those observers who know the incident was a false flag by using carefully ambiguous wording, while preparing the ground for a full-blown 99% dishonest and 100% misleading report condemning the Syrian government. ..."
"... For Trump self inflicted ego wound somebody will pay. ..."
"... If the OPCW can no longer be trusted; then what? The U.S. has done an admirable job of destroying trust between countries. ..."
"... Nice article, however I tend to disagree partially on the last part, the US administration and the alleged rebels are two faces of the same coins, rebels are funded by the administration from various sources and they acr in response to commands from it, see the southern command operations where this approach of command was openly divulged by various reports and accounts. The reason for the Administration to get into Syria was to further weaken the middle eastern countries for a specific and obvious reason, and each strike and wall destroyed goes into this direction..the bigger picture explains it all.. ..."
"... So, as expected, this latest OPCW report will have no effect on the establishment narrative. The good guys vs bad guys scenario is the only approved version, and with no alternative versions being offered in the MSM, it is the one that the most people will believe. ..."
"... I suspect some of the stupidest staged events are just experiments to monitor how many people will simply buy anything. ..."
Syria - OPCW Issues First Report Of 'Chemical Weapon Attack' in Douma
On April 7 2018 Syrian 'rebels' claimed that the Syrian government used chlorine gas and Sarin in an attack on the besieged Douma
suburb near the Syrian capital Damascus. They published a series of videos which showed the dead bodies of mainly women and children.
During the night the incident allegedly happened Douma was hit with artillery and air strikes in retaliation for earlier deadly
attacks by some 'rebels' splinter groups on Damascus city. Jaish al-Islam, the main 'rebel' group in Douma, had already agreed to
leave towards Idleb governorate.
The claim of the 'chemical attack' was made shortly after U.S. President Trump had announced that he wanted U.S. troops to leave
Syria. It was designed to "pull him back in" which it indeed did.
Moon of Alabama published several pieces on the issue:
It seemed obvious from the very first claims of the 'gas attack' that it did not happen at all. The Syrian government had no motive
to use any chemical weapon or an irritant like chlorine in Douma. It had already won. The incident was obviously staged, like others
before it, to drag the U.S. into a new attack on Syria.
Even a prominent opposition outlet said that no 'chemical attack'
had taken place. As
noted on April
9:
Interestingly the MI6 outlet in Coventry, the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR), does not confirm a 'gas' incident.
In its version of events some 40 people
died after their shelter collapsed:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights issued a higher death toll, saying at least 80 people were killed in Douma, including
around 40 who died from suffocation. But it said the suffocations were the result of shelters collapsing on people inside them.
Main stream media, which have quoted SOHR for years, now ignore it and
report of a 'chemical
attack' as if it were a proven reality.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) send a Fact Finding Mission (FFM) to Douma and investigated the
incident. Today it
published an interim report and some technical results:
OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their
degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along
with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain
of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to
draw final conclusions.
The "Sarin" organophosphate use the 'rebels' claimed is thereby debunked. No degradation products of such chemicals were found.
The "various chlorinated organic chemicals" are unsurprising. Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and "chlorinated
organic chemicals" will be found in any household.
In the technical notes of
the OPCW report note that one of its laboratory found "dichloroacetic acid", "trichloroacetic acid", "chloral hydrate", "trichlorophenol"
and "chlorphenol" in some of the samples its fact finding mission took at the claimed incident sites. These are all substances that
are no surprise in any upbuild environment and especially within any home.
Dichloroacetic acid" is for example "a trace product
of the chlorination of drinking water". Chloral hydrate
is likewise "a minor side-product of the chlorination of water when organic residues such as humic acids are present". The other
substances are also not uncommon and of various household uses.
The other OPCW laboratory found only "No CWC-scheduled chemicals" and "2,4,6-trinitrotoluene" residues in the samples. Trinitrotoluene,
also known as TNT, is an explosive widely used in military ammunition. The second laboratory does not report the chlorinated organic
chemicals the other laboratory found.
The preliminary OPCW report says nothing about the concentrations in which these substances were found. Without knowing the concentrations,
which may may be extremely low, one can not come to further conclusion. The report includes none of the witness statements the fact
finding mission took. In various TV reports the medical personal of the one hospital involved in the stunt said that none of their
patients were affected by chlorine or chemical weapons.
After the 'rebels' claimed the 'chemical attack' and published their staged videos of stacked bodies U.S. President Trump
tweeted that he would retaliate for the strike. Politically he could not pull back from that even when Secretary of Defense Mattis
voiced his doubts
about the 'rebel' claims. Trump attacked Syria with a series of cruise missiles most of which were shot down by the Syrian air defense.
A civil chemical laboratory was destroyed during the attack but no one was hurt.
The now published preliminary OPCW report reinforces the doubts about the 'rebel' claims. There was no 'chemical attack' in Douma.
The incident was staged.
One hopes that Trump has learned from this episode and will in future refrain from violent threats over incidents for which no
plausible and vetted evidence is provided.
Posted by b on July 6, 2018 at 03:23 PM |
Permalink
Thanks for this report, even though in my case you're "preaching to the choir".
I wish I could share your closing optimism: "One hopes that Trump has learned from this episode and will in future refrain
from violent threats over incidents for which no plausible and vetted evidence is provided."
Hope springs eternal. But even though I'm not rabidly anti-Trump, I think he will remain unwilling to refrain, or is incapable
of refraining, from impulsively responding with bluster, bombast, and chauvinistic bumptiousness when his buttons are pushed,
regardless of the validity of the stimulus.
Trump, whose narcissism is second to no one's, is devoid of the introspective humility contemplated by the axiom "Fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"; his ego will not process the possibility that he can ever be fooled.
Alas! Trump is definitely a "Threaten first and ask questions later" kind of guy.
Thanks for the report b. I was surfing the net as I prepared a meal and saw that the BBC is pushing this hard.
The BBC is even writing about the April chemical weapon scam as being added proof.....sad
The elite keep trying to start a war with anyone to keep the focus off their failure as the "leaders of the free world" BS.
When are the elite going to realize their temper tantrums aren't working?
I hope they don't get their shooting war and I hope their economic war provides their final undoing.....think of the waste
of human and other resources over the past 70 years.....let alone the centuries that the private finance/property scam has been
going on.
Still, Ard-Tagesschau says the following (originally in German): "In the battles for the Syrian rebel stronghold Duma, chlorine
gas was apparently used in April. The OPCW found traces of this in gas cylinder residues."
Sure enough I agree with you B, but
for the MSM the OPCW report reads different.
They cannot admit everything was staged. And the report is not at all clear,
so anyone can give it the desired spin.
"The OPCW found traces of this in gas cylinder residues." Claiming that the OPCW found "traces of chlorine" is like claiming one
found "traces of oxygen" or "traces of hydrogen" when one found water (H2O).
The occurrence of a basic element in a compound
is not a "trace" of the basic element. That's chemistry 001. Journalists nowadays seem to lack most basics of higher education.
They didn't find anything relevant. See Appendix 3 of the report. There's no mention of traces of chlorine which I would
find hard to believe anyway, they refer to chloride Cl- as in NaCl (table salt) or organic chlorides, of which they do name at
least one.
What to expect from the 'Tagesschau' - same old, same old. They're making stuff up again, almost certainly out of willful ignorance
and bias.
@6 b
I figure it's even worse than that. They're not even asking the most basic question: Am I a competent person?
My guess is a great many of these folks avoid asking that question on purpose.
It would seem that a common (and deliberate) ploy used by the MSM these days is to use journalists with no particular knowledge,
experience or insight in an area to write articles that need that knowledge or experience.
The Guardian employs Olivia Solon, a digital journalist (whose specialty is in writing about and recommending particular
IT consumer hardware or software products) based in California, with no knowledge or access to knowledge about Syria, its politics
or history, to write an article defending the White Helmets and defame the investigative journalists Eva Bartlett and Vanessa
Beeley. That practice seems to be par for the course for The Guardian and other print and online newspapers.
Plus The Guardian and others rely on dubious sources like Bellingcat and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose credentials
are laughable at best, as "experts" in their chosen areas of reporting.
All the Western MSM are now entirely driven by the pursuit of sales revenue and profit and are now no different from outlets
peddling entertainment. No surprise really when news media outlets are now owned by the same individuals or corporations that
own film studios, TV stations, online media and TV channels, book and comics publishers, and games publishers.
Jen @8. Great point on the strategy of using "journalists" with no background in the topic they're tasked to 'report."
And yes, the corporate MSM is definitely profit-driven. When "news" was separate from "entertainment," there was some free
press possible, but once they were combined, any imaginary wall between sponsors and newscasters was removed.
Still, considering who owns the MSM, I'd say their main purpose is not to sell commercials, but to sell the most profitable
"products" of their owners.
Here in the US, CBS was founded by William Paley, who had been in charge of radio propaganda for the US Army Office of
Psychological Warfare. CBS was owned by Westinghouse, which became the world's largest military contractor during WW II.
NBC was owned by GE, which was also one of the largest military contractors in the world.
Neither CBS and NBC ever generated even 5% of their parent companies revenues. The real profits were in consumer products
and war. And so, not just their news, but all of their programming promoted world views that encouraged consumption and war.
Almost all reporters covering international news are working for the various government and private intelligence agencies/think
tanks and many domestic reporters as well.
This has been the case for over 50 years if not a century. Many of the critical reports are likely written by the agencies/think
tanks. Many CIA interns work at MSM for example and reporters are recruited as early as college if not high school through thr
corporate government education system.
Everyone likes to supplement their income and many are convinced its their patriotic duty to disseminate propaganda. For some
its a chance to join the elite class, even at a low level. Obviously getting the 6-8 corporate entities that own 80% of the media
to go along is not difficult especially as those who go rogue will be punished by members of the business roundtable responsible
for most advertising , which would of course dry up as punishment
Now monitoring the internet and social media with big data analytics allows almost Total Information Awareness. They can see
in real time whats working and to what extent and what is not. They can then fill holes or modify the story as needed. They know
they dont need to get 100% believability. This is why they have not shut down dissenting comments. They are useful, for now.
I suspect some of the stupidest staged events are just experiments to monitor how many people will simply buy anything. At
some point they will feel confident enough to simulate an alien invasion of beings capable of taking human form. This will necessitate
martial law which thw fearful will gladly accept, and a global governement led by the countries with the largest space force.
Funny how the US still needs Russian Rockets to launch satellites so its Space Force has a way to go yet. I guess I wont be around
for the fun since time is not a friend of old men
Regarding comments of journalists, the problem may not always be with them. There have been countless discussions on the influence
of intelligence agencies. Most people would choose to do the right thing when given the choice. However, if the choices are following
orders or "suicide by nailgun", most people would choose to live another day.
Speaking of experiments to monitor how many people will believe anything, some good claims from the MSM come to mind: 40% of
North Koreans are on crystal meth, the Russians killed the last clown in Aleppo, and the Breatharians (people who purportedly
survive on only air and sunlight).
thanks b... unfortunately, i tend to see it much like what @8 jen says... these folks are unsure about their next pay check and
are happy to write with a chatham house /scl / cambridge analytica slant knowing what is expected of them.. they ask no questions
and are unwilling to articulate the false flags that have shaped all this discussion of opcw and chemical attacks in syria.. in
this respect i also agree with @5 pnyx... they are unwilling or unable to raise these questions for fear of dismissal.. more and
more people recognize what a poor state the msm is in today.. that is my hope anyway..
b said:"One hopes that Trump has learned from this episode and will in future refrain from violent threats over incidents for
which no plausible and vetted evidence is provided."
Unfortunately, probably no one here in the land of theater, will ever hear about this report. As to DJT, he'll do whatever
it takes to enhance his appearance with the morons. His learning curve only bends toward his own enhancement. To him and his minions,
truth doesn't matter...
There's unlikely to be any real investigative journalism regarding opcw reports, considering the papers in uk are owned by mega
millionaires who profit from war and the Middle East land grab.oil ect. Plus the owners featured largely in the off shore tax
haven leaks- relavent here not so much regarding tax, but what that hidden money is invested in, Gun running, slave labour, buying
rebels? It's a small world, media moguls own it.
The British-created Anglo-American funded black propaganda organisation, the so-called White Helmets were the primary source
for the claims of Sarin use by the SAG in Douma. In as just world, the White Helmets as proven liars would now become international
pariahs. That they will still be hailed as heroes in the West and western MSM so just how sick the West and western MSM really
are. Perhaps now that the OPCW is free to cast blame for "chemical weapons incidents", they should name and shame the United Kingdom
for its black propaganda.
Thanks Bevin @ 16
I do follow that site, but had'nt looked recently. Really Good, no doubt your aware of 'the canary ' good article on this subject!
Both sites I recommend to one and all.
When the White Helmets and the rebels staged the 'Douma' chemical attack they were probably expecting that Douma would not
be liberated and that no serious inspection would take place to debunk the 'fake' attack. That was bad luck for them. Contrary
to the other chemical "attacks" locations, an inspection on location has taken place early enough and the masks may be falling.
Your early call that the MSM would go with the chlorine findings to support the attack is proving true across the board --
there is not a chance that an admission of having been mistaken is going to happen.
james @13 I think it's clearly true, not just a hope, that fewer and fewer people take the media seriously. Those who still watch
mainstream and cable 'news' programs are a pretty small minority, and the MSNBC/FOX side of that is probably acknowledged even
by most of its consumers, as 'my side' comfort food rather than 'news' as we used to understand it.
The media's lock-step Western-Empire perspective _is_ frightening, but we also need to remember recent election results that
have gone against the empire's wishes. Just a couple days ago in Mexico, for example. Real alternative and real (whether socialist,
left, right, or libertarian) populist media is having an impact, I think, and we may be able to turn things around in the West
before the next world wars start.
Vanessa Beeley interviewed at least two witnesses who - seeing that the government forces were about to liberate Hamouriya
village in Douma from the terrorists under whose control they had suffered for 6 years and thereby feeling empowered - on 6th
March at 3pm decided to publicly protest against the terrorists by marching through Hamouriya carrying Syrian national flags.
They were met by members of the White Helmets and the terrorists, who blamed them explicitly for ruining their chemical weapons
false flag.
Critically importantly, the White Helmets had already released news for the claimed false flag that morning and the night before,
and they had already collected 30 dead bodies from all over Douma and brought them to the hospital, and had already started filming.
The protest critically negated the propaganda message of the false flag chemical attack - if the Syrian Army had really been
dropping chemical weapons on Hamouriya the night before with intent to kill civilian women and children, why would the civilians
immediately afterwards start marching through the city carrying Syrian national flags, and having raised the flag at key points
in the city? It makes the whole flase flag [even more] implausible. The White Helmets then wrapped one hostage in a Syrian flag
and shot him dead as a warning. Fortunately the two witnesses interviewed (and hopefully most of the protesters) were able to
escape soon afterwards with the help of the nearby Syrian Army.
The White Helmets specifically stated that the protesters had ruined their chemical attack and ruined their communications
with the UN, and that the Americans would not come to their assistance because of it. This incident explains important aspects
of the false flag:
1) So close to impending defeat, the terrorists were really desperate to induce the Americans to save them, and really
believed they would do so;
2) Having already announced the false flag the previous night and having collected so many dead bodies in preparation, the
existence of the protest creates a credibility problem for the terrorists and White Helmets, to which they seem to have responded
with various conflicting signals;
3) In particular, the conflicting signals given out by the MI6 proxies SOHR I would read as a damage limitation act specifically
in response to the civilian protest;
4) It would appear that MI6 feared news of this protest would be spread, so that they needed to protect their proxies.
Unfortunately, despite this information being published by Vanessa Beeley, I haven't seen any other mention of it. The
protesters endangered their lives by this protest, at least one of them [or another hostage? - this is not clear] was shot dead
for it, and all of them were sentenced to death. They deserve due publicity for it and it is really important to an understanding
of the incident as a whole.
Bernhardt, I hope you will update the article above to include some of Vanessa Beeley's reporting on this incident.
Bernhardt, I am afraid I don't share your apparent confidence in this OPCW report. It is far too little and lopsided after
months of investigation, and appears to be designed to test the waters for a decision confirming that chlorine was used as a weapon,
and to coordinate with the MSM to prepare the ground for such a decision. In that case, the MSM reaction to the report is highly
consistent with such an objective.
Why did the the report make no caveats about the chlorine compounds, why did they include no data about concentrations,
why did they emphasise the chain of custody of the (probably trivial) chrorine compound samples (and only those samples), why
no information on witness testimony, why no mention of the witness testimony in the Hague, why mention (totally irrelevant) testimony
of alleged witnesses in Turkey and biological samples taken in Turkey for which no plausible chain of custody exists?
Posted by: V | Jul 7, 2018 12:36:26 AM | 25 Finally, straight shooting from the OPCW.
About time...
This report is a scandal, an outrage. This report itself is a false flag, it is designed to appease those observers who
know the incident was a false flag by using carefully ambiguous wording, while preparing the ground for a full-blown 99% dishonest
and 100% misleading report condemning the Syrian government.
The correct response to this report is very loud and active and persistent protest against it.
The Russians should make very strongly worded complaints and criticisms about it both at the OPCW and at the UN (maybe they
have, I wouldn't know).
So, following your logic (which I mostly agree); what value/good are elections?
None, near as I can tell.
Time for something new?
But then I digress; what to do about false flag chemo attacks?
If the OPCW can no longer be trusted; then what? The U.S. has done an admirable job of destroying trust between countries.
¿Has anyone here read Peter Ford's piece on OPCW? I believe it fits somewhere in the discussion. Unfortunate this choir is so
small. Keep writing and Protest Loudly!
Hi Nice article, however I tend to disagree partially on the last part, the US administration and the alleged rebels are two
faces of the same coins, rebels are funded by the administration from various sources and they acr in response to commands from
it, see the southern command operations where this approach of command was openly divulged by various reports and accounts. The
reason for the Administration to get into Syria was to further weaken the middle eastern countries for a specific and obvious
reason, and each strike and wall destroyed goes into this direction..the bigger picture explains it all..
... to clarify , every "regime" that threatens Israel openly is to be brought down ... Libya, Iraq,, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran
, Egypt's Nasser and the list goes on..
"Yesterday the OPCW reported that, contrary to US and UK assertions in the UN security council, there was no nerve agent attack
on jihadist-held Douma by the Syrian government, precisely as Robert Fisk was execrated by the entire media establishment for
pointing out. The OPCW did find some traces of chlorine compounds, but chlorine is a very commonly used element and you have traces
of it all over your house.
The US wants your chicken chlorinated. The OPCW said it was "Not clear" if the chlorine was weaponised, and it is plain to
me from a career in diplomacy that the almost incidental mention is a diplomatic sop to the UK, US and France, which are important
members of the OPCW.
"Trump's reaction to yet more lying claims by the UK government funded White Helmets and Syrian Observatory, a reaction of
missile strikes on alleged Syrian facilities producing the non-existent nerve agent, was foolish. May's leap for British participation
was unwise, and the usual queue of Blairites who stood up as always in Parliament to support any bombing action, stand yet again
exposed as evil tools of the military industrial complex.
"Hillary Clinton, true to form, wanted more aggressive military action than was undertaken by Trump. Hillary has been itching
to destroy Syria as she destroyed Libya. Libya was very much Hillary's war and – almost unreported by the mainstream media – NATO
bombers carried out almost 14,000 bombing sorties on Libya and devastated entire cities...."
If you put Murray, MoA, The Skwawkbox, Strategic Culture, Dissident Voice and a few of the better aggregators together you've
got a better Daily Newspaper than The Guardian or Le Monde ever was, far better.
By the way, unless I'm mistaken (it wouldn't be a first!) Ghandi was asked what he thought about Western Civilisation when
he replied that "It would be a good idea". It still is an idea worth looking into. It would look just like socialism.
@28 BM... i think it was daniel who left that link here at moa a few days ago.. i read it..
@29 BM.. i tend to agree with you, but see @6 b for more clarity...
@32 pft... it is my observation that the msm in the usa is so usa centric, they know shit about canada, or the rest of the
world.. i could be wrong, but that is my general view on what ''americans'' consume for news in the usa.. the indoctrination is
heavy.. i would like to think people like @33 V are the norm, but i mostly think people are tuned out of the news - excluding
the older generation - above 60 or 70 especially - who still consume the shit via the tv..
@41 mike.. in other words, the usa foreign policy is built around looking after israel.. most here at moa would agree with
that.. will the usa ever get it's head out of israels ass? one can hope, lol..
This one was real, but even the Aum Shinrikyo sect showed all those years ago how how difficult it is to pull off an effective
chemical weapons attack, requiring an enclosed space like the metro system. But that's never the point. Instilling mass fear and
panic, not to mention being 'news friendly' is what makes such attacks, sponsored proxy false-flag or not, so enduringly popular
. To borrow a well known ad phrase ' Once you pop, you can't stop '
Journalists nowadays seem to lack most basics of higher education. b.
Yes + they have zero comprehension of basic numbers. Amazing. (Nobody wants to read my exs..) Nowadays, they are not supposed
to have any knowledge whatsoever; they have become scribal hacks, merely write, film, show, expose, what they are told or do haphazard
copy-pasta.
They are bought servants, nah compradors, and their presence is completely useless (A.I. and some guidance, input from above
by 7 -say- very smart ppl would do the job faster and cheaper, for the whole W world) they are actors whose function is to pretend
that a 'fourth estate' is necessary to uncover facts, inform the populace, air dissenting points of view, have debates, and so
on Lies.
Aware they are past their sell-date, one can smell the desperation. The reaction is to become more subservient, toe the line,
preserve what can be, become more in-groupy and shaft colleagues who might stray away from the prescribed hyper-rigid guide-lines.
Collectively, they have fantastic potential power and means of control (network savvy, present at the switches, etc.) but they
are so dumbed down and terrified of status and monetary loss they are like deer caught in the headlights, to stay on track they
secretly pray at dawn, conjure the fates, or whatever. The mansion with pool, the ginormous mortgage, Junior, etc. in the US.
In France, the monetary aspect is less vital; being excluded from the movers and shakers, the in-ppl, the heady, sexy, wonderful
Parisian life.. no.. no.. help
Part of how a 'post-truth' environment comes about. The other driver is the underlying aim, i.e. the imposition of one narrative
over another, the Rovian creation of realities which can only be managed by wielding power violent enough to make the 'other
- the people - the adversary' accept and bow down to the proffered narrative, and never object, call out the lies. Using this
template requires careful calculations which, it appears, have gone off kilter in the US.
Maybe one should consider that there were never any Chem-WMD attacks in Syria at all (pace Seymour Hersh, heh, but that is
a personal beef of mine..) - there are always limited hangout ppl who try to cobble up one narrative with another and make a living
out o that.
So far, I'm seeing BBC (as above), al Jazeera, ABC, Reuters, Qatar Tribune twisting the report to say it was a Chlorine attack.
PressTV, RT, and Sputnik News say the report clears SAA.
The latter is an absurd "virtual crime scene" in which crack reporters claim to prove that the Syrian government used chemical
weapons on their own people.
So, as expected, this latest OPCW report will have no effect on the establishment narrative. The good guys vs bad guys
scenario is the only approved version, and with no alternative versions being offered in the MSM, it is the one that the most
people will believe.
O k see if I can help, kind of kill or cure! The shock to us all may be to much ! There is no squirrel !
They made it up, yes I know it's kind of tuff !we all looked for a squirrel they distracted us. There was no people poisoned by
Russians in Salisbury, Amesbury the chlorine attack in Syria yes made up.What the tv and papers said was a lie, to program us
all like a laptop !!!
Whilst we were out squirrel huntin, they got through half of world 3 we never noticed. They formed a dictatorship. Sold all
your urban buildings services and council houses to one an other. And devalued us all by about 60% But i'l go easy for now. Couse
from there on things went down hill !!! Warm regards
By the way, I read somewhere recently that Chlorine rapidly degrades Sarin and therefore no one would use them together. But I
can't find the reference now. Can anybody help?
47. hrc = Bloodthirsty killer; sociopath coming out the gate. Likewise. POS. Trump was not a mass murderer until a couple months
in. Didn't take him long to join the club.
It would seem that a common (and deliberate) ploy used by the MSM these days is to use journalists with no particular knowledge,
experience or insight in an area to write articles that need that knowledge or experience.
I wonder if these "news reporters" were not selected based upon their "sex appeal" to a superior?
Posted by: Pft | @10
I suspect some of the stupidest staged events are just experiments to monitor how many people will simply buy anything.
I agree. These zany false flag events might be designed to map the approach to an asymptote .
(In analytic geometry, an asymptote (/ˈæsɪmptoʊt/) of a curve is a line such that the distance between
the curve and the line approaches zero as one or both of the x or y coordinates tends to infinite stupidity)
"... "The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry. ..."
"... "The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S. ..."
"... The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. ..."
Whether this is a coordinated response is unclear - and certainly on a much smaller scale -
but Bloomberg reports that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree this morning
imposing higher tariffs on U.S. products in retaliation for U.S. duties on metals imports,
according to Economy Ministry statement.
Reuters reports that Russia's additional duties will apply to imports of fiber optics,
equipment for road construction, oil and gas industry, metal processing and mining, according
to an economy ministry statement.
Russia will impose duties on goods which have Russian-made substitutes, Economy Minister
Maxim Oreshkin is quoted as saying in the statement.
"The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of
import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on
some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures
cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines,
rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the
ministry.
"The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions
amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have
to pay in the U.S.
The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage
amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the
WTO rules," he said. Russia will be able to compensate for the remaining part in three
years since the introduction of the U.S. duties or after approval of the WTO dispute settlement
body if it finds the U.S. restrictions violating the organization's rules, the ministry
said.
Makes you wonder how long Russia will stay with WTO - just like Trump - if this is all the
response "you're allowed."
The derangement of the anti-Trumpers, which encompasses many
Democrats and some neo-conservative Republicans, has entered crazy land, especially when Trump
critics try to draw parallels between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler and/or Benito Mussolini.
The ignorance and stupidity displayed by this so-called thought process would be understandable
if those spewing the nonsense were 18 year olds with a public education. But they are not. We
are talking about men and women with college and post graduate education.
One of the earliest examples of this bizarre smear came courtesy of Newsweek:
At the Emmy awards ceremony on Sunday night, Transparent creator Jill Soloway compared
Donald Trump to Adolf
Hitler . Many others have made the same comparison before her: the front page of the
Philadelphia Daily News in December 2015; the Council on America-Islamic Relations;
the Holocaust survivor Zeev Hod. . . .
What makes the comparison between Hitler and Trump so poignant is not just the rhetorical
marginalization of groups, lifestyles or beliefs, but the fact that both men represent their
personal character as the antidote to all social and political problems.
Neither Hitler nor Trump campaign on specific policies, beyond a few slogans. Instead, both
promise a new vision of leadership. They portray the existing political systems as
fundamentally corrupt, incompetent, and, most importantly, unable to generate decisive action
in the face of pressing problems.
Was I asleep in 2008 or did Barack Obama also promise "a new vision of leadership?" I recall
all of the "specific policies" that
President Obama promised to implement :
Exit the bad war in Iraq. Win the good war in Afghanistan. Close Guantánamo. Ban
torture, and pursue a "reckoning" for the torturers, in the words of Obama's soon-to-be
attorney general, Eric Holder. What's more, Obama said he would reform the habit of unnecessary
state secrecy that had given rise to such malignant policies.
After 8 years in office Obama still had not won the "good war," Guantanamo was still open,
his Justice Department gave everyone associated with the CIA torture program a pass and he
pursued more journalists for having the audacity to report on classified material. Oh, and he
helped start a new war in Syria; one that has left tens of thousands dead and more than a
million displaced.
Then there is the additional fact that Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, got a
free pass from the Obama DOJ despite there being clear evidence that she violated Federal law
by putting classified material on her unclassified server. Not only did she use her status as
Secretary of State to enrich herself and her husband, but she led the way in betraying Muamar
Qaddafi and starting a new war in North Africa.
Trying to claim that Trump's campaign rhetoric, which was at times crass and
confrontational, was Hitlerian, displays a fundamental lack of what Hitler was and what he did
to ascend to power.
After the elections of March 5, 1933, the Nazis began a systematic takeover of the state
governments throughout Germany, ending a centuries-old tradition of local political
independence. Armed SA and SS thugs barged into local government offices using the state of
emergency decree as a pretext to throw out legitimate office holders and replace them with Nazi
Reich commissioners.
Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed holding
pens. Old army barracks and abandoned factories were used as prisons. Once inside, prisoners
were subjected to military style drills and harsh discipline. They were often beaten and
sometimes even tortured to death. This was the very beginning of the Nazi concentration camp
system.
At this time, these early concentration camps were loosely organized under the control of
the SA and the rival SS. Many were little more than barbed-wire stockades know as 'wild'
concentration camps, set up by local Gauleiters and SA leaders.
How many political opponents has Trumped imprisoned in the 18 months that he has been in
office? (I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with HERO). How many concentration camps has he set
up? Yep. Correct. NONE.
Rather than follow in Hitler's footsteps and suspend the Constitution and declare himself
the Führer, Trump has opted for the Twitter Tsunami and working on defeating the Democrats
at the polls come November. After March 1933 Hitler never troubled himself with elections
again.
In Mein Kampf , Hitler used the main thesis of "the Jewish peril", which posits a
Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. [8] The narrative describes
the process by which he became increasingly antisemitic and militaristic , especially during his years in
Vienna. He speaks of not having met a Jew until he arrived in Vienna, and that at first his
attitude was liberal and tolerant. When he first encountered the antisemitic press, he says, he
dismissed it as unworthy of serious consideration. Later he accepted the same antisemitic
views, which became crucial to his program of national reconstruction of Germany.
Mein Kampf has also been studied as a work on political theory . For example, Hitler
announces his hatred of what he believed to be the world's two evils: Communism and Judaism .
In the book Hitler blamed Germany's chief woes on the parliament of the Weimar Republic , the Jews,
and Social Democrats , as
well as Marxists , though
he believed that Marxists, Social Democrats, and the parliament were all working for Jewish
interests. [9] He announced that he
wanted to completely destroy the parliamentary system , believing it to
be corrupt in principle, as those who reach power are inherent opportunists .
Trump? The Art of the Deal (which was written with the help of a journalist) shares nothing
in common with Hitler's Mean Kampf. Hitler was an angry, frustrated man who had never known
success in life. Trump? Big, brash and successful, both in real estate and in marketing Trump.
Unlike Hitler, who made it very clear that he intended to wipe the world of Jews and
Communists, Trump's world view for business success is summarized in 11 pithy points :
Think big
Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
Maximize your options
Know your market
Use your leverage
Enhance your location
Get the word out
Fight back
Deliver the goods
Contain the costs
Have fun
Hitler made it quite clear that he was going to embark on global conquest:
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of
our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless
German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long
last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the
soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her
vassal border states. (Joachim C. Fest (1 February 2013). Hitler . Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt. p. 216. ISBN0-544-19554-X .)
Trump, by contrast, spent a lot of his campaign talking about withdrawing U.S. forces from
military engagements and focusing U.S. resources, instead, on making America great again. His
dismissive statements about NATO, seeking reapproachment with the Russians and the Chinese, and
getting out of the nation building mission in Syria simply enraged the foreign policy
establishment, especially the neo-conservatives.
It is more accurate to view Trump as the anti-Hitler. He is not consumed with taking over
other countries. He simply wants the United States to stop getting the short end of the stick
when it comes to trade or immigration.
Hitler hated Jews and oversaw the Holocaust. Trump's beloved oldest daughter is a Jew and
Trump is a fav among the Hasidic community. Polar opposites on the Jewish question.
The anti-Trumpers seem to imagine that they are the 21st Century version of Colonel
Claus Schenk Graf von
Stauffenberg – the key figure in the 1944 " 20 July plot " to assassinate Adolf Hitler . Hitler led
Germany into a world war. Trump? Talking peace with North Korea and trying to make nice with
the Russians.
If you dare to equate Trump with Hitler let me make it very clear that you are a cretin. It
shows that you lack any understanding of the history of Germany in the 20th Century and, by
making such an analogy, you are shitting on the memory of those who actually fought against
genuine evil. (If you want a quick but thorough education on the subject I recommend the 2009
Academy award winning documentary, The Restless Conscience .)
If Donald Trump is anything he is an obnoxious version of the Road Runner (the Warner
Brothers' cartoon character). Instead of "beeping" he is tweeting and running rings around the
anti-Trumpers, who increasingly appear to resemble Wylie Coyote. The anti-Trumpers are working
furiously to attack Trump at every opportunity. Yet, their schemes, both the simple and the
complex, keep blowing up in their faces or putting them on the defensive. Think of Maxine
Waters as the anvil that Wylie tried to drop on the Road Runner. Result? It landed on the
Democrats and she is now in the process of becoming the face of the Democrat party for the
November election. And God, what a face (put that mug on a bill boards and it is a sure fire
cure for teen age pregnancy--who can pop wood with Maxine glaring at you).
If Democrats want to be smart and have a chance of beating Trump, they need to stop with the
Nazi and Hitler insults and start respecting Trump. Once they respect him and realize that he
actually is a formidable politician and that he had genuine success as a marketing genius they
might be able to formulate a plan to actually beat him. But, like I said, "if they are smart."
With Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schummer running the show the word smart is merely an oxymoron.
Beep, beep.
The problem is that this is pure propaganda. Intended to agitate one's base. Donald
Trump is a great used car salesman (i.e. NY real estate). He won because he could
sell to European descendants their old myths and legends. After the Vietnam War and
1970's wage inflation, the little people were thrown under the bus by the global elite.
They are in debt, addicted and can't afford to have families. How great the Western
economy is right now is total BS. A rational discussion of the rise of populism in the
West is avoided. My problem with Donald Trump and why I will never vote for him is that
he is anti-science. He has no grasp of reality only magical thinking. A bull in
the china shop has no plan, no goal, just destruction. His opponents, the media moguls,
war profiteers, and global oligarchs, will go nuclear when tariffs and economic
disruption start cutting their bonuses. The fallout when giants go stomping after each
other will destroy middle America.
The only chance for Americans to survive is to restore the rule of law, strong borders
and treat each other equally; especially the wealthy ones who are free, now, to do
whatever in the hell they want.
I can't get behind him because I believe his lying will undo every good thing he does.
That lying enrages his opponents by the precise path those who lie and exaggerate
criticisms of him does. There seems little doubt he is a genius in manipulating people
and the media, but his method may well prove ultimately self-defeating.
Some are applying this bit of Catch-22 to Trump:
"It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue
and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into
philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and
sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely
required no character."
They aren't all wrong. Outrageous populism is a high wire act, without a net.
Yup! Trump refers to it as "hyperbole" and is consciously aware he's doing it. Plus he
enjoys fucking with the minds of the people that annoy him. Yes indeed, our president is
an expert at trolling.
True dat ;) And Trump has made enemies as a consequence of his behavior. At his age I'm
sure he's aware of this too. But somehow he keeps on going... like a supersized energizer
bunny. And sometimes enemies shift to being colleagues or at least less hostile over
time.
One of those consequences is the silly baby Trump balloon that will be flying over
London while he's there. Very impressive protest, eh? (/snark)
Roger Waters knows a thing to two about memes. Respected him even more when I read last
year how he refused to be another celebrity supporting the White Helmets (he was
approached). He called them out as propagandists.
Here's the Trump baby balloon. Another great example of collective transference.
London anti-Trump protestors get permission to fly massive crowdfunded blimp of the
president depicted as a big baby in a diaper when he visits UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
Merely? Perhaps, but I will opine all politicians BS, but lying is a different category.
Not speaking epistemology, but how people generally react to those two closely related
but nevertheless distinct beasts.
The dem elite uses the Hitler reference as election sloganeering to goose up the "base",
i.e., the coastal portion of it, not the lifelong dems in the upper Midwest, aka the
deplorables who voted for Trump in 2016, . Hey, if they were really concerned about those
folks, they would have to address policy considerations like deindustrialization and
resulting income inequality. But they don't want to go there.
What does the dem elite really think of this new Hitler? Well, Schumer and Pelosi
recently supported giving the so called Herr Trump a massive defense spending
increase.
Just ask them, if they truly consider Trump is Hitler why would they give him those
tools?
What is "pure propaganda?" And, "anti-science?" What the hell are you talking about? A
very bizarre comment. The only thing that is clear from your comment is that you dislike
Trump.
Your response is an example of why the USA is well on its way towards a second civil
war. Civil Discourse is ending. Calling Donald Trump "Adolf Hitler" is agitprop
propaganda intended to stir up their partisans.
As you point out it is not true. The President is anti-science. He is doing his best to
try to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are banned
from using the terms "evidence-based" and "science-based". The White House is actively
dismantling science-based health and safety protections, sidelining scientific evidence,
and undoing recent progress on scientific integrity. What is slowing him down is that
these protections for human and environmental safety are written into the law and federal
regulations.
I'm trying to engage you in a substantive discussion and you are losing your mind.
Dismantling the EPA (which he has not) and NOAA (also still in place, still funded and
still operating) does not make someone "anti-science." There are some clear thinking folk
who find the these Government agencies as guilty of overreach. Opposing some of their
policies, which Trump has done, is not anti-science. Yet, you cry like a beaten dog when
challenged substantively on this and try to blame it on Trump. You are the one being
unreasonable and closed minded. Look in the mirror.
And agitprop? Seriously? The people calling Trump Hitler are anti-Trumpers who
genuinely believe what they are saying. Do you have contradictory evidence? Please
share.
"And agitprop? Seriously? The people calling Trump Hitler are anti-Trumpers who genuinely
believe what they are saying. Do you have contradictory evidence? Please share."
As stated above, a majority of the dem elite recently voted with the repubs to give
the new Hitler a significant defense spending increase. They know full well that calling
Trump the new Hitler is for the rube base come election time.
I agree though--that sort of cynical partisan sloganeering has consequences. Once the
partisan base hops on that train, it's hard to hop off. Hey, but if the dem elite score
big in November that's all that matters to the establishment, unforseen consequences be
damned.
EPA, NOAA and the CDC are regulatory agencies. There was a political decision to ban the
terms "evidence based" and "science based" in Budget documents. Neither the agencies nor
science have been destroyed. "Undoing recent progress on scientific integrity" do you
actually have any proof of that being done by Trump? The publicly available information
is that the "integrity" was rather dubious as there is increasing evidence that numerous
scientific studies can not be replicated as documentedby the NYT in 2015
VV,
And yet Trump is funding or encouraging all kinds of space exploration. However, rather
than getting into an example slinging match with you, I'll just point out that calling
Trump "anti-science" is just about right up there with calling him "Hitler". The EPA and
NOAA = the culmination of human scientific endeavor? If you don't like those agencies you
seek to destroy "science"? Come one, man. That's some intense hyperbole and confirmation
bias in action right there. Maybe he just doesn't like the EPA's negative impact on
business. Could that be it?
He's not anti-science, that's just another ridiculous bit of propaganda from the
so-called left. He is simply a businessman who is not a fan of environmental regulations,
like so many others. Doesn't have the same cost-benefit mindset that environmentalists do
because he has a different worldview.
America, the best bus builders on Earth. Why 43 years after the Vietnam war the darn
thing is just running over poor people left and left; it's almost like they have no
agency, No ability to say "no". If only our school teachers could teach individual
responsibility and initiative as well as they teach how many genders there are and which
bathroom to use. Sadly the only chance for America is new Americans who can get out of
the way of run away busses and do the jobs American Americans won't do - and vote for
politicians who won't run them over with a bus.
PT, IMO, the hardcore Democrat base has past the point of no return. They are too
invested in Trump = Hitler, etc. Their egos are on the line, their emotions. Many people
are incapable of saying "I was wrong" until they have hit rock bottom. I worry what rock
bottom might look like, but it's going to have to happen. And we can see them doubling
down in acts like Perez (DNC Chair) backing the Democratic Socialist Party candidate (aka
Crazy Eyes) in NYC. The platform - stated on line - is to abolish bail, prisons, profit
and borders. Perez says that this is the future of the party. So anyone to the right of,
say, Fidel Castro or Che Guevera is going to be "Hitler" for the foreseeable future. On
the bright side, there is a new #walkaway movement, that may be an info op, but seem to
be picking up steam. In this movement moderate democrats have found a forum in which they
agree that they have been misled and then abandon the Democrat party, never Trump
activists et al. I guess that is an opportunity to save face. Smart move by whoever set
it up.
Also, when you listen to the videos you realize it's not only moderates leaving. One
woman refers to herself as having been an SJW prior. I don't think this is entirely an
"info op" as Brandon seems very authentic. He had his awakening last year and then
eventually decided to make his video and start this movement.
OTOH, what happened between his awakening last year and the releasing of this video is
not that clear. It could well be that a conservative operative (Log Cabin Republicans) in
the gay community encouraged him. But that does not delegitimize the sentiments of the
WalkAway-ers.
I have been following the #WalkAway movement. I walked away 10 years ago and have been
fascinated by all the personal stories about the reasons they walked away. The Democratic
party is in trouble, having no message except anger and hate based on impotence followed
by socialism.
Here's the best article I found on it in case others here have not come across it yet.
It was founded by a gay man from NYC. His video is in this article.
Viral 'Walk Away' Videos Highlight Growing Movement of Democrats Leaving the Party
https://m.theepochtimes.com...
Brandon has copied some amount of the walkaway videos from their Facebook page to
YouTube. Since I don't have my own FB page (use my husband's to view family & friend
updates) I was glad he did that. There are more minorities and gays represented that you
would expect. It's not a "white movement". These videos are typically 6-10 minutes
long.
She will be the cause of an epidemic of Shrivelization of civilization, American style,
natch. As for NATO, the jury is out on whether that institution will undergo immolation
through the auspices of the Trumpster, or, if you will allow, the Trumpsterization of
that institution.
The #resist crowd just won't care about the actual facts or history in my experience
rather they function as cult. Cults shut down thinking.
As for Trump I don't care for his style at all but hoped he would be disruptive to the
deadlock of long standing narratives and he has. Lately I've been more hopeful that he is
working a plan.
Every empire has to adjust, recognize the natural limit to their power or try for
endless expansion until they collapse and die. The British did a fine job of gracefully
dismantling their empire when the US emerged after WW2. Now China is emerging and the US
can recognize a multi-polar world and carve out it's place within it or keep battling for
world dominance as the military arm of globalization. Trump vs. Clinton was clear about
which approach would be used.
Couldn't agree more, except I can't agree about the fine job. We screwed up a lot of
places when we decamped and the evidence is strewn all around. I don''t see that empire
as being some sort of big deal like say the Roman. It wasn't. Naval supremacy and our
being well ahead of the crowd with an industrial society did a lot but it didn't do as
much as all that. Maybe three quarters of the globe wasn't coloured red and the big
continental empires plus the colonial empires of other European countries weren't of
course under our rule. The Russian imperial expansion had I'd guess far more effect on
local populations; in some areas of the British Empire it could be that the locals
scarcely knew we were there. They still got caught up in the chaos we left behind.
I don't believe we can talk of an American "Empire" but we can talk of quasi-imperial
outreach. That US outreach is far more extensive and goes much deeper than in the days of
the British and other colonial empires. The military outreach is also far more extensive.
If it's true that the Americans are seeking to disengage, and one does hear that a lot,
then one hopes they are better at it. Else, as we did, they'll leave a lot of places
worse than they found them.
"Vladimir Putin has positioned himself as the leader of an
authoritarian, white-supremacist and xenophobic movement that wants to
break up the EU, weaken America's traditional alliances and undermine
democracy," Clinton said in a lecture at Trinity College Dublin, where
she received an honorary doctorate.
But I have yet to check the videos of Trinity College. Appreciating help to find the
relevant passage.
*******
More seriously what percentage of people does take the "Hitler card" still seriously
considering its overuse in the post 9/11 universe? He's 73 years dead by now.
The Putin remark starts at the 12:50 mark. Her effect seems really flat, especially when
she is talking about fond memories of previous visits and trying to muster up a bit of
empathy or passion.
This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over
the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian
techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth . It will demonstrate, contrary to official
narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not
decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the
Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured
real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers.
I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was
much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.
In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in
total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under
Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his
megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour's last year in power before handing over the reigns
to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought
against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate
of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the
EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.
Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008,
Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape
regulations. To give you an idea:
Creating a nuclear explosion
Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy
duck or Japanese knotweed
To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
Disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer
Obstructing workers from carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
Offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
Allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
A ship's captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the
International Grain Code on board
Scallop fishing without the correct boat
Breaking regulation number 10 of the 1998 Apple and Pear Grubbing Up Regulations
Selling Polish Potatoes
There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil
liberty.
One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new
legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus
and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time,
this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means
that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if
they can brand your activities as "terrorist" or "extremist." Although these laws were
ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of "far
right" and "extremist" demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.
Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn
longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to
eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to
colour-blind policing.
Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has
encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for
example, in which a man was arrested for "hate speech," then tried and made to pay a fine for
telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was
found guilty of being "grossly offensive" for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram
account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in
mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests
against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities
of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another
Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest "far right" or "extremist."
"Gaslighting" is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to
achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:
They tell blatant lies.
They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
They wear you down over time.
Their actions do not match their words.
They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
They know confusion weakens people.
They project.
They try to align people against you.
They tell you or others that you are crazy.
They tell you everyone else is a liar.
The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public
since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for
Quillette , I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.
This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the
Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on
both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive
effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This
is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence
Has Declined . In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by
44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the
continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed
their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in
police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent
crime in Sadiq Khan's London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime,
78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in
theft and 30% in child sex crime. But this story told by The Guardian – of a general
trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike
– is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.
In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being 'tough on crime, tough on the causes
of crime'. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to
comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. "New Labour" were famous for
the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr.
Blair's complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass
destruction" in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or
otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime
in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin,
needed to find a way to show on paper that their "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"
agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way
crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard' (NCRS). Up
until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and
convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to
be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people
aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show
ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are
not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it
produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:
This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the "tough on the causes of
crime" part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of
offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it
was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against
minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take
place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of
course, so-called "victimless" crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in
this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious
why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In
fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared
with numbers before 2002.
In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be
underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4
million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a
matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a
deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the
real crime rate might be. And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the
Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political
party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to
substantiate narrative against another. "Post-truth" did not start with Vladimir Putin or
Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.
However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are
somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and
Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons
library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of
the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary
for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with
the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.
In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that
either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.
The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to
62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England
and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime
convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.
Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for
persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in
keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population
growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360
offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were
8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2
million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.
For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would
have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that
overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall
convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise
in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims
through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.
If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful
comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty . As we have seen,
the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a
population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the
comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of
20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state
had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or
around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to
the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by
2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore
is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the
repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of
criminals.
It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less
personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has
become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased
coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now
behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.
People seem to mistake monarchy for a police state, unlike in a democracy a monarchy
doesn't need to pretend it's the sole ruler of the land and can therefore allow its
'subjects' more liberty in return and even has a vested interest in the well being of the
subject so that not only can they be productive but can also defend the monarch (hence be
armed) as well.
The more democratic the UK has become the more liberty it has lost.
The Rothschilds bought Reuters and UPI in the late 1800's. Jews, for centuries, have owned
most publishing houses. Freemasons used to have special books printed up for its members.
After Napoleon, Rothschild said "give me control of a nations money supply, and I care no
who sits on the thrown". The point is that (((BBC))) has been under kosher management since
its inception.
Really, perception management is about controlling those who control the others. The
Elites. And the jews have invaded London and interbred with British nobility for centuries.
These people ran British media right down to BBC for over a century, and through Judaism the
owned the British Elites.
The poor working British stiff never had a prayer. Boer War, Opium Wars, WWI, WWII, and
how many others? All to advance Judaism on behalf of Jewish owners.
England has become a police state because that is what its owners want.
It becomes clear why Boorish Johnson and Sea Hag Theresa May were desperately warning UK
football fans away from attending the World Cup. There was a risk that the carefully
constructed Russia-as-evil-empire narrative would collapse before the eyes of each fan that
made the trip. That is exactly what has been happening.
It should then come as no surprise that, as the anti-Russia narrative began to crumble,
there was a need to reanimate the novichok chimera. Note well that the Return of the Son of
Novichok incident comes not only just before the dreaded Trump-Putin summit, but also just
after the release of a certain report by Britain's parliamentary Intelligence and Security
Committee. Although the Committee's inquiry faced substantial obstruction and stonewalling,
the report was able to determine that, despite years of outright lying about it, the UK
government gleefully participated in the torture and rendition program initiated by the Dick
Cheney regime.
The leadership of every nation in Europe are globalist puppets.
The Brexit vote was 2 years ago and the British government is just now starting to work
out the details of what permissions they might negotiate with Brussels.
Sovereign nation you dipshits.
Permissions are not needed.
Our parents generation planned executed and exited WWII in 48 months.
I think The UK "became" an Orwellian state when George Orwell was writing his prescient
novels back in the 1940s. He saw then how his once great country had already fallen under the
thrall of its (((hidden satanic usury rulers))). Even the main traitor in "1984" was Emmanuel
Goldstein. Do ya think old Georgie was trying to tell us something?
Orwell was a member of the secret British spy system in Burma and saw some of the future
plans for the peeps then wrote about it as a "fictional state" of fully controlled automaton
people.
The key to creating a police state is creating the DEMAND for a police state. Allow an
influx of conflicting cultures, especially those overtly hostile, and then allow chaos to
reign. People will vote all day for a police state to restore ORDER.
Expendable...: yours is a very interesting comment.
If these carefully selected young people are the brightest and the best how come hardly
any of them fail to fall into the trap? How come so few of them realize that they are being
used? How come so few of them have any loyalty to their own nations? How come they do not
realize that what they are doing will lead to the enslavement not only of their own people
but also of themselves and their children? One must presume that they are promised wealth and
power and sell out, but Wilson, for example, never became wealthy. OTOH are even the most
intelligent among us so susceptible to indoctrination?
There must be some incredibly effective incentive, or some incredibly effective threat,
which can subvert them.
Young minds are impressionable and easily manipulated by satanic seductive coersion. Yet
both Dr Kitty Little (UK) and G Edward Griffin (US) rejected their indoctrination and EXPOSED
it publicly so no doubt others rejected it too. (But their efforts and others, are censored
by MSM).
Clearly there are many deviant personalities that are FLATTERED by their SPECIALNESS in
being an 'elite group' ABOVE the rest of us 'plebs' and some selected 'idealists' who swallow
the "end of all wars if we have a global government" meme.
Its not so surprising - look how corrupt the whole of US Congress/Senate is. Not one of
them UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. And all of them SUBMIT TO ISRAEL, and bow and scrape to
satanyahoo, and ensure Americans' good young men DIE for The Greater Israel Project (of
expansionism and supremasism).
Having no 1st Amendment right to free speech, or constitutional separation of church and
state doesn't help. Then, again, we seem to be headed down the same path, at a more leisurely
pace,
Obama has used Espionage Act more than all previous administrations
You're right. It's down to the quality of the people.
Bullshit. Once again it's the MEDIA..... working in conjunction with the
establishment/Globalists to LIE, CHEAT, DECEIVE and generally fuck everyone over.
It can't be long before someone considers taking the media 'out' in a Charlie Hebdo
fashion for they sure as hell don't deserve any support from the people. Fake news, failure
to report on issues that really effect people (child abuse), instigating unrest (Russia,
poison gas etc), unquestioning support for Government policies (pro-EU, pro-immigration etc).
And I haven't even touched on specific US-related issues..... FFS.
Yeah, the politicians have a lot to answer for but the media have NO EXCUSE for kowtowing
to these traitors let alone pushing their twisted agenda. They either get with the
'populists' uprising or they set themself up for a fall. So, all you media outlets out there
- what's it to be?
Since the Great British Empire evaporated in 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, Great
Britain wanted to be more like its bastard child America, a police state. Just ask any Brit
today if America is just "Great". The only thing left to ask the British, when will they
become America's 51st state?(That should humiliate them even more).
Decay implies weakness. The ability of the State to easily erode civil rights makes clear
that is not the case. If you describe 'politics of fear' to mean agitating the public to want
more repressive laws to feel 'safe' then you could be correct.
Allowing the true levels of crime to be known would simply expose that these more
repressive laws are not having the promised effect. Quite the opposite effect because of
other causes. You can probably figure out what they are.
I'm no Leftie, but Britain became a police state because their internal apparatus for
colonial repression had nothing to do, no one to suppress after the end of colonialism, and
more recently the end of 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland and the end of the IRA,
sontheyvturned these tools of repression on their own people which is the way Empires alwaays
die.
This is History, this is reality, this is the explanation.
The only difference from the past, that unlike the Gladiator and other memes, there is no
exile, there is no place to go to retire and wait out the bastards.
And this from the peoples that gave the world Magna Carta, brought civilization to much of
the world, ended the fascism of the National Socialist German Workers' Party of the 1930's
and did the most to end human slavery.
Sadly, you get what you vote for and there were good reasons that voting was initially a
privilege granted only to those with a stake in the outcome.
Look up Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:
I did, and as usual Ishenko takes an oblique approach that shines a light into obscure but
critical corners.
What an eye opener this one is.
Not sure how much was lost in translation, but if I understood correctly the Russians are
massing forces in the Western District, not because they fear an attack from NATO, or plan to
attack Europe but to rescue Europe from a conflagration that will be sparked in Ukraine. That
it was drifting into failed state status is well known, but that a religious war is in the
offing was utterly unknown to me, and I suspect to most others here.
That in turn shines a light on why Poland and the Baltics are begging for US/NATO troops
as well, and at least partially why US/NATO is delivering. As Ukraine drifts into chaos, its
neighbours, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing
themselves for the spillover. They have no desire to relive the decade+ blood orgy that
erupted in the middle of the 20th C centred on Ukraine (where, IMHO, the real Holocaust
happened).
Overwhelming force applied at an overwhelming pace is the best way of dealing with such an
outbreak, and the Russians are the only party able to deliver. US/NATO forces can be expected
to roar around in their APCs avoiding trouble and then claim credit in accordance with
Western military tradition. Meanwhile, the Russians will go into mopping up the
leftovers.
Makes a lot of sense if Ishchenko's read of the situation is right. It probably has a
bigger impact on Dunford's and Gerasimov's meeting than the USM "going home".
Whew!
PS: Yes, I was aware of the Russian central bank selling off its USTs. With the Petro-Yuan
and Western sanctions now in full swing, it really doesn't need $100B's worth to manage its
U$ denominated imports.
"... Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language. ..."
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
It is not "misunderstood"–it is a complete caricature which now blows into the faces
of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some exceptions
merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in
our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention
that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres,
such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian
language.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money.
Very true but they are multidimensional and only some of them are not crazy, Ralph Peters,
Max Boot or many other rabid Russophobes are genuinely mad. Enough to take a look at their
reactions and behavior, I omit here a complete military-political delirium they propagate,
which in itself a fruit of a sick imagination.
So it is both for very many of them. After the death of Richard Pipes I received
communications from person who studied under him, this person has Ph.D in history, he
describes him going completely mad, from going hi pitch in his voice, almost screaming, to
sweating profusely, once the word Russia and Russians were uttered.
The hatred of Russia was palpable. Guess what, Pipes was hailed as America's greatest
"Russia scholar". It is never one thing. Moreover, pathological lust for political power
which afflicted so many is in itself a good indication of a borderline disorder.
If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying
to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash we
are repeatedly getting.
If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying
to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash
we are repeatedly getting.
Combined West and its "electoral" and educational institutions completely stopped
production of real statesmen already in 1970s. We saw last pool of real statesmen depart the
scene with Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Current Western so called "elites" do not even
qualify for the term mediocrity. Many of then are simply degenerate such as European Greens
or American, so called, Left, albeit the nominal Right also doesn't shine with any traces of
intellect.
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of
mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money. Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike
Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid
to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. The same
applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. The
greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who wanted to loot
the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and
Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended loot.
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is,
this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have
been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive
corruption in the highest echelons of power.
Agree entirely -- a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional
and not) is a direct result of liberalism as a whole.
The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end,
Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this
in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have
suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right."
Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington
Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and
Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:
10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is
based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to
problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and
mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law
only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive
rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established
facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal
democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with
practical programs grounded in fact and reason.
Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their
status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a
permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that
globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along!
what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a
tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!
So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of
((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind
the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless
suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going
down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class
Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a
transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
They are not. Lobbing for MIC does not require to be Jewish, although many Jews are talented
propagandists. Neocons and Zionists are more closely related, with Zionists being a subset of
Neocons
The "deep state" has always existed everywhere, and always will. It's a feature, not a
bug, depending on whether its interests coincide with the people's, or not. For example, many
of the Romanovs were installed via "deep state" palace coups.
But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews"
instead?
From the article:
>Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI) leaders include former John McCain foreign policy
advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former
chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
Every. Single. Time.
Oh, and about those Brits, I found it really interesting to know that all of the Royal
Family's men are circumcised, and it's not done medically as in the USA, it's done by a
Rabbi.
_at_ Quartermaster
>done in Ukraine
That was done by the USA. One of the primary architects of it was Victoria Nuland. She's
Jewish, in case you were wondering.
But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews"
instead?
no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles
And I say worst, because at least the Jews are doing what they consider to be 'best for
the Jews', as they foment war, and loot the US treasury of billions of dollars every year to
benefit their tribe.
Whereas the Gentile neocons are serving the Jewish supremacists at the direct of their own
tribe and nation.
Scum like Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, George Will, the entire membership of the GOP in
good standing with 'conservative Inc., Paul Ryan deserves a mention of his own, John McCain
and Lindsey, and all the rest of the rotten neocon Gentiles, who're far, far worse human
beings than Max Boot or William Kristol.
this is perhaps the most contemptible man alive. (even possibly edging out McCain!)
listen how at 1:38 -- 1:42 he advocates taking out all of Syria's defenses, which would of
course lead to the utter destabilization and ultimate carving up of Syria.
what this POS doesn't mention is that he, (and Dick Cheney and other Gentile scum)
are on the strategic board of Genie Energy, which is poised to make trillions of dollars
pumping oil out of Syria's Golan Heights. Which today is universally considered Syrian
territory. But if Assad falls, then that all changes in a heartbeat.
also look at him at 51 seconds in, drooling over the planned destruction of Lebanon by the
ZUS.
here he admits that he's an investor in 'energy and national security matters'
can you imagine a rich man advocating for the slaughter of untold innocents, including
American service men and women, in order to illegally and immorally steal a nations territory
so that he could profit by it with a few shekels more?
There aren't words..
He also was part of John McCain's presidential campaign.
The Jewish neocons are babes in the woods when it comes to the raw, treasonous evil of men
like Woolsey.
All of the verbage to tell us what we already know? That the alliance between the soft
neoliberal, the media and the neocons is all about the Jewish supremacist agenda.
That is to use the might of the US against those who oppose the plan for Greater Israel to
dominate the world thru endless wars and financial manipulation.
To destroy the entire Middle East to steal land, to control the political process in ALL
the countries on Earth particularly the West.
Look at the fake media ownership, the journalists, the "comics" , the sports owners,
academia. All jewish controlled and financed.
Putin is in the way. He's lucky to be alive still.
It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of
course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies
parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all
physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live
in.
From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime
change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in
the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun.
They can and do provide
fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of
the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence
the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated -- just as it has for the last
500+ years.
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. that's why
Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains in propaganda and Hollywood movies.
To me it is all quite simple. FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and
a smaller Britain. Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government,
in my view. Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons
are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingness to realise that it could no longer
maintain the empire. This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standards became too
expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half. What a half war
accomplishes we see in Syria. Alas, seldom in history did reason rule. If it will in the
present USA, I doubt it.
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have
turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control
and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their
psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world,
but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of
this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader
they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and
dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.
Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting
individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.
"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."
And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it
existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of
the Federal Reserve.
There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the
former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool
right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then
virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.
The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver
Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made
precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white
Christian cultures and identities.
That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever
they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and
World War 2.
What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major
voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original
junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.
But the original alliance is the same.
You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon
problem without also solving the WASP problem.
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since
1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR
agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the
Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.
Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in
point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in
the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists
have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and
historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia
in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist
communists.
The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person
knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.
From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the
name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the
whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they
accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25
years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't
do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence"
budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's
their incompetence.
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading.
Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true
believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US
elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to
be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse
"righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and
bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right"
and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot
and resent being thwarted from stealing even more.
Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various
countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the
US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years,
with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents
going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about
inevitable course of history.
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best.
Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as
Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater
Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria
Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white
men), and the working class is languishing.
It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are
a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way,
profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them
that are being exploited.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world
in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and
spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey
no argument there!
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.
India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places)
are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other
vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those
respective lands.
Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other
places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their
countries are reduced to shitholes.
If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India,
then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in
America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.
As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like
Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the
typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi
Arabia, respectively.
The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal
hatred.
It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.
It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from
the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like
the last Zio-century.
That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that
gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation
behind the wars.
The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of
pure, raw, insatiable greed.
Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.
The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two
pillars of Satanic iniquity.
I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But
the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.
This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet
look at how they abase themselves
Corporate Media's About-Face on Ukraine's Neo-Nazis July 5, 2018 •
59 Comments
U.S. corporate media spent years dismissing the role of neo-Nazis in Ukraine's 2014 coup but
it is suddenly going through a conversion, as Daniel Lazare reports.
By Daniel Lazare Special to Consortium News
Last month a freelance journalist named Joshua
Cohen published an
article in The Washington Post about the Ukraine's growing neo-Nazi threat.
Despite a gratuitous swipe at Russia for allegedly exaggerating the problem (which it hasn't),
the piece was fairly accurate.
Entitled "Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown," it
said that fascists have gone on a rampage while the ruling clique in Kiev closes its eyes for
the most part and prays that the problem somehow goes away on its own.
Thus, a group calling itself C14 (for the fourteen-word ultra-right motto, "We must secure
the existence of our people and a future for white children") not only beat up a socialist
politician and celebrated Hitler's birthday by stabbing an antiwar activist, but bragged about
it on its website. Other ultra-nationalists, Cohen says, have stormed the Lvov and Kiev city
councils and "assaulted or disrupted" art exhibits, anti-fascist demos, peace and gay-rights
events, and a Victory Day parade commemorating the victory over Hitler in 1945.
Yet nothing has happened to stop this. President Petro Poroshenko could order a crackdown,
but hasn't for reasons that should be obvious. The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only
drove out former president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified
election, but tore the country in two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the
lead.
When resistance to the U.S.-backed coup
broke out in Crimea and parts of the country's largely Russian-speaking east, the base of
Yanukovych voters, civil war ensued. But because the Ukrainian army had all but collapsed, the
new, coup government had no one to rely on other than the neo-fascists who had helped propel it
to power.
So an alliance was hatched between pro-western oligarchs at the top – Forbesputs
Poroshenko's net worth at a cool $1 billion – and neo-Nazi enforcers at the bottom.
Fascists may not be popular. Indeed, Dmytro Yarosh, the fire-breathing leader of a white-power
coalition known as Right Sector, received less than one percent of the vote when he
ran for president in May 2014.
But the state is so weak and riddled with so many ultra-rightists in key positions –
Andriy Parubiy, founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine, is speaker of the
parliament, while ultra-rightist Arsen Avakov is minister of the interior – that the path
before them is clear and unobstructed. As Cohen points out, the result is government passivity
on one hand and a rising tide of ultra-right violence on the other. In the earlier stages of
the civil war, for instance, the rightwing extremists burned more than 40 people alive in a
labor union building in Odessa, a horrific incident downplayed by Western media.
Cohen's article may have Washington Post readers scratching their heads for the
simple reason that the paper has long said the opposite. Since Euromaidan, the Post
has toed the official Washington line
that Vladimir Putin has exaggerated the role of the radical right in order to discredit the
anti-Yanukovych revolt and legitimize his own alleged interference.
Sure, anti-Yanukovych forces had festooned the Kiev town hall with a white supremacist
banner, a Confederate flag , and a giant image of Stepan Bandera , a Nazi
collaborator whose forces killed thousands of Jews during the German occupation and as many as
100,000 Poles. And yes, they staged a 15,000-strong torchlight parade in Bandera's honor and
scrawled an SS symbol on a toppled
statue of Lenin. They also destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who
had fought on what Bandera supporters regard as the wrong side of World War II, that is, with
the Soviets and against the Axis.
But so-called responsible, mainstream journalists are supposed to avert their eyes to avoid
being tarred as a "
useful idiot " whom Putin supposedly employs to advance his "anti-American agenda." Ten
days after Yanukovych's departure, the Post dutifully
assured its readers that Russian reports of "hooligans and fascists" had "no basis in
reality."
A week or so later, it
said "the new government, though peppered with right-wing politicians, is led primarily by
moderate, pro-European politicians." A few weeks after that, it
described Bandera as no more than "controversial" and quoted a Kiev businessman as saying:
"The Russians want to call him a fascist, but I feel he was a hero for our country. Putin is
using him to try to divide us."
Thus, the Post and other corporate media continued to do its duty by
attacking Putin for plainly saying "the forces backing Ukraine's government in Kiev are
fascists and neo-Nazis." But who was wrong ?
The New York Times was no better. It
assailed Russia for hurling "harsh epithets" like "neo-Nazi," and
blamed the Russian leader for "scaremongering" by attributing Yanukovych's ouster to
"nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites." The Guardian 's Luke Harding
–
a leading Putin basher –
said of the far-right Svoboda Party:
"Over the past decade the party appears to have mellowed, eschewing xenophobia, academic
commentators suggest. On Monday, the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, said he had
been 'positively impressed' by Svoboda's evolution in opposition and by its behavior in the
Rada, Ukraine's parliament. 'They have demonstrated their democratic bona fides,' the
ambassador asserted."
This is the party whose founder, Oleh Tyahnybok,
said in a 2004 speech that "a Moscow-Jewish mafia" was running the Ukraine and that
Bandera's followers "fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other enemies who wanted
to take away our Ukrainian state." Had the leopard really changed its spots, according to
Pyatt? Or was it simply a matter of America not giving a damn as long as Svoboda joined the
fight to encircle Russia and advance NATO's drive to the east?
As someone named Marx once observed , "Who you gonna believe, me or your
own two eyes?" As far as Ukraine was concerned, the answer for the corporate press came from
the U.S. State Department. If Foggy Bottom said that Ukrainian neo-Nazism was a figment of
Russia's imagination, then that's what it was, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Someday, historians will look back on Euromaidan Ukraine as one of the looniest periods in
western journalism – except, of course, for all the ones that have followed. But if one
had to choose the looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the
reporting classes, it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a
1,400-word article
that ran on the Post -owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014. Four years
later, it stands as a model of how not to write about an all-important political crisis.
Cohen's Conversion
Tyahnybok: 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' is running Ukraine.
The piece begins with the usual hand-wringing about Svoboda and Right Sector and expresses
remorse that the latter still venerates the "controversial" Bandera, whose followers "fought on
the side of the Nazis from 1944 until the end of World War II." (Actually, they welcomed the
Germans from the start and, despite rocky relations with the Slav-hating Nazis, continued to
work with them throughout the occupation.)
But then it gets down to business by asserting that as bad as Ukrainian nationalists may be,
Russia is doubly worse. "Despite the substantial presence of right wing nationalists on the
Maidan during the revolution," it says, "many in Ukraine's Jewish community resent being used
by Putin in his propaganda war." The proof is an open letter signed by 21 Ukrainian Jewish
leaders asserting that the real danger was Moscow.
"We know that the political opposition consists of various groups, including some that are
nationalistic," the letter declared. "But even the most marginal of them do not demonstrate
anti-Semitism or other forms of xenophobia. And we certainly know that our very few
nationalists are well-controlled by civil society and the new Ukrainian government –
which is more than can be said for the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security
services."
This was music to Washington's ears. But if neo-Nazis are free of "anti-Semitism or other
forms of xenophobia," how does one explain the white-power symbols in the Kiev town hall? If
nationalists were "very few" in number, why did journalists need to explain them away? If
Russian security forces really encouraged neo-Nazis, where were the torchlight parades and
portraits of Bandera-like collaborators hanging from public buildings in Moscow?
The article might have noted that Josef Zissels, the Jewish community leader who organized
the letter, is a provocative figure who has long maintained close relations with Ukraine's far
right. A self-styled
Zhydobanderivets – a word that roughly translates as "Kike follower of Bandera"
– he has since infuriated other Jewish leaders by criticizing California Congressman Ro
Khanna for sending a letter to the State Department asking that pressure be brought on the
governments of Poland and Ukraine to combat Holocaust revisionism in their countries.
Forty-one Jewish leaders were so angry, in fact, that they sent out
a letter of their own thanking Khannna for his efforts, expressing "deep concern at the
rise of anti-Semitic incidents and expressions of xenophobia and intolerance, including attacks
on Roma communities," and "strongly proclaim[ing] that Mr. Iosif Zissels and the organization
VAAD do not represent the Jews of Ukraine." A Jewish community leader in Russia was so outraged
by the pro-Bandera apologetics of Zissels and a Ukrainian-Jewish oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky
that he
said he wanted to hang both men "in Dnepropetrovsk in front of the Golden Rose Synagogue
until they stop breathing."
So Foreign Policy used a highly dubious source to whitewash Ukraine's growing
neo-Nazi presence and absolve it of anti-Semitism. As crimes against the truth go, this is
surely one of the worst. But now that the problem has gotten too big for even the corporate
media to ignore, overnight muckrakers like Joshua Cohen are seeing to it that getting away with
such offenses will no longer be so easy. Before his abrupt about-face, the author of that
misleading Foreign Policy piece was Joshua Cohen.
Daniel Lazare is the author ofThe Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is
Paralyzing Democracy(Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American
politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications fromThe NationtoLe Monde Diplomatique, and his articles about the Middle East,
terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites asJacobinand The American Conservative .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
mike k , July 6, 2018 at 4:49 pm
The leaders of Israel who sell weapons to the Nazis in Ukraine, are no better than those
Nazis.
Susan Sunflower , July 6, 2018 at 1:37 pm
for those having Alice In Wonderland whiplash, yes the USA was funding the Ukranian
neonazis Azov Brigade before Congress banned the funding in March 2018.
same old "syrian playbook" wrt to enemy-of-my-memory bull .
rosemerry , July 6, 2018 at 10:12 am
The two-hour documentary "Putin" shows in an interview Pres. Putin explaining his
government's cooperating with the Western- supported Ukrainian government for four years
(because they were neighbors and had many links) which he considered normal behavior.
However, once the 2014 election brought in a more "Moscow-friendly" team to govern Ukraine,
the USA began its plans to overthrow it and we see all the consequences shown in this
article.
The tacit support given by the centre-left to the installation of the regime in Kiev
should give them cause for concern writes Frank.
Politics in the Ukraine can only be understood by reference to its history and ethnic and
cultural make-up – a make-up criss-crossed by lasting and entrenched ethnic, cultural
and political differences. The country has long been split into the northern and western
Ukraine, where Ukrainian is the official and everyday lingua franca, and the more
industrialised regions of the east and south where a mixture of Russian speaking Ukrainians
and ethnic Russians reside. Additionally, there has long been Hungarian and Romanian
settlement in the west of the country, and a particularly important Polish presence, whose
unofficial capital, Lviv, was once the Polish city of Lwow. The Russian Orthodox Church is
the predominant form of Christianity in the East, whilst in the west the Christian tradition
tends towards Roman Catholicism.
Politically the Eastern and Southern Oblasts (Regions) which includes the cities and
centres of heavy industry, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe, Nikolayev, Kherson,
Simferopol and Odessa, have tended to tilt towards Russia whilst the western regions have had
a more western orientation. This has traditionally been reflected in the electoral division
of the country. There is no party which can be considered 'national' in this respect, except
ironically, the old Communist party, which of course is now banned. The major regional
parties have been the Fatherland party of Yulia Tymoshenko (since renamed) and the former
head of government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk as well as the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the
west of the country, and the deposed Victor Yanukovich's Party of the Regions in the East
(now defunct) along with its junior partner in the coalition, the Ukrainian Communist
Party.
However, what is new since the coup in February 2014 there has been the emergence from the
shadows of ultra-nationalist (fascist) parties and movements, with both parliamentary and
extra-parliamentary (i.e.,military) wings. In the main 'Svoboda' or Freedom Party, and the
paramilitaries of 'Right Sector' (Fuhrer: Dimitry Yarosh) who spearheaded the coup in Kiev;
these have been joined or changed their names to inter alia the Radical Party, and Patriots
of the Ukraine; this in addition to the punitive right-wing militias, such as the Azov
Regiment responsible for numerous atrocities in the Don Bas.
Suffice it to say, however, that these political movements and parties did not emerge from
nowhere.
This far-right tradition has been historically very strong in the western Ukraine. The
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was first established in 1929 and brought
together, war veterans, student fraternities, far-right groups and various other disoriented
socially and political flotsam and jetsam under its banner. The OUN took its ideological
position from the writings of one, Dymtro Dontsov, who, like Mussolini had been a socialist,
and who was instrumental in creating an indigenous Ukrainian fascism based upon the usual
mish-mash of writings and theories including Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Charles
Maurras. Dontsov also translated the works of Hitler and Mussolini into Ukrainian.
The OUN was committed to ethnic purity, and relied on violence, assassination and
terrorism, not least against other Ukrainians, to achieve its goal of a totalitarian and
homogeneous nation-state. Assorted enemies and impediments to this goal were Communists,
Russians, Poles, and of course – Jews. Strongly oriented toward the Axis powers OUN
founder Evhen Konovalets (1891-1938) stated that his movement was ''waging war against mixed
marriages'', with Poles, Russians and Jews, the latter which he described as ''foes of our
national rebirth''. Indeed, rabid anti-Semitism has been a leitmotif in the history of
Ukrainian fascism, which we will return to below.
Konovelts himself was assassinated by a KGB hit-man in 1938 after which the movement split
into two wings: (OUN-m) under Andrii Melnyk and, more importantly for our purposes (OUN-b)
under Stepan Bandera. Both wings committed to a new fascist Europe. Upon the German invasion
in June 1941, the OUN-b attempted to establish a Ukrainian satellite state loyal to Nazi
Germany. Stepan Lenkavs'kyi the then chief propagandist of the OUN-b 'government' advocated
the physical destruction of Ukrainian Jewry. OUN-b's 'Prime Minister' Yaroslav Stets'ko, and
deputy to Bandera supported, ''the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing
German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the
like.''
During the early days of the rapid German advance into the Soviet Union there were some
140 pogroms in the western Ukraine claiming the lives of between 13000-35000 people
(Untermensch, in fascist terminology). In 1943-1944 OUN-b and its armed wing the Ukrainian
Insurgent Army (Ukrainska povstanska armia – UPA) carried out large scale ethnic
cleansing resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands; this was a particularly gruesome
affair in Volhynia where some 90000 Poles and thousands of Jews were murdered. The campaign
of the UPA continued well into the 1950s until it was virtually wiped out by the Soviet
forces.
It should be said that during this early period Bandera himself had been incarcerated by
the German authorities up until his release in 1944, since unlike Bandera they were not
enamoured of an independent Ukrainian state but wanted total control. Bandera was only
released at this late date since the German high command was endeavouring to build up a
pro-German Ukrainian quisling military force to hold up the remorseless advance of the Red
Army. Also pursuant to this it is also worth noting that during this period the 14th Galizian
Waffen SS Division, a military Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by Heinrich
Himmler, was formed to fight the Soviet forces, and yet another being the Nachtingal brigade;
(1) this unit was integrated into the 14th Galizian in due course. It is also interesting to
note, that every year, and up to 2014 commemoration ceremony including veterans of this unit
takes place with a march through Lviv in an evening torchlight parade – genuine Nazi
pastiche. The flag of this unit is not dissimilar to the Peugeot logo, the standing lion, and
can be seen at ultra-nationalist rallies as well as football matches involving Lviv Karparti
FC. There are also numerous statues of Bandera across Ukraine, and since the 2014 coup even
street names bearing the same name. Significantly the UPA have now received political
rehabilitation from the Kiev Junta, with Bandera declared a hero of the Ukraine and the UPA
rebranded as 'freedom fighters.' One particularly splendid statue of Bandera stands proudly
in Lviv and is usually adorned with flowers.
Other novel attractions the capital of Banderestan include 'Jewish themed restaurants' one
such is Kryivka (Hideout or Lurking Hole) where guests have a choice of dishes and whose
dinning walls are decorated with larger than life portraits of Bandera, the toilet with
Russian and Jewish anecdotes. At another Jewish themed restaurant guests are offered black
hats of the sort worn by Hasidim. The menu lists no prices for the dishes; instead, one is
required to haggle over highly inflated prices ''in the Jewish fashion''. Yes, it's all good
clean fun in Lviv. Anti-Semitism also sells. Out of 19 book vendors on the streets of central
Lviv, 16 were openly selling anti-Semitic literature. About 70% of the anti-Semitic
publications in Ukraine are being published by and educational institution called MUAP (The
Inter-Regional Academy of Personnel Management). MAUP is a large, well-connected and
increasingly powerful organization funded from outside anti-Semite sources, and also
connected to White Supremacist groups in the USA and to the David Duke, former Grand Wizard
of the Ku Klux Klan.
(It is one of the ironies of history that if the Zionists in AIPAC and the Washington
neo-con think tanks, and the Labour Party Friends of Israel, were so concerned about
anti-Semitism, they might try looking for it in Lviv. They wouldn't have to search very
far.)
Present day neo-Nazi groupings in Ukraine – Svoboda (Freedom) party and Right Sector
– have been the direct descendants from the prior ideological cesspool. Heading Svoboda
is Oleh Tyahnybok. Although these are separate organizations Tyahnybok's deputy Yuriy
Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda's official wing and neo-Nazi militias like
Right Sector. The Social-Nationalist party as it was formerly known chose as its logo an
amended version of the Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many SS divisions on the Eastern front
during the war who in 2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ''they fought
against the Muscovite, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian
state.'' And further that ''Ukraine was ruled by a Muscovite-Jewish mafia.'' Tyahnybok came
under pressure from the then President, Yuschenko, to retract his inflammatory statements,
which he did, but he then retracted the retraction!
Given the fact that Svoboda was, apart from its stamping grounds in the west, making
little national electoral headway, it was essential to clean up its image and deny its Nazi
past. But this was always going to be difficult since the members of such groups cannot help
the unscripted outbursts and faux pas which they tend to make and which reveals their true
colours. For example, following the conviction and sentencing of John Demjanjuk to five years
in jail for his role as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at the Sobibor death
camp, Tyahnybok travelled to Germany and met up with Demjanjuk's lawyer, presenting the death
camp guard as a hero, a victim of persecution ''who is fighting for truth''.
And so it goes on. We can therefore infer that this organization is inveterate fascist. More
disturbing Svoboda has links with the so-called Alliance of National European Movements,
which includes: Nationaldemokraterna of Sweden, Front Nationale of France, Fiamma Tricolore
in Italy, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Belgian National Front. More importantly Svoboda held
several ministerial portfolios in the Kiev administration, and Right Sector swaggers around
Kiev streets with impunity, and/or are being drafted into a National Guard to deal with the
separatist movements in the east, or to beat down anyone who doesn't conform to their Ayran
racial and political ideals.
One would have thought that this mutating revolution in the Ukraine would have drawn
attention of the centre-left to the fact that fascism had gained a vital beachhead in Europe,
and that the danger signals should be flashing. But not a bit of it; a perusal of the
Guardian newspaper quickly reveals that their chief concern has been with a non-existent
'Russian threat'. One of their reporters – or old friend, Luke Harding -described Right
Sector as an ''eccentric group of people with unpleasant right-wing views.'' Priceless! This
must rank as the political understatement of the century. In fact, the Guardian was simply
reiterating the US-imposed neo-conservative foreign policy. But naturally, this is par for
the course.
(1) The Nachtingal brigade, which was later incorporated into the SS Galizien, took part
in a three-day massacre of the Jewish population of Lvov (now Lviv) from 30 June 1941. Roman
Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtingal and later, in 1943, became commander of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the "Banderivtsy", or UPA/UIA[5] ), armed henchmen of the fascist
Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought both Nazis and Communists.
Members of the division are also accused of having murdered some 800 residents of the Polish
village of Huta Pieniacka and 44 civilians in the village of Ch?aniów.
Paolo , July 6, 2018 at 7:11 am
Just for the record: the Ukrainians hailed the Nazis as liberators after the Soviets had
let millions of Ukrainians die of hunger in the thirties, a sort of "genocide" that goes
under the name of Holodomor and has officially been recognized by western Parlaments only a
few decades ago. In eastern Ukraine there were no more inhabitants after the Holodomor, and
the Russians imported hundreds of thousand peasants from Russia to get agriculture working
again.
The problems of Ukraine are so deep that fomenting regime change there was a most idiotic
thing to do. Sooner or later the problems will explode, and it will be tough shit. Whoever
helped this regime change should be locked up in some high security jail as far as
possible.
Garrett Connelly , July 6, 2018 at 9:52 am
The big lie is 180° opposite of reality repeated over and over using free corporate
propaganda.
vinnieoh , July 5, 2018 at 3:15 pm
Still scratching my head at the electric last line of Mr. Lazare's piece. I'm mean, I'm
used to "official" organs like WaPo and NYT publishing whatever narrative is most helpful to
whatever pieces are being moved on the chessboard, but for the same "freelance journalist" to
have written both the earlier Foreign Policy piece and the recent WaPo piece is a puzzle to
me.
Does Joshua Cohen just write stuff that goes with the flow (at any particular moment) and
has a good chance of being published (and consequently of himself being paid)?
Or did this
person really have an epiphany, and the scales fell from his eyes? I suspect a third
explanation though what that may be eludes me. One thing is for sure, as a Trump/Putin
meeting gets closer, expect more false "official" narratives concerning both Ukraine and
Syria.
'The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only drove out former president Viktor
Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified election, but tore the country in
two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the lead But if one had to choose the
looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the reporting classes,
it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a 1,400-word
article that ran on the Post-owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014.'
Here's the thing though: however weird it may sound, there actually DOES seem to exist
some sort of tacit alliance between (some, not all) Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Even if their
ultimate goals are completely at odds–the Nazis hate the EU, but the Jews mostly want
to join it–they nearly always seem to work together against Russia. It has even been
maintained that the Azov Battalion (one of the all-volunteer Neo-Nazi militias fighting
against the Donbass rebels) was entirely financed for a time by Jewish oligarch Ihor
Kholomoisky, at least until he did something to piss Poroshenko off and got sacked from his
post as governor of Dniepropetrovsk. And in the beginning, Jews who tried to point out that
Neo-Nazi groups were involved in overthrowing Yanukovych, like Dr. Stephen Cohen, were
roundly denounced a 'Russia apologists' just for stating facts.
But now that Washington's whole Ukraine project has gone south, I guess the Nazis, having
outlived their usefulness, are, as usual, to be the fall-guys and take all the blame.
Anna , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm
yeh, the Kaganat of Nuland has many veils.
The most stunning aspect of the banderite putsch in Kiev was the dead silence of nazi-hunters
from Wiesenthal Center, the always oh-so-sensitive ADL, the main 52 (fifty-two!) American
Jewish organizations, and the overall docility and compliance of the "righteous" Israel with
the banderite-neo-Nazi ideology by Kagans-selected power structures in Ukraine.
Mr. Kolomojsky, a financier of neo-nazi battalion Azov, is still an Israeli citizen.
Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, the main machinator of the regime change in Kiev, has not been ostracized
by the Jewish Community at large.
The deeply amoral and bloodthirsty Carl Gerschman from NED, who has been the main cheerleader
for the putsch and for the installing the banderite-friendly government in Kiev, has not been
ostracized by the Jewish Community at large either. What a stench!
https://medium.com/@gmochannel/us-staged-a-coup-in-ukraine-brief-history-and-facts-898c6d0007d6
Pft , July 5, 2018 at 9:07 pm
Yeah. The prime minister and many of the top oligarchs are Jewish. Relations between
Ukraine and Israel seem quite good despite the UNSC vote that the US abstained on regarding
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, perhaps reminded by Stalin doing the same to them in
the 1920's.
As for relations with the neo nazis I remember before WWII that Zionists in Palestine
cooperated with Nazis who sent German Jews to Palestine in return for the purchase of German
goods which were being boycotted by Jews in the west
I suspect most Americans don't know Ukrainian history. The early years of Bolshevik rule
were quite brutal and over 10 million rural Christians lost their lives in Ukraine over their
policies .Solzhenitsyn 200 years can shed some light on the roots of the anti-Semitism among
the peasants that developed in the 20's-30's and no doubt has been passed on.
Robert , July 6, 2018 at 4:24 pm
I've thought about this myself and have concluded that a fair number of Jewish
organizations and institutions in the Ukraine were receiving a small portion of the US State
Department funding allocated to the Ukraine each year of $200-250 million, totaling $5
billion since 1992. In return for this rather small (by US standards) outlay to a broad
spectrum of NGOs, private educational and religious institutions, and political groups, the
US purchased an enormous amount of influence. Most of the members of these groups were
unaware of this US support, as the funds were funneled through individual leaders who were
tasked to influence opinion, organize demonstrations and petitions, and write letters to the
press and government members. Scholarships to the US and Canada were offered to promising
youth to ensure continuity of support. For this reason, most Jewish and other groups
operating in Ukraine have, until recently and only with reluctance, been willing to deviate
from the official US "story". Thus, they knowingly (at least as far as their leadership was
concerned) supported an overtly US-led neo-Nazi coup.
mike , July 5, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Makes sense that Josh Cohen is a former U.S. Agency for International Development project
officer involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union. Isn't that
really what this is all about? Putin gets elected and takes charge of the economy, jailing
corrupt oligarchs and putting the kibosh on said reform projects sponsored by us in care of
Jeffrey Sachs et al. As Russia tries to reassert its sovereignty the US gets miffed and
retaliates.
The Electronic Intifada has just posted an article by Asa Winstanley detailing how Israel,
among others, has been supplying the Ukrainian Azov Battalion with military arms. It's well
worth reading.
The next time you hear a pro-Israel mouthpiece sounding off about purported antisemitism
in the British Labour Party, or in pro-Palestinine activist circles in the U.S., invite them
to consider Israel's policy -- and that of the U.S. as well as friendly European states -- of
direct military sponsorship of textbook Nazism in Ukraine. Jews are being menaced and beaten
in the streets of Kiev by armed bands who celebrate their historical persecution, while thugs
like Avigdor Lieberman sit cordially with officials representing that regime. But then, such
warm relations between Zionists and anti-Semites is an old story.
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm
Interesting. Anyone with two brains to rub together knows that the US, to the best of it's
ability, has been surrounding Russia with compliant right wing governments, usually
dictators, but we've gotten better at manipulating elections to get reliable puppet
government. The bad news is that it is a full time job to stay on top of that.
It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of
course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies
parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all
physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live
in. From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime
change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in
the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun. They can and do provide
fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of
the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence
the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated – just as it has for the
last 500+ years.
irina , July 5, 2018 at 2:06 pm
It's not just the media. The late night talk show hosts are doing their bit too, as I
heard
last night on a Jimmy Kimmel rerun (of a recent show). Can't remember the context as
I was doing the dishes, but did hear him say the usual "Russian illegally annexed Crimea"
standard phrase, immediately followed by "and then invaded Ukraine". The latter just
casually tossed off as a given. People hear these memes constantly repeated and,
regardless of their veracity (suspect to say the least) it becomes part of their
worldview.
Who is behind the political preaching of hosts like Jimmy Kimmel ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm
You know what irina, seeing these late night talk shows go all crazy over Putin makes me
think of the Zio-Media executives, and where their allegiance to power resides. Joe
Devil's Advocate , July 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm
I would assume you'd have to look at who owns the media source in question. Kimmel's show
is on ABC, which is partly owned by Disney. Follow the money chain of those 2 parent
companies, and you have your answer.
irina – I quite agree. The same is true of the former Daily Show crew members who
now have their own shows. Several have shown themselves to be quite the little imperialist
war mongers when it comes to gleefully repeating the CIA sponsored Syrian regime change and
Russiagate propaganda. Samantha Bee & John Oliver kept triggering my gag reflex with
their propaganda lines until I found a simple but effective solution and stopped watching
them altogether. We have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the U.S. One can
chose to either get one's "pro-war regime change propaganda" delivered with barely concealed
racism and misogyny from Fox News, or instead opt for hearing the same nonsense delivered
with pretentious blather and catchy jazz interludes at PBS. American democracy is all about
having "choices."
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 7:57 pm
I quite agree. I knew the minute that they started calling RT a propaganda outlet that, in
fact, the USG was running a full scale propaganda operation. I don't know if I simply wasn't
paying enough attention or if they have, in fact ramped the operation up, but I can hardly
read any MSM outlet's output without calling bullshit on it.
irina , July 6, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jimmy Kimmel actually used to be funny and there is a really good clip
(somewhere on youtube no doubt) of him reading a 'doctored' Dr. Seuss
book to The Donald (a live guest) during his primary candidacy.
But since The Donald's election Kimmel has opened almost every show
with 'ten minutes hate' segment on The Donald. I still watch (or at least
listen) occasionally because I want to know what is being fed to The Public.
You are absolutely right though, "we have an amazingly seamless propaganda
system here in the US". The average person maybe has 30 minutes to
devote to the news, between getting home and having dinner; they watch
some sort of news show and think they are 'informed'. But it actually takes
MANY hours and a knowledge of alternative websites to even begin to piece
together an approximation of what might, in reality, be going on.
The Russians used to say that, at least they knew they were being propagandized.
Unfortunately, probably due to 'American Exceptionalism', most Americans think
the MSM is bringing them 'the truth'. But nothing could be further from The Truth.
Peter H , July 6, 2018 at 10:41 am
I can't count the number of times I've had to turn off Colbert's Late Show for his
Russian/Putin bashing BS. So disappointing. That's a rule in my house now. The first mention
of Russia and off it goes.
Drew Hunkins , July 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Likewise, the corporate militarist-Zio media should eventually have to concede someday
that the current Syrian "rebels" are little more than ruthless sociopathic
Saudi-Zio-Washington intel agency supported mercenary terrorists.
Folks in the know knew very early on that much of the Kiev putschists and violent invaders
of Eastern Ukraine were neo-Nazi types bent on eradicating the last vestiges of Russian
social and ethnic solidarity.
It's really truly remarkable when one steps back to think about it all. These are the
depraved groups the crypto-fascists, the Wall Street militarist imperialists, and Zionists
have embedded themselves with: bloodthirsty Takfiri mercenary terrorists and neo-Nazis.
Bob Van Noy , July 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Each time I see an article like this I'm reminded of the videos of Zbigniew Brzezinski's
early meetings with the Mujahideen and his manipulation of cultures on The Grand Chessboard
or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" a totally absurd assumption and the natural outcome
of that absurdity, is blowback which this article again addresses. Our "boots on the ground"
end up paying the price of this kind of supposed intellectualism. Shameful. Thank you Drew
Hunkins.
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm
Bob the old saying if I got right is the company you keep is what you become. We have
truly loss our way, and Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the biggest reasons we have become the
predators of this dying green earth. All this for the profit, as all mankind must yield to
the power of the dollar. Sad. Joe
MBeaver , July 6, 2018 at 5:03 am
One would think we had learned from Vietnam. Instead the "peace loving" liberals do
everything to destabilize whole region for nothing and then send soldiers in who die for
their messed up agenda.
JWalters , July 5, 2018 at 7:16 pm
It is truly remarkable. A lot of the behind-the-scenes magic is explained in "War
Profiteers and Israel's Bank" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
.
The second neoliberalization of Argentina turned into second financial crash. Brazil is probably next. And Argentina and Brazil
were two contires in which neoliberal staged a counterrevolution after financial crisi of 2008.
The IMF is back in Argentina: "an economic and social crisis, even more serious than the present one, looms large on the horizon"
1. The vicious circle of illegitimate debt grapples the Argentine people once again
2. IMF's $ 50 billion loan surpasses Greece's previous record
Sergio Ferrari from Berne, Switzerland interviewed Eric Toussaint, international debt specialist
After more than a decade of Argentina's official "distance" from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Mauricio Macri's government
has just knocked on the doors of the world's financial police. The $ 50 billion credit granted by the organization during the first
week of June sets an international record and will directly impact the economic and social situation of this South American country.
Eric Toussaint, Belgian historian and economist, an eminent specialist in this field and spokesperson for the Committee for the Abolition
of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), based in Brussels, pointed this out. Interview follows. Q: Why did the Argentine government turn
to the IMF , in full view of Argentina's
relations with this international organization in the late 1990s and their dire political consequences? Is the financial top brass
of the Macri team despairing?
Eric Toussaint (ET): Since the Mauricio Macri government assumed office in December 2015, its policies have led to a critical
situation. Sharp reduction in export taxes have brought down tax revenues, the debt servicing expenditure has been significantly
increased (100% higher in 2018 than in 2017). The country is running out of dollars. Currency reserves fell by $ 8 billion earlier
this year. Macri needs this IMF loan to continue debt servicing. Private international lenders require such a loan as a prerequisite
for continued credit to Argentina. A very large chunk of the IMF loan will be used directly to repay foreign creditors in dollars.
Q: If we look at the Argentine history of the 1990s, this seems to be a scheme of playing with fire
ET: Yes, of course. But I would like to further explore the background of this appeal to the IMF
Q- Please go ahead!
ET: This shows that the government's policy is an abject failure: with a peso that devalued fast; with the
interest rate set at a high 40% by the Argentine Republic's
Central Bank ; with the $ 8 billion reduction in international reserves
that keep declining. And with a debt service that has increased by
100% compared to 2017. Faced with a balance sheet of such a nature,
undoubtedly it is a total failure. Macri claimed that a high growth level and a viable debt would be ensured by paying the debt –
between end-2015 and early-2016 – and by compensating the
vulture funds , in keeping with Judge Thomas Griesa's
verdict. He knelt before the vulture funds (see:
http://www.cadtm.org/Reject-the-Imminent-Agreement-with
). But the facts confirm that this plan did not work. Debt rose at a whirling pace and it's startling to see how fast it snowballed.
As a result, it became impossible to convince the creditors that Argentina could repay its debt in the future. That's why Macri is
asking for this $ 50 billion credit. We must remember that when Greece received $ 30 billion from the IMF in 2010 in the backdrop
of a dramatic situation, it was a record amount!
Q: Some analysts say that President Macri is trying to breathe in some fresh air with the help of this loan, before commanding
a comfortable position in the October 2019 elections.
ET: I would not like to engage in farfetched political speculations. I prefer facts. I have read the contents of the agreement
signed with the IMF and it has imposed a severe reduction in general social benefits and wages of the public servants. Public investment
will be almost wiped out and it will lead to an economic depression. Debt repayment will increase and the IMF charges high
interest rates . The government will impose taxes with elevated
rates on the public to repay the debt, while continuing to hand out fiscal perks to the capitalists. The government will encourage
the export of the maximum number of agricultural products and raw materials to the global market by reinforcing the extractivist-exporting
model. IMF's policy will lead the country to an economic and social crisis even more serious than what it suffered before this loan
was sanctioned. Let's go back to your question. It is very likely that, politically, Macri will claim that what he is doing is not
his project, but what the IMF demands from him.
Q: This brings us back to a not-so-distant past and I would like to highlight that: the decade of indebtedness and the IMF's
role in the 1990s that eventually led to the social outburst of 2001. Can history repeat itself without tragedy?
ET: History is repeating itself in a country that is a serial debt payer. It started with the illegitimate and odious debt inherited
from the military dictatorship of the 1970s. IMF's support was crucial for this dictatorship to continue until the early 1980s. The
vicious circle of illegitimate debts persisted during the 1990s with President Carlos Menem followed by Fernando De la Rúa. Their
allegiance to the IMF's recommendations led to the great social crisis of late 2001. President Rodríguez Saá, in his few days or
Presidency at end-2001, announced the suspension of debt repayment to allay popular anger. The debt was restructured in 2005, then
re-negotiated with creditors who had not participated before. It caused a crisis in the government and evoked sharp criticism from
the people (see the section on Argentina here
http://www.cadtm.org/Restructuration-Audit-Suspension,11723
). Former minister Roberto Lavagna, who had negotiated the 2005 restructuring, objected to negotiations with outsider creditors.
The Argentine authorities never wanted to do what Ecuador did in 2007-2008: to carry out a debt audit with citizens' participation,
which could have defined the odious and illegitimate part of the debt (see:
http://www.cadtm.org/Video-The-Ecuador-debt-audit-a
and http://www.cadtm.org/Vulture-funds-are-the-vanguard
). This, along with the inconsistency of the Cristina Fernandez government's national sovereignty discourse, frustrated people. This
partly explains Macri's electoral victory in 2015.
Q: A course over several decades where illegitimate debts condition government policies without ever finding structural solutions
ET: Yes. And that led today to this new mega-loan from the IMF. From now on, it can be included in the category of odious and
illegitimate debts. An odious debt is a debt contracted against the people's interests, and the creditors know that it is illegitimate.
Evidently a new illegitimate and odious debt is taking shape.
Q: What about future prospects?
ET: I have already spoken about the deteriorating economic and social crisis. I hope for a strong popular reaction in the coming
months. I also hope that the popular forces will not take too long to consolidate their strength to oppose even more vigorously the
Macri government and the pressures of the IMF and other international creditors.
If we assume that this is true: "Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely
poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental
incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun
far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia."
Then Ukrainian armed forces should drastically improve after several years of fighting.
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were. ..."
"... Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2... ..."
If the Obama administration ordered Ukraine not to fight for Crimea on the assumption they could force Russia to give
it back via sanctions, they miscalculated badly.
The Russians believe Crimea rightfully belongs to them and they saw control of it as vital to their national security. There
were some serious shenanigans going on in Kiev, which the Russians interpreted as an American engineered coup. The Russians reacted
to what they believed was a major threat to their national security. The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider
how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were.
There is no way the Russians will ever give up Crimea, especially under pressure from the US, NATO and the EU. No Russian politician
could do that and hope to survive. Besides, the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to endure suffering and hardships
much greater than the capacity of Western nations to endure and the sanctions showed that Russia was far less vulnerable to pressure
than Western politicians assumed.
Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time
2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by
Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching
military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia.
SurfaceBook •
4 hours ago I disagree with mr kerber's assesment on Crimean ops being the largest air assault in history. Operation Market
Garden in WW2 was the largest Air assault involving divisions of paratroopers from US/UK/Poland into german occupied drop zones
(in conjuction with a land assault forcing it's way to Arnhem).
One other curiousity , Washington 'ordered' Ukraine ? a sovereign nation under orders ? just who is in charge of ukraine at
that time ? see more
To answer your question: Victoria Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs during the Obama administration.
In other words, she was the American proconsul for Eastern Europe.
Bottom line? "The Fog of War".........All these scenarios mean nothing after the first "shot" is fired. If any US "enemy" cannot
crush US air power they are finished from the gitgo. Not a fan of our foreign policies but we can "crush" the enemy; we just can't
"rule" them.
Would really like to hear the other side. Where does he get his information from? The Ukrainians? All this Russia-is-evil-and-scheming-to-do-more-evil
is ... slightly over the top. I don't say it's impossible that Russian regular troops have been involved in Donbas but he makes
it sound like Unternehmen Zitadelle
IMHO, beware taking too many lessons away from this conflict. The Ukranian's don't have anything close to the SEAD/DEAD/EW/airpower
capability of the US. What worked against their aviation won't necessarily work against ours. Once mid-high altitude air defenses
are down, enemy jammers will have a short lifespan.
His comments that even light infantry should have the means to get away when under attack, and sufficient armor to counter
attack point to the inadequacies of Army IBCTs (Infantry, not "Interim").
IMHO, IBCTs should have 100% vehicular mobility, and have the option of attaching an independent tank battalion. Cobbling together
random HMMWVs from div/corps just seems silly. Make vehicles part of the core TOE.
see more
You are assuming that we are working within our own timeline. Yes with enough time and blood, we can peal back their defense
network with airpower. The question is, who buys us that time?
Russians (and the Chinese) ground forces trained to fight in contested airspace. The US Army assumes we have it.
Sol, Thanks for posting the link and asking for discussion. One thing that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
is how much of this is being shared with the PLA and worse the DPRK? They are pretty smart and probility can figure lots of this
out on their own. Is there any PLA observers up front with the RuFA or exchanging TTPs in an AAR? Or professional papers and presentations
at staff school level or higher? I am just a grunt and red leg, but how does the EW and fires part impact the navy? A step is
being taken:
http://soldiersystems.net/2... I wonder when this is part of OPFOR at NTC or 29 Palms?
see more
NO! thank you for sharing !!!!! this is like getting a seat at the Army War College and getting to hear what is never shared
with the troops or the public.
to be honest what i heard in that video was downright shocking. i won't say scary cause i won't be facing that shit but if
i was i'd be beyond concerned.
to answer your question you can bet your last dollar that the Chinese are getting briefings on this. you can bet that they're
not only studying the above vid but getting info from the subject matter experts in Russia.
this guy is senior but i would so love to hear an assessment of Marine Corps chances if war were to break out in Norway or
surrounding countries (we still have the flank). how would a Marine Expeditionary Brigade standup to those type tactics. we're
talking about a lighter formation than the US Army equivalent but with integrated air.
oh and a side note. as much as i think the US Army and Marine Corps would be in a hurtlocker can you imagine what would happen
to any of our European allies if they were somehow isolated and attacked?
my only regret about this whole thing is that i wanted to sit back and drink in serious conversation about this video. instead
i'm getting the usual trolling. i can tolerate that on the majority of subjects i cover here but this one is different. i wanted
to hear from serious individuals doing serious thinking about what the Dr presented.
such is life. if you run across anything else PLEASE send it. i find this fascinating!
he slide at 12.44 is also interesting it shows Russia's "desire" for "friendly relations" with the west and its neighbours.
But i guess like in the cold war there is no shortage of naives that think that Russia understands anything else but sanctions
or force. see more
Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely
to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable
tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2...
My conclusions -- Western/ US allies/Nato armies will need to have:
- integrated air defence at every level from platoon to regimental.(manpads, spaag,
- mass fire/steel rain capabilities cheap and heavy MLRS also MLRS launched antiradiation missiles)
the israelis launched AGM Shrikes with boosters from trucks to target Syrian Radars
- Field Army EW sigint/elint/jamming/defense capabilities
- EW munitions (currently russia has tube artillery launched jammers don't know about the US or NATO)
- Small and light SPGs like the Gvozdika
Whilst I agree Russia does tend to export it's kit extensively. Also some of the potential uses such as GPS jamming drones, could
be more than merely inconvenient on very small budgets.
Yes neoliberalism is deeply predatory. Still is survives as a social system for let's say 40 years (1987-2017) and probably will
survive another 20-30 years. And what is coming might be worse. If Trump signify turn to "national neoliberalism" the next
step from it might some kind of neofascism.
Notable quotes:
"... But financialization didn't just have a direct cost -- no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who'd blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked out of the sails of the "real economy", as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does create value -- teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these people -- those in the "real economy" -- began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren't built -- all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was growing at the heart of the economy -- but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were indeed about to all go south at once -- only no one knew understood how or why yet. ..."
"... The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were "offshored." That's a polite way to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact -- and send jobs there. That way, you wouldn't have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies, even -- you could make everything in that one sweatshop. ..."
"... We're used to thinking that offshoring "took" jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler -- and more ruinous. They blew apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang effect happened. ..."
"... Managers began stripping away benefits of every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the "at-will job" and the "zero-hours contract" were created -- social contracts that were only "jobs" in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility, or opportunity. People who didn't have benefits could now be fired on a whim -- and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk of what, precisely? ..."
"... Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south, who'd take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety ..."
"... So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks -- but didn't "restructure" them, which is to say, fire their managers, wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them ..."
"... What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism: austerity. ..."
"... The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government -- after all, the speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat, by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investing dollars back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did just the opposite. ..."
"... It's the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability -- who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy, the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless. ..."
"... Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic ..."
How did we get here? To a world where the forces of intolerance and indecency are on the rise, and those of decency, wisdom, and
civilization are waning? Is something like a new Dark Age falling?
I think it has everything to do with predatory capitalism, and so I want to tell you a story. Of how it came to be born, in four
steps, which span three decades.
During the 2000s, the economy of the rich world underwent something like a phase transition. It became "financialized", as the
jargon goes -- which simply means that finance came to make up a greater and greater share of the economy. Hedge funds and investment
banks and shady financial vehicles of all kinds went from a modest portion of the economy, to making up a huge chunk of it -- around
half, in some countries.
Now, what was "financialization" for? What were all these bankers, hedge fund managers, investors, and so on, doing? The answer
is: nothing. Nothing of value, anyways. They were simply placing bets with each other. Bets on bets on bets, meta-bets. Economists,
who have something like an inferiority complex, envious of swashbuckling bankers, bought their marketing pitch hog, line, and sinker:
"we're going to reduce risk! Everyone will benefit!" But no such thing was happening -- and anyone could see it. Risk was being
massively amplified, in fact, because every time a speculator made a billion dollar bet with another, they were both betting with
the same pool of money, essentially. Whose money? It wasn't theirs -- it was everyone's. Pensions, savings, bank accounts, earnings,
retirement funds. All that being bet on bets on bets on bets which amounted to nothing. But what if all the bets went south at once?
First, I want you to really understand that what was happening was a zero-sum game, where one had to lose for another to win.
Imagine there are three of us, in a little stone age tribe, with a hundred pebbles each. We spend all day every day finding new ways
to lend pebbles to each other, to bet them on who'll blink first, or even bets on those bets, and so on. In our little economy, does
anyone ever end up better off? Does anyone, for example, discover antibiotics, or even invent the wheel? Nope. We're just fools,
who'll never accomplish, learn, or create anything, sitting around playing a zero-sum game, in which no real value is ever created.
The pebbles never become anything more valuable, like, for example, books, symphonies, knowledge, or medicine. All that is exactly
what was happening during the phase of financialization.
But financialization didn't just have a direct cost -- no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who'd
blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked
out of the sails of the "real economy", as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does
create value -- teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more
money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these
people -- those in the "real economy" -- began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren't built
-- all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was
growing at the heart of the economy -- but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were
indeed about to all go south at once -- only no one knew understood how or why yet.
How was the real economy to survive, then? Another hidden effect of financialization was super-concentration -- the second force
in the rise of predatory capitalism. Mom-and-pop capitalism is a healthy and beautiful thing, an economy of a million little shops,
bakeries, artisans -- but it takes only a modest attachment to a profit motive. But thanks to the rise of massive, global speculation,
only aggressive quarterly profit-maximization was allowed. CEO earnings were hitched to share prices, and your share price only went
up if your earnings did, relentlessly, illogicaly, crazily, every single quarter, instead of stabilizing at a happy, gentle amount
-- and so the only way left, in the end, to achieve it, was to build titanic monopolies, which could squeeze people for every dime.
Once the economy had Macy's, JC Penney, K-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Sears. Now it has Walmart. The story was repeated across every single
industry. Amazon, Google, Apple. A new age of monopoly arose.
But monopolies had an effect, too. The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly
known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were "offshored." That's a polite way
to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as
possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact -- and send jobs there.
That way, you wouldn't have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies,
even -- you could make everything in that one sweatshop.
We're used to thinking that offshoring "took" jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler -- and more ruinous. They blew
apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang
effect happened. The machine discovered that it could do in rich countries what it had done in poor ones -- and so it began stripping
away everything that made a job "a job." Because the economy was increasingly composed of monopolies, giant companies, banks, and
investors had the power to do so with impunity. Speculators began raiding pension funds. Managers began stripping away benefits of
every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the "at-will job" and the "zero-hours
contract" were created -- social contracts that were only "jobs" in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility,
or opportunity. People who didn't have benefits could now be fired on a whim -- and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk
of what, precisely?
Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come
full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south,
who'd take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety, all those people for whom "a job" now meant something
more like "a temporary soul-crushing way to avoid destitution." They're the ones who'd be fired, instantly, lose what little savings
they had, have their already dwindling incomes slashed, be ruined.
And then the bets went bad. As bets tend to do, when you make too many of them, on foolish things. What had the speculators been
betting with each other on? As it turns out, largely on property prices. But people without the stable jobs that had kept such a
huge property bubble going didn't have growing incomes anymore. Property prices couldn't keep rising. Bang! The financial system
fell like a row of dominoes. It turned out that everyone had bet property prices would go on rising -- and on the other side of
that bet was everyone else. All of them had been betting on the same thing -- "we all bet prices will keep rising forever!" The
losses were so vast, and so widespread, that the whole global financial system buckled. The banks didn't have the money to pay each
other for these foolish bets -- how could they have? Each one had bet the whole house on the same thing, and they all would have
gone bankrupt to each other. LOL -- do you see the fatal stupidity of it all yet?
So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks -- but didn't "restructure" them, which is to say, fire their managers,
wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them -- and took those bad bets onto
the nation's books, instead. It was the most foolish decision since the Great Depression. Why?
Well, now governments had trillions in -- pow! -- sudden debt. What were they to do? How would they pay it off? Now, you might
think that Presidents are very intelligent people, but unfortunately, they are just politicians. And so instead of doing what they
should have done -- printing money, simply cancelling each others' debts to each other, which were for fictional speculation anyways
-- they decided that they were "broke". Bankrupt, even -- even though a country can't go bankrupt, anymore than you could if you
could print your own currency at home, and spend it everywhere.
What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare
systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism:
austerity.
But people's incomes were already dwindling, thanks to the first three steps -- as jobs not just disappeared in quantity, but
also imploded in quality, as monopolies grew in power, and as pointless, destructive, zero-sum speculation sucked the life out of
the real economy. The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government -- after all, the
speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat,
by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investing dollars
back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did
just the opposite.
Snap! Economies broke like twigs. The people formerly known as the middle class had been caught in between the pincers of these
four forces -- financialization, monopoly, the implosion of the job, and austerity. Together, they shattered what was left of rich
economies -- to the point that today, incomes are stagnant across the rich world, even in much vaunted Scandinavia, while living
standards are falling in many rich countries, like the US and UK.
What do people do as hardship begins to bite -- especially those who expected comfortable, easy lives? They become reactionary,
lashing out violently. They seek safety in the arms of demagogues. That doesn't mean, as American pundits naively think, that "poor
people become authoritarians!" Quite the opposite.
It's the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected
and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability -- who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy,
the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless.
That gap between expectation and reality is what ruinous. They retain a desperate need to be atop a hierarchy, to be above someone,
the entitled imploded middles -- and what has happened in history, time and again, is that they turn to those who promise them
just that superiority, by turning on those below them. Even if, especially if, it is in the extreme, irrational, yet perfectly logical
form of supremacy and dominion over the weak, the despised, and the impure.
And that is what all today's reactionary, extremist movements --
which I call the Faction --
really are. Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic -- ultrauthoritarianism,
theosupremacism, kleptofascism, neofeudalism, biodominionism, hatriarchy, technotalitarianism, novel and lethal forms of ruin for
a new dark age.
And so here we are, you and I. On the cusp of that age. A time where the shadows in human hearts shine as black and blinding as
midnight. And once again, it is the folly and hubris of wise men that led us here.
"Five signers were captured by the
British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary
army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary
War.
These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation
owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty
could be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home
and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags." "What really happened?"
------------
I had a lot of ancestors in that war, some Continentals, some militia. One man in Boston raised his own regiment of militia at
his own expense. He commanded it throughout the war. A lot of these soldiers were old broke down grunts by the end, They made new
lives for themselves. I revere their memory. pl
"All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could
be death if they were captured."
They were men of character. They were willing to lose everything for their convictions and beliefs. These are men to be revered.
Thank you Col. Lang for remembering them.
IMO, as a people we no longer have this character. We have allowed big & bigger government over the decades who have usurped
our sovereignty and essential liberty through mass surveillance, civil forfeiture, state secrets doctrine as the cornerstone of
deceit, and now the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence for domestic political purposes.
These were indeed hard and principled men. I offer the example of one of the founding fathers of my hometown. Gideon Hotchkiss
was a new light Puritan receiving a commission as an ensign in a Waterbury militia company in November 1756. He was at Saratoga
in August 1757 when he wrote home about "the melancholy news of our upper fort" referring to the loss of Fort William Henry and
the ensuing massacre. In July 1758 he took part in the battle of Fort Carillon as a lieutenant. He served another year as a captain
in 1760 along with two of his sons.
Leading up to the War of Independence, he served on the local committee of inspection. He sent two sons and a grandson to serve
in the war and organized a troop of light horse cavalry to respond to British incursions such as the raids on Woodbridge and Danbury.
After the fall harvests were completed, his company of veterans served through the winter months when they were most needed.
Once while working in his fields, he heard the sound of battle to the south. He mounted his horse and, along with a servant
boy, rode to meet the British at Westville, north of New Haven. His servant was struck by a cannon ball. Gideon placed the boy's
body in a concealed place, sent his horse back to his farm and joined the battle. This was the British raid on New Haven in July
1779. He was sixty-three years old at the time.
After the War, he was appointed deacon of the church of Columbia Parish, now Prospect. One of his many sons became a Methodist
minister. This Puritan deacon first disowned his son, but he soon forgave and embraced him. One of Gideon's descendants moved
to the Shenandoah Valley. He was Jedediah Hotchkiss, cartographer and staff officer to General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.
Speaking of the signers, only three lived to see America's 50th Anniversary. Thomas Jefferson was unable to attend a reunion organized
by the mayor of Washington, and this article provides the full text of his letter of RSVP.
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal
of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and
to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded
exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. these are grounds of hope for others."
End Quote
It also cites this list of Jefferson quotes on the right to bear arms:
The Americans are treating this like some kind of random event, as if the Fascist monster
somehow happened to get awakaned from its cave by a seismic rumble, to then by accident
stumble into the US Republic for another round of fighting. The unfortunate reality of your
economic system, which refuses to give people their freedom of land, refuses to have laws
against limitless concentration of wealth, is that power will slowly but surely centralize,
until you either are a tirannical class society, or until you have another war that
overthrows the ownership structure to restart the problem from an earlier position, or until
you finally learn what freedom means.
It's not an accident, the Fascist monster didn't get awakened by chance: the problem is
within you, within your own heads, within your laws, in your beliefs, as the consequence of
your system. You are the enemy you fight, even if you don't seem to realize it, and therefore
it is your destiny to experience what the Roman Republic always ultimately becomes.
The Roman Republic falls into dictatorship, into Fascism and war, Empire, mass looting of
external and internal peoples. Your weakness and your ignorance is the strength of the
Fascist system. If you mended with weakness, Fascism would melt as if it never existed. If
you don't, it will overtake and destroy you.
I'm a conservative and a Constitutionalists. I support capitalism and free markets. That
being said, I'm impressed at least one leftist talking head got a good definition for
fascism. The problem is, modern day socialism is also the merging of government and
corporations, with violence used against political opposition.
So, who are the "fascists"? The people that want to be left free in a Constitutional
Republic, or the redshirt ANTIFA that cause violence against conservatives and want the
government to merge with corporations under the guise of "redistribution"?
It sounds to me, through cultural Marxism, the left has bamboozled an entire generation of
ignorant kids that will regurgitate whatever they are told.
Henry Wallace was right he said that fascist called them selfs patriots but hate everything
the us ever stood for they say they love the west yet they hate democracy.
Trump has already deceived his middle class voter. I see Trump as a fascist. Organizations
like Freedom Works, American's for Prosperity, State Policy Network, American's for Tax
Reform, ALEC, if you look at their literature you see that there objective is to turn the
average person against their own government and their own best interests. The 5 Republican
Supreme Court Justices put forth Citizens United in convoluted rhetoric to say that
CORPORATIONS are PERSONS. These justices cemented corporate rule in America unbeknownst the
American Public this hideous act put forth by Citizens United. Supreme Court Justices are not
above the law and on this act should be disbarred, and removed from office. The charge under
the U.S. Conspiracy Fraud Statute, through corporate outside influence manifest the
alteration of the functioning of our government against its own citizens. (Example, the Koch
Brothers, orchestrating the shutdown of the peoples government, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the
House their gofer in Congress.)
Part I:
Commercial Paper Market Seizure turns Banks into their
own Vulture Investors
This article appeared in
AToL
on November 27, 2007
Vulture restructuring is a purging cure for a
malignant debt cancer. The reckoning of systemic debt presents regulators with a choice of facing the cancer
frontally and honestly by excising the invasive malignancy immediately or let it metastasize over the entire
financial system over the painful course of several quarters or even years and decades by feeding it with more
dilapidating debt.
But the strategy of being your own vulture started
with Goldman Sachs, the star Wall Street firm known for its prowess in alternative asset management, producing
spectacular profits by manipulating debt coming and going amid unfathomable market anomalies and contradictions
during years of liquidity boom. The alternative asset management industry deals with active, dynamic
investments in derivative asset classes other than standard equity or fixed income products. Alternative
investments can include hedge funds, private equity, special purpose vehicles, managed futures, currency
arbitrage and other structured finance products. Counterbalancing opposite risks in mutually canceling paired
speculative positions to achieve gains from neutralized risk exposure is the basic logic for hedged fund
investments.
Hedge Funds
The wide spread in return on investment
between hedge funds and mutual funds is primarily due to differences in trading strategies. One fundamental
difference is that hedge funds deploy dynamic trading strategies to profit from arbitraging price anomalies
caused by market inefficiencies independent of market movements whereas mutual funds employ a static
buy-and-hold strategy to profit from economic growth. An important operational difference is the use of
leverage. Hedge funds typically leverage their informed stakes by margining their positions and hedging their
risk exposure through the use of short sales, or counter-positions in convergence or divergent pairs. In
contrast, the use of leverage is often limited if not entirely restricted for mutual funds.
The classic model of hedge funds
developed by Alfred Winslow Jones (1910-1989) takes long and short positions in equities simultaneously to
limit exposures to volatility in the stock market. Jones, Australian-born, Harvard and Columbia educated
sociologist turned financial journalist, came upon a key insight that one could combine two opposing investment
positions: buying stocks and selling short paired stocks, each position by itself being risky and speculative,
but when properly combined would result in a conservative portfolio that could yield market-neutral outsized
gains with leverage. The realization that one could couple opposing speculative plays to achieve conservative
ends was the most important step in the development of hedged funds.
The
Credit Guns of August
Yet the credit guns of August 2007 did
not spare Goldman's high-flying hedge funds. Goldman, the biggest
US
investment bank by market value, saw its Global Equity Opportunities Fund suffer a 28% decline with assets
dropping by $1.4 billion to $3.6 billion in the first week of August as the fund's computerized quantitative
investment strategies fumbled over sudden sharp declines in stock prices worldwide.
The Standard & Poor's 500 Index, a
measure of large-capitalization stocks, fell 44.4 points or 2.96% on August 9. On August 14, the S&P 500 fell
another 26.38 points or 1.83%, followed by another fall of 19.84 points to 1,370.50 or 1.39% on August 15,
totaling 9.4% from its record high reached on July 19, but still substantially higher than its low of 801
reached on
March 11, 2003
.
Goldman explained the setback in Global
Equity Opportunities in a statement: "Across most sectors, there has been an increase in overlapping trades, a
surge in volatility and an increase in correlations. These factors have combined to challenge many of the
trading algorithms used in quantitative strategies. We believe the current values that the market is assigning
to the assets underlying various funds represent a discount that is not supported by the fundamentals." The
statement is a conceptual stretch of the meaning of "fundamentals" which Goldman defines as value marked to
model based on a liquidity boom rather than marked to market, even as the model has been rendered dysfunctional
by the reality of a liquidity bust.
The market value in mid August of two
other Goldman funds: Global Alpha and North American Equity Opportunities also suffered big losses. Global
Alpha fell 27% in the year-to-date period, with half of the decline occurring in the first week of August.
North American Equity Opportunities, which started the year with about $767 million in assets, was down more
than 15% through July 27. The losses had been magnified by high leverage employed by the funds' trading
strategies. Goldman said both risk-taking and leverage in these two funds had since been reduced by 75% to cut
future losses. Similarly, leverage employed by Global Equity Opportunities had been reduced to 3.5 times equity
from 6 times. The three funds together normally managed about $10 billion of assets.
Feeding
on One's Own Death Flesh
Facing pending losses, Goldman Chairman
Lloyd Blankfein was reported to have posed a question to his distraught fund managers: if a similar distress
opportunity such as Goldman's own Global Equity Opportunities presented itself in the open market outside of
Goldman, would Goldman invest in it as a vulture deal. The answer was a resounding yes. Thus the strategy of
feeding on one's own dead flesh to survive, if not to profit, took form.
Goldman would moderate its pending
losses by profiting as vulture investor in its own distressed funds. The loss from one pocket would flow into
another pocket as gains that, with a bit of luck, could produce spectacular net profit in the long run if the
abnormally high valuations could be manipulated to hold, or the staying power from new capital injection could
allow the fund to ride out the temporary sharp fall in market value. It was the ultimate hedge: profiting from
one's own distress. The success of the strategy depends on whether the losses are in fact caused by temporary
anomalies rather than fundamental adjustment. Otherwise, it would be throwing good money after bad.
The Fed
Held Firm on Inflation Bias
The Fed, in its Tuesday, August 7 Fed
Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, defied market expectation and decided against lowering interest rates
with a bias against growth and focused instead on inflation threats. In response, the S&P 500 index, with
profit margin at 9% against a historical average of 6%, fell 44.4 points or 2.96% to 1,427 on August 9. The Dow
Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) dropped 387 points to 13,504 on the same day, even as the Federal Reserve
pumped $62 billion of new liquidity into the banking system to help relieve seizure in the debt market.
On the following Monday, August 13,
Goldman announced it would injected $2 billion of new equity from its own funds into its floundering Global
Equity Opportunities fund, along with another $1 billion from big-ticket investors, including CV Starr & Co.,
controlled by former American International Group (AIG) chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, California real
estate developer Eli Broad who helped found SunAmerica and later sold it to AIG, and hedge fund Perry Capital
LLC, which is run by Richard Perry, a former Goldman Sachs equity trader.
The new equity injection was intended
to help shore up the long/short equity fund, which was down almost 30% in the previous week, to keep the fund
from forced sales of assets at drastic discount long enough for markets to stabilize and for the fund to get
out of the tricky leveraged bets it took before the credit markets went haywire in mid August. Global Equity
"suffered significantly" as global markets sold off on worries about debt defaults credit draught, dragging the
perceived value of its assets down to $3.6 billion, from about $5 billion.
Goldman chief financial officer David
Viniair on a conference call with analysts was emphatic that the move was not a rescue but to capture "a good
opportunity". After more than a week of panic over the disorderly state of global capital markets, Goldman
Sachs pulled a kicking live rabbit magically out of its distressed asset hat.
On a conference call to discuss the
additional equity investment in the $3.6 billion Global Equity Opportunities fund, Goldman executives insisted
the move would not add to moral hazard (encouraging expectations that lead investors to take more risk than
they otherwise might because they expect to be bailed out), but would merely reflect the firm's belief that the
value of the fund's underlying assets was out of whack with "fundamentals" and that sooner or later the losses
would be recouped when an orderly market returns.
"We believe the current values that the
market is assigning to the assets underlying various funds represent a discount that is not supported by the
fundamentals," Goldman explained in a statement. A day later, on August 14, the S&P 500 fell another 26.38
points or 1.83%, followed by another fall of 19.84 points or 1.39% on August 15, notwithstanding that a chorus
of respected voices were assuring the public that the sub-prime mortgage crisis had been contained and would
not spread to the entire financial system.
But Goldman did not inject more equity
into two of its other funds: Global Alpha and North American Equity Opportunities that had also suffered sharp
losses. Goldman said it was reducing leverage in the funds, a process that was mostly complete, but added that
it was not unwinding Global Alpha, down 27% this year through August 13, about half of that in the previous
week alone. Unlike Global Equity Opportunities, Goldman did not bolster its Global Alpha quantitative fund.
Investors had reportedly asked to withdraw $1.6 billion, leaving Global Alpha with about $6.8 billion in assets
after forced liquidation to pay the withdrawals.
Ireland
registered Global Alpha, originally seeded in 1995 with just $10 million and returned 140% in its first full
year of operation, was started by Mark Carhart and Raymond Iwanowski, young students of finance professor
Eugene Fama of the
University
of
Chicago
.
Fama's concept of efficient markets is based on his portfolio theory which states that rational investors will
use diversification to optimize their portfolios based on precise pricing of risky assets.
Global Alpha soon became the Rolls
Royce of a fleet of alternative investment vehicles that returned over 48% before fees annually. Hedge funds
usually charge management fees of up to 2% of assets under management and 20% of investment gains as incentive
fees. Global Alpha fees soared to $739 million in first quarter of 2006, from $131 million just a year earlier
and boosted earnings rise at the blue-chip Goldman Sachs by 64% to $2.48 billion, the biggest 2006
first-quarter gain of any major Wall Street firm. Goldman is one of the world's largest hedge fund managers,
with $29.5 billion in assets under management in an industry that oversees $2.7 trillion globally. Goldman
reported in October 2006 that its asset management and securities services division produced $485 million, or
21% of its $2.36 billion in pretax profit for the fiscal third quarter.
For 2006, Global Alpha dropped 11.6%
through the end of November and end up dropping 9% for the year yet still generating over $700 million in fees
from earlier quarters. That was the first annual decline in seven years and followed an almost 40% gain for all
of 2005. The fund took a hit misjudging the direction of global stock and currency markets, specifically that
the Norwegian krone and Japanese yen would decline against the dollar. Global Alpha lost money partly on
wrong-way bets that equities in
Japan
would
rise, stocks in the rest of
Asia
and the
US
would fall and the dollar would strengthen. Before August 2007, the fund had lost almost 10% on wrong bet in
global bond markets.
Goldman's smaller $600 million North
American Equity Opportunities fund had also hit rough waters, losing 15% this year. There was real danger of a
rush of redemptions from nervous investors that would force the funds to sell securities in a market that had
all but seized up, forcing down asset prices to fire sale levels. Global Equity Opportunities investors were
entitled to pull their money monthly with a 15-day warning, meaning notices for Aug. 31 were due on August 16.
Global Alpha investors could redeem quarterly, and certain share classes also must notify the fund by the week
of August 13.
Hedge funds are private, largely
unregulated pools of capital whose managers command largely unrestricted authority to buy or sell any assets
within the bounds of their disclosed strategies and participate in gains but not losses from investment. The
industry has been growing over 20% annually due to its above-market performance. Still, Carhart and Iwanowski,
both in their early forties, had not been able to take any of their 20% incentive fees since Global Alpha fell
from its 2006 peak. They would have to make good about 60% of their previous incentive fees from profit, if
any, in future quarters before they could resume taking a cut of the fund's future gains.
The Fed
Wavered
By August 16, the DJIA fell way below
13,000 to an intraday low of 12,445, losing 1,212 points from its 13,657 close on August 8. The next day,
August 17, the Fed while keeping the Fed Funds rate target unchanged at 5.25%, lowered the Discount Rate by 50
basis points to 5.75%, reducing the gap from the conventional 100 basis points by half to 50 basis points and
changed the rules for access by banks to the Fed discount window.
In an accompanying statement, the Fed
said: "To promote the restoration of orderly conditions in financial markets, the Federal Reserve Board
approved temporary changes to its primary credit discount window facility. The Board approved a 50 basis point
reduction in the primary credit rate to 5-3/4 percent, to narrow the spread between the primary credit rate and
the Federal Open Market Committee's target federal funds rate to 50 basis points. The Board is also announcing
a change to the Reserve Banks' usual practices to allow the provision of term financing for as long as 30 days,
renewable by the borrower. These changes will remain in place until the Federal Reserve determines that market
liquidity has improved materially. These changes are designed to provide depositories with greater assurance
about the cost and availability of funding. The Federal Reserve will continue to accept a broad range of
collateral for discount window loans, including home mortgages and related assets. Existing collateral margins
will be maintained. In taking this action, the Board approved the requests submitted by the Boards of Directors
of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and
San Francisco
."
The Fed
Panicked
A month later, on September 18,
brushing aside a DJIA closing at a respectable 13,403 the day before even in the face of poor employment data
for August, the Fed panicked over the unemployment data and lowered both the Fed Funds rate target and the
Discount Rate each by 50 basis points to 4.75% and 5.25% respectively. The rate cuts gave the DJIA a continuous
rally for 9 consecutive days that ended on October 1 at 14,087. Obviously, the Fed knew something ominous about
the credit market that was not reflected in the DJIA index.
The Global Equity Opportunities fund,
now with about $6.6 billion in asset value, was using six times leverage before the capital infusion. Like many
other managers, Goldman was experiencing the same problems with its so-called quantitative funds. Quant funds
use computerized models to make opportunistic investment decisions on minute statistic disparities in asset
prices caused by market inefficiency. When the short-term credit market seized up, the quant models turned
dysfunctional.
Funds caught with significant losses in
credit and bond investments had to sell stock holdings to lower the risks profile of their overall portfolios,
and the herd selling in the stock market magnified the price shift in a downward spiral. Stocks that were held
long fell in price, and stocks that were held short rose, exacerbating losses.
Opacity
Fueled Market Rumors
As required, quant fund managers have
been disclosing losses to investors but they are not required to disclose to the market. The opacity fueled the
rumor mill. Renaissance Technology's $26 billion institutional equities fund was reportedly down 7% for the
year. Some of the funds Applied Quantitative Research (AQR) managed were down as well, as were quant funds at
Tykhe Capital, Highbridge Capital and D.E. Shaw (of which Lehman now owns 20%).
Vulture
Opportunities in Distressed Funds
At Goldman, quant funds made up half of
the $151 billion of alternative investments under management, and half of which was the sort of long-short
equity quant funds that had been having trouble. But Goldman executives began to see opportunities in
distressed funds. The highly respected AQR was raking in new funds to invest in distressed situations, as were
other astute fund managers. AQR is an investment management firm employing a disciplined multi-asset, global
research process, with investment products provided through a limited set of collective investment vehicles and
separate accounts that deploy all or a subset of AQR's investment strategies. These investment products span
from aggressive high volatility market-neutral hedge funds, to low volatility benchmark-driven traditional
products. AQR's founder is
Clifford S. Asness, a
Goldman alumni where he was Director of Quantitative Research for the Asset Management Division responsible for
building quantitative models to add value in global equity, fixed income and currency markets.
H
e
was another of Fama's students at the
University
of
Chicago
.
Goldman was putting its own money down
alongside that of select outside investors, an expression of its faith in the fund's ability to recoup. The
situation differed from that of Bear Stearns which had to loan $1.6 billion to bail out one of two internal
hedge funds that had big problems with exposure to mortgage-related securities.
The
First Wave of Warnings
Goldman, one of the world's premiere
financial companies, had joined Bear Stearns and
France
's
BNP Paribas in revealing that its hedge funds had been hit by the credit market crisis. Bear Stearns earlier in
the summer disclosed that two of its multibillion dollar hedge funds were wiped out because of wrong bets on
mortgage-backed securities. BNP Paribas announced a few weeks later it would freeze three funds invested in US
asset-backed securities.
The assets of the two troubled Bear
Stearns hedge funds had been battered by turmoil in the credit market linked to sub-prime mortgage securities.
On
Jun 20, 2007
, $850 million of the funds' assets held as
collateral was sold at greatly discounted prices by their creditor, Merrill Lynch & Co. The assets sold
included mortgage-backed securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO) and credit default swaps
(CDS). JP Morgan, another Bear Stearns creditor, had also planned an auction for some of the collateralized
assets of the Bear Stearns funds, but cancelled the auction to negotiate directly with the Bear Stearns funds
to unwind positions via private transactions to avoid setting a market price occasioned by market seizure.
The two Bear Stearns funds: High-Grade
Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund and High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund, run by
mortgage veteran Ralph Cioffi, were facing shut-down as the rescue plans fell apart. The funds had slumped in
the first four months of 2007 as the subprime mortgage market went against their positions and investors began
asking for their money back. The High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund sold roughly
$4 billion of subprime mortgage-backed securities in mid June, selling its highest-rated and most heavily
traded securities first to raise cash to meet redemption requests from investors and margin calls from
creditors, leaving the riskier, lower-rated assets in its portfolio that had difficulty finding buyers.
Collateral Debt Obligation Crisis
CDOs are illiquid assets that normally
trade only infrequently as institutional investor had not intended to trade such securities. Demand for them
is not strong even in normal times. In a credit crunch, demand became extremely weak. Sellers typically give
investors one or two days to price the assets and bid in order to get the best price. Bid lists were now sent
out for execution within roughly an hour, which was unusual and suggested that sellers were keen to sell the
assets quickly at any price.
Bear Stearns' High-Grade Structured
Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund sold close to $4 billion worth of AAA and AA rated securities. The
fund was started less than a year ago with $600 million in assets, but used leverage to expand its holdings to
more than $6 billion. But subprime mortgage trades that went wrong left the fund down 23% in the first four
months of 2007. The fund was selling its highest-rated and most tradable securities first to raise cash to meet
expected redemption requests and margin calls. Buyers were found for the bonds but the fund still had to retain
lower-rated subprime mortgage-based securities which had triggered its losses earlier in the year.
Bear Stearns was highly leveraged in an
illiquid market and was faced with the prospect that its funds were going to start getting margin calls so it
tried to sell ahead of being in the worst spot possible. Subprime mortgages were offered at low initial rates
to home buyers with blemished credit ratings who could not carry the adjusted payments if and when rates rise.
This was not a problem as long as prices for houses continued to rise, allowing the lenders to shift loan
repayment assurance from the borrower's income to the rising value of the collateral. Thus subprime mortgages
lenders were not particularly concerned about borrower income for they were merely using home buyers as needed
intermediaries to profit from the debt–driven housing boom. This strategy worked until the debt balloon burst.
Rising delinquencies and defaults in this once-booming part of the mortgage market had triggered a credit
crunch earlier in the year that left several lenders bankrupt. Many hedge funds had generated big gains for
several years on this unstainable liquidity boom. The premature bears who shorted the market repeated lost
money as the Fed continued to feed the debt balloon to sustain the unsustainable.
As delinquencies and foreclosures rose
finally, losses first hit the riskiest tranches of subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The losses were
subsequently transmitted to collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which invested in the higher-rated tranches
of subprime MBS that did not have an active market since they were bought by institutions with the intention to
hold until maturity. Such securities were super safe as long as their ratings remain high.
Hedge funds have become big
credit-market players in recent years, and many firms trade the riskiest tranches of subprime MBS and
higher-rated CDOs tranches to profit from the return spread. While some funds, such those managed by Cheyne
Capital and Cambridge Place Investment Management, had suffered sudden losses, some hedge funds made handsome
gains in February 2007 betting that a subprime mortgage crisis would hit.
As the number of market participants
increased and the packaging of the CDO became more exoteric over the liquidity boom years, it became impossible
to know who were holding the "toxic" tranches and how precisely the losses would spread, since the risk profile
of each tranche would be affected by the default rates of other tranches. The difficulty in identifying the
precise locations of risk exposure caused a sharp rise in perceived risk exposure system wide. This sudden risk
aversion led to rating downgrades of the high-rated tranches, forcing their holders to sell into a market with
few buyers.
The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, which monitors risk in the banking system, tracks bank holdings of MBS, but not specific tranches
of CDOs. It has no information on which bank holds CDOs and how much, since such instruments are held by the
finance subsidiaries of bank holding companies, off the balance sheets of banks. Asian investors, particularly
those in
Japan
, had been eager to seek
off-shore assets yielding more than the near zero or even negative interest rates offered at home. Many
Japanese as well as foreign investors participated in currency "carry trade" to arbitrage interest rate spreads
between the Japanese yen and other higher interest rate currencies and assets denominated in dollars, fueling a
liquidity boom in US markets. The
US
trade
deficit fed the
US
capital account surplus as
the surplus trade partners found that they could not convert the dollars they earned from export to the
US
into local currencies without suffering undesirable rise in money supply.
The trade surplus dollars went into the
US
credit market.
The growth of CDOs has been explosive
during the past decade. In 1995, there were hardly any. By 2006, more than $500 billion worth was issued. About
40% of CDO collateral was residential MBS, with three quarters in subprime and home-equity loans, and the rest
in high-rated prime home loans. CDOs became an important part of the mortgage market because their issuers also
bought the riskier tranches of MBS that others investors shunned. The high-rated tranches of MBS were sold
easily to pension funds and insurers. But the ultra-high rated tranches paid such low returns because of their
perceived safety that few buyers were interested, forcing the banks which structured them to hold them
themselves. The issuers often hold the more riskier tranches to sell at later dates for profit when the value
of the collateral rose with rising home prices. But when the riskier tranches could not be sold as home prices
fell and mortgage default rose, the higher rating tranches suffered rating drops and institutional buyers were
prevented by regulation to hold the ones they had bought and from buying new ones. When the ultra safe
tranches held by banks are downgraded, banks are forced to writedown their value. With CDOs withdrawing from
the residential MBS market, mortgage lenders were unable to sell the loans they had originated for new funds to
finance new mortgages.
The chain of derivative structures that
turns home loans into CDOs begins when a mortgage is packaged together with other mortgages into an MBS. The
MBS is then sliced up into different CDO tranches that pay on a range of interest rates tied to risk levels.
Mortgage payments go first to the highest-rated tranches with the lowest interest rates. The remaining funds
then flows down to the next risky tranches until all are paid. The riskiest CDO tranches get paid last, but
they offer the highest interest rates to attract investor with strong risk appetite.
In theory, all trenches have the same
risk/return ratio. As the liquidity boom has gone on for years with the help of the Fed, historical data would
suggest that risks of default should be minimal. Yet when losses actually occurred from unanticipated mortgage
defaults and foreclosures, the riskiest tranches were hit first, while the top-rated tranches were hit last.
But until losses occurred, the riskier tranches got the higher returns. Over the years, the riskier tranches
generated big profit for hedge funds when the risks did not materialize to overwhelm the high returns. The
problem was that the profitability drove new issues of MBS at a faster pace than maturing MBS, with the number
and amount of outstanding securities getting bigger with each passing year, exposing investors to aggregate
risk higher than the accumulated gains. Because of the complexity and opacity of the CDO market, institutional
investors were not alerted by rating agencies of the fact that their individual safety actually caused a sharp
rise in systemic risk. They felt comfortable as long as assets they acquired were rated AAA and deemed
bankruptcy-remote, not realizing the system might seize up some Wednesday morning. That Wednesday came on
August 15, 2007
.
CDOs, a cross between an investment
fund and an asset-backed security (ABS), perform this slicing process of risk/reward unbundling repeatedly to
keep money recycling and money supply growing in the mortgage market. While CDOs lubricate the credit market to
make more home financing affordable to more home buyers, it raises the price of home and its financing cost
beyond the carrying capability of almost all home buyers when the bursting of the debt bubble resets interest
rates to normal levels, making a rising default rate inevitable.
Hedge funds are attracted by the high
returns offered by the lowest-rated tranches of subprime MBS undbubled by CDOs, the so-called equity tranches
which sink underwater as home prices fall. Many hedge funds arbitrage the wide return spread with low-cost
funds borrowed in the commercial paper market and magnify the return with high leverage through bank loans.
They often hedge against risk by holding derivatives that are expected to rise in value when housing prices
fall, such as interest rate swaps. They also hedge against defaults with credit default swaps. These hedges
failed when risk was re-priced by the market at rollover time for short-term securities which could be every 30
days.
CDOs
and Commercial Paper
Much of the money used to buy CDOs come
form the commercial paper market. Commercial paper consists of short-term, unsecured promissary notes issued
primarily by financial and non-financial corporations. Maturities range up to 270 days but average about 30
days. Many companies use commercial paper to raise cash needed for current transactions, and many find it to be
a lower-cost alternative to bank loans. Financial companies use high-rated CDO tranches as collateral to back
their commercial paper issues.
Because commercial paper maturities do
not exceed nine months and proceeds typically are used only for current transactions, the notes are exempt from
registration as securities with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Large institutions have long managed
their short-term cash needs by buying and selling securities in the money market since the early 1970's. Today,
a broad array of domestic and foreign investors uses these versatile, short-term securities to help to make the
money market the largest, most efficient credit market in the world driving assets from $4 billion in 1975 to
more than $1.8 trillion today. This money market is a fixed income market, similar to the bond market. The
major difference being that the money market specializes in very short term debt securities.
The money market is a securities market
dealing in short-term debt and monetary instruments. Money market instruments are forms of debt that mature in
less than one year and are very liquid but traded only high denominations. The easiest way for individual
investor to gain access is through money market mutual funds, or sometimes through a money market bank account.
These accounts and funds pool together the assets of thousands of investors and buy the money market securities
on their behalf.
Borrowing short-term money from banks
is often a labored and uneasy situation for many corporations. Their desire to avoid banks as much as they can
has led to the popularity of commercial paper. For the most part, commercial paper is a very safe investment
because the financial situation of a large company can easily be predicted over a few months. Furthermore,
typically only companies with high credit ratings and credit worthiness issue commercial paper and over the
past 35 years there have only been a handful of cases where corporations defaulted on their commercial paper
repayment.
ABCP
Conduits
Asset backed commercial paper (ABCP) is
a device used by banks to get operating assets, such as trade receivables, funded by the issuance of
securities. Traditionally, banks devised ABCP conduits as a device to put their current asset credits off their
balance sheets and yet provide liquidity support to their clients. Conduits raise money by selling short-term
debt and using the proceeds to invest in assets with longer maturities, like mortgage-backed bonds. Conduits
typically have guarantees from banks, which promise to lend them money up to the amount of the SIVs the banks
structure.
A bank with a client whose working
capital needs are funded by the bank can release the regulatory capital that is locked in this credit asset by
setting up a conduit, essentially a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that issues commercial paper, such as the
ones used by Enron that led to its downfall. The conduit will buy the receivables of the client and get the
same funded by issuance of commercial paper. The bank will be required to provide some liquidity support to the
conduit, as it is practically impossible to match the maturities of the commercial paper to the realization of
trade receivables. Thus, the credit asset is moved off the balance sheet giving the bank a regulatory relief.
Depending upon whether the bank provides full or partial liquidity support to the conduit, ABCP can be either
fully supported or partly supported.
ABCP conduits are virtual subsets of
the parent bank. If the bank provides full liquidity support to the conduit, for regulatory purposes, the
liquidity support given by the bank may be treated as a direct credit substitute in which case the assets held
by the conduit are aggregated with those of the bank. ABCP conduits are also set up large issuers that are not
banks.
The key weakness in the entire credit
superstructure lies in the practice by intermediaries of credit to borrow short term to finance long term. This
term carry is magical in an expanding economy when the gap between short term and long term credit is narrower
than gains from long term asset appreciation. But in a contracting economy, it can be a fatal scenario,
particularly if falls in short term rates raise the credit rating requirement of the short term borrower,
putting previously qualified loans in technical default. Securities that face difficulty in rolling over at
maturity are known as "toxic" in the trade.
Lethal
Derivatives
The credit default swap market is a
microcosm of investor confidence. Credit default swaps are insurance for bad debt. Insured creditors are
compensated by the seller of the insurance if a debtor defaults on a loan. When the threat of default rises in
the market, the insurance premium rises, just as Katrina boosted hurricane insurance premium. This is known in
the business as re-pricing of risk. The cost of credit default swaps written on investment banks such as Bear
Stearns and Goldman Sachs and on commercial banks such as Citibank have soared in the past few months amid
worries that troubles in the subprime-mortgage market and the leveraged-buyout market could leave them with
massive loan defaults. The financial industry tracks mortgage-linked securities via the ABX index, which
calculates the prices of a basket of assets backed by subprime loans.
The ongoing crisis in the
US
housing market has pushed the ABX, a key mortgage-linked derivatives index,
to new lows, threatening to unleash a further bout of credit market upheaval. Price swing in the ABX can
reduce the value of ultra-safe credit instruments that carried high credit ratings, forcing banks and other
regulated investors to make further large write-downs on their credit market holdings, on top of the huge
losses several major
US
and foreign banks
suffered from credit turmoil that began in August.
As the
US
mortgages market deteriorates, financial sector losses will accumulate.
Secondary market price movements indicate that losses on mortgage inventory are likely to be larger in coming
quarters. Before July, the part of the ABX index that tracks AAA debt was trading almost at face value.
However, in the last three weeks in October, it has fallen sharply due to downgrades by credit rating agencies
and continuing bad data from the housing sector.
As a result, the so-called ABX 07-1
index – which tracks AAA mortgage bonds originated in the first half of this year – fell to a record low close
of 79 on October 30, meaning that traders reckon these bonds are worth only 79 cents on the dollar. The ABX
"BBB" 07-1 index measures the performance of loans made during the second half of 2006, when many home purchase
loans were made to buyers with shaky credit standings. The index traded around 44, or 44 cents on a dollar,
nearly its weakest level ever.
The swing is creating real pain for
investors, since in recent years numerous firms have created trading strategies which have loaded large debt
levels onto these "safe" securities, precisely because these instruments were not expected to fluctuate in
price. Investors normally hold such "safe" securities to maturity thus there is no demand for a ready market
for them. But as the credit rating of these securities falls, investor cannot find buyer for them at any
reasonable price. The last week in October saw the worst falls in the ABX market this year, especially higher
up the capital structure with highly rated debt.
Pension funds and insurance companies
hold the less risky, senior CDO tranches because regulatory rules restrict them from investing in lower-rated
securities. When the low-rated tranches default in large numbers, the high-rated tranches lose rating and these
regulated institutions are forced to sell their non-conforming holdings into a market with few buyers.
Pension funds, insurance companies and
university endowment funds have also invested in hedge funds that hold the riskier CDO tranches to get higher
returns. In recent years, CDO issuance has exploded and many hedge funds have been buying the riskiest
tranches of MBS that are backed by subprime loans. Mortgages closed by
4 pm
New York
time were sent electronically to back-office locations in
India
to be packaged into CDO tranches and resent electronically to
New York
at
9:30 am
the next day to be sold
in the credit market, generating huge fees and profits for Wall Street firms every day.
Rating
Agencies Under Pressure
Moody's Investors Services, an
influential rating agency, warned in late July that defaults and downgrades of subprime MBS could have "severe"
consequences for CDOs that invested heavily in the sector. CDOs that Moody's rated from 2003 to 2006 had 45%
exposure to subprime MBS on average. But that varied widely from almost zero to 90% with recent CDOs having the
high concentrations of such collateral, the potential downgrade for which could be 10 or more notches in
rating. The secondary market for CDOs responded to these heightened risks, pushing prices down and widening
spreads - the difference between interest rates on riskier debt and measures of short-term borrowing costs such
as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or commercial paper rates. Spreads on BBB-rated asset-backed
securities (ABS) CDOs over LIBOR have widened by roughly 125 basis points to 657 basis points since the end of
2006.
Structured investment vehicles (SIVs)
Although the first structured
investment vehicles (SIVs) appeared in the structured finance world some 15 years ago, and the growth of SIVs
had been somewhat limited, (there are fewer than 20 vehicles globally), there is no doubt that these
sophisticated bankruptcy-remote structures have strongly influenced other funding vehicles and asset management
businesses. Since 2002, there has been renewed interest by different types of financial institutions in
starting up SIVs or SIV-like structures with evolved capital structures embracing new classes of financial
instruments.
The first SIVs were founded in the
mid-1980s as bankruptcy-remote entities and were sponsored by large banks or investment managers for the
purpose of generating leveraged returns by exploiting the differences in yields between the longer-dated assets
managed and the short-term liabilities issued. The balance sheet of a structured investment vehicle typically
contains assets such as asset-backed securities (ABS) and other high-grade securities that are funded through
issued liabilities in the form of commercial paper (CP) and medium-term note (MTN) and subordinate capital
notes. SIVs typically hedge out all interest and currency risks using swaps and other derivative instruments.
Overall, CP and MTN issuance shot up
dramatically in 2004, up US$25.7 billion to US$133.1 billion at year-end, with capital investments at an
all-time high. In general, advances in capital structures and asset portfolio management have invigorated
interest from investors and prospective sponsors.
SIVs,
Conduits and Asset-Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP)
SIVs are typically funded in the low
interest short-term asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) market to invest in high-return long-term securities
for profit. The viability of the stratagem depends on the ability to roll over the short-term commercial paper
when they mature in typically less than 120 days. To keep the liquidity risk at a minimum, issuers stagger the
maturity so that only a small portion of the loan needs to be refunded in any one week. The credit market
crisis in mid 2007 created a break in short-term debt rollovers to cause a funding mismatch in long-term assets
positions because investors have stopped buying new ABCP issued by some SIVs and conduits.
What separates a SIV from other
investment vehicles is the nature of its ongoing relationship with rating agencies – from the originating
qualification process to the continuous monitoring of its asset diversification, risk management and funding
practices. These guidelines include frequent reporting of operating parameters such as portfolio credit
quality, portfolio diversification, asset and liability maturity, market risk limitations, leverage and capital
adequacy requirements, and liquidity requirements.
The rigorous monitoring allows SIVs to
be highly capital efficient, enabling them to be leveraged on an average of 12 times the capital base, with
exceptions. Unlike related traditional asset backed commercial paper (ABCP) conduits, SIVs do not require 100%
liquidity support and credit enhancement.
Many SIVs faced trouble in the summer
of 2007 as they were hit by both sharp falls in the value of their investments, mainly financial debt and
asset-backed bonds, and a lack of access to new refinancing as investors shunned short-term commercial paper
debt linked to asset-backed securities (ABCP).
Most CDOs are cash flow transactions
not directly sensitive to the market value of their underlying assets as long as the cash flow is undisturbed.
But if a CDO manager needs to sell an asset quickly even at a loss because of ratings agency downgrade, the CDO
manager will be forced to carry the remaining assets at a lower value, upsetting both collateral for the agreed
cash flow and the balance sheet of the participants.
While some hedge funds have profited
from the sublime mortgage meltdown, other funds have been hit hard, resulting in a deteriorating financial
sector as asset values plummeted faster than potential gains by vultures.
Other big lenders that raised warning
flags earlier about bad-performing debt portfolios included Washington Mutual, New Century Financial and
Marshall & IIsley Corporation. Foreclosures jumped 35% in December 2006 versus a year earlier. For the fifth
straight month, more than 100,000 properties entered foreclosure because the owner couldn't keep up with their
loan payments. In January 2007, Washington Mutual disclosed that its mortgage business lost $122 million in the
fourth quarter, highlighting the weak sub-prime market.
New
York Attorney General Sues Appraisal Company
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,
a potential Democrat gubernatorial candidate for New York, has filed suit against eAppraiseIT (EA), a real
estate appraisal management subsidiary of First American Corporation, for having "caved to pressure from
Washington Mutual" to inflate property values of homes. Washington Mutual allegedly complained to EA that "its
appraisals weren't high enough." Cuomo said in a statement that "consumers are harmed because they are misled
as to the value of their homes, increasing the risk of foreclosure and hindering their ability to make sound
economic decisions. Investors are hurt by such fraud because it skews the value and risk of loans that are sold
in financial markets." The bank is also facing a number of class action suits from irate borrowers.
Shares of government sponsored mortgage
lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tumbled after receiving subpoenas seeking information on loans they bought
from Washington Mutual and other banks. Cuomo said he uncovered a "pattern of collusion" between lenders and
appraisers, and is seeking documents that may prove the lenders inflated appraisal values. The subpoenas also
seek information on Fannie and Freddie's due diligence practices. If decided that they own or guarantee
mortgages with inflated appraisals, company policy dictates that the lenders buy back the loans. "In order to
fulfill their duty to consumers and investors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must ensure that Washington Mutual's
mortgages have not been corrupted by inflated appraisals," Cuomo said. In 2007, WaMu is Fannie Mae's
third-largest loan provider, selling it $24.7 billion and Freddie Mac's fourteenth largest at $7.8 billion.
Washingtom Mutual share fell 17% after it announced it would set aside $1.3 billion fourth quarter 2007 for
credit losses, up from $967 million in the third quarter.
Mortgage Lenders
Fell Like Flies
The handwriting had been clearly on the wall. Back on February 6, New Century
Financial shares plunged 29% after the mortgage services provider slashed its forecast for loan production
for 2007 because early-payment defaults and loan repurchases had led to tighter underwriting guidelines. A week
later, Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac Bancorp Inc. which sold Alt-A mortgages for borrowers who were not
required to submit conforming income and financial documents necessary to quality for conventional conforming
mortgages, warned that its quarterly earnings would come in well short of analyst expectations because of
increased loan losses and delinquencies. Other lenders were also squeezed by deteriorating credit. Marshall &
IIsley reported a jump in non-performing assets in the quarter, while Bank of the Ozarks reported a 69%
increase in problem loans. US Bancorp predicted an increase in retail loan charge-offs and commercial loan
losses in coming quarters. Wells Fargo warned it expected net credit losses from wholesale banking to increase
in 2007.
Britain
's
Barclays PLC, in the midst of an unsuccessful takeover battle for ABN Amro, was reported as among the banks
that were having trouble with bad loans and its hedge funds. Barclays Global Investors was one of the world's
biggest fund managers, with some $2 trillion in assets under management.
The Case of Countrywide Financial
Non-conforming mortgages securities packaged by
Countrywide Financial needed to be sold in the private, secondary market to alternative investors, instead of
the agency market. On
August 3, 2007
, this secondary market
collapsed and essentially stopped the sales of most non-conforming securities. Alt-A mortgages (loans given to
self-declared creditworthy borrowers without supporting documentation) completely stopped trading and the
seizure extended to even AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities. Only securities with conforming mortgages were
trading. Unfazed, Countrywide Financial issued a reassuring statement that its mortgage business had access to
a nearly $50 billion funding cushion.
In reality, the sub-prime mortgage meltdown put
Countrywide Financial, along with many other mortgage lenders, in a crisis situation of holding drastically
devalued loan portfolios that could not be sold at any price. Amid rising defaults, investors have fled from
mortgage-related investments, drying up market demand. The ongoing credit crunch threatened Countrywide's
normal access to cash.
After the collapse of American Home
Mortgage on August 6, the market's attention returned to Countrywide Financial which at the time had issued
about 17% of all mortgages in the
United States
.
Days later, Countrywide Financial disclosed to the SEC that disruptions in the secondary mortgage markets could
adversely affect it financially. The news raised speculation that Countrywide was a potential bankruptcy risk.
On August 10, a run on the Countrywide Bank began as the secondary mortgage market shutdown, curtailing new
mortgage funding.
The perceived risk of Countrywide bonds
rose sharply. Credit ratings agencies downgraded Countrywide to near
junk
status. The cost of insuring
its bonds rose 22% overnight. This development limited Countrywide access to the short-term commercial paper
debt market which normally provides cheaper money than bank loans. Institutional investors were trying
desperately to unload outstanding Countrywide paper held in their portfolios. Some 50 other mortgage lenders
had already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Countrywide Financial was cited as a possible bankruptcy risk
by Merrill Lynch and others on August 15. This combined with news that its ability to issue new commercial
paper might be severely hampered put severe pressure on the stock. Countrywide shares fell $3.17 to $21.29,
which was its biggest fall in a single day since the crash of 1987 when the shares fell 50% for the year. The
52-week low to date was $12.07 per share.
On Thursday, August 16, having
expressed concerns over liquidity because of the decline of the secondary market for securitized mortgage
obligations, Countrywide also announced its intention to draw on the entire $11.5 billion credit line from a
group of 40 banks. On Friday August 17, many depositors sought to withdraw their bank accounts from
Countrywide. It also planned to make 90% of its loans conforming. By this point stock shares had lost about
75% of their peak value and speculation of bankruptcy broadened.
The Fed
Discount Window Accepts Toxic Collateral from Banks
At the same time the Federal Reserve
lowered the discount rate 50 basis points in a last-minute, early morning conference call. The Fed also
accepted $17.2 billion in repurchase agreements for mortgage backed securities to provide liquidity in the
credit market. This helped calm the stock market and investors promptly responded positively with the Dow
posting temporary gains.
Additionally, Countrywide was forced to
restate income it had claimed from accrued but unpaid interest on "exotic" mortgages in which the initial pay
rate was less than the amortization rate. By mid 2007, it became apparent much of this accrued interest had
become uncollectible. In a letter dated August 20, Federal Reserve agreed to waive banking regulations at the
request of Citigroup and Bank of America to exempt both banks from rules that limited the amount that
federally-insured banks can lend to related brokerage companies to 10% of bank capital, by increasing the limit
to 30%. Until then, banking regulations restricted banks with federally insured deposits from putting
themselves at risk by brokerage subsidiaries' activities. On August 23, Citibank and Bank of America said that
they and two other banks accessed $500 million in 30-day financing at the Fed's discount window at the new low
rate of 5.25%.
On the next day, Countrywide Financial
obtained $2 billion of new capital from Bank of America Corp, the banking holding parent. In exchange, the Bank
of America brokerage arm would get convertible preferred stock yielding 7.3%, a profitable spread over its Fed
discount rate of 5.25% and the Fed funds rate of 4.75%. The preferred stocks can be converted into common stock
at $18 per share (trading around $12 on October 25). This gave the distressed mortgage lender a much-needed
cash infusion amid a crippling credit crunch. Countrywide shares soared 20.01%, or $4.37, to $26.19 after hours
on the news. Bank of America shares rose 1.9%, or 98 cents, to $52.63 (trading around $46.75 on October 25
after announcing third quarter earning dropping 32%).
SEC to
Scrutinize Security Valuation
The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) is reportedly looking into the accounting and securities valuation practices at Wall Street investment
banks to ensure consistency and clarity for investors. Meanwhile, major financial institutions were lining up
to announce write-downs on their sub-prime mortgage exposures. Merrill Lynch wrote down $5.5 billion which was
later revised to $8 billion; Citigroup $3.3 billion which was later revised to $11 billion; Goldman Sachs $1.7
billion, Lehman Brothers $1 billion, Morgan Stanley $0.9 billion and Bear Sterns $0.7 billion. Many in the
market expect further write downs in coming quarters. Already Merrill Lynch write down is widely put at more
than $14 billion and few believe that Citigroup's loss could be kept to $11 billion in coming quarters. The
heads of Merrill, UBS and Citigroup all resigned.
Wachovia, the fourth-largest
US
bank by assets, estimated on Friday, November 9 that the value of its
subprime mortgage-related securities had fallen $1.1 billion in October. It said loan-loss provisions would be
increased by as much as $600 million in the fourth quarter due to "dramatic declines" in home values. The
announcement came three weeks after Wachovia reported writedowns of $1.3 billion in the third quarter and
posted its first earnings drop in six years.
Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest
U.S.
securities firm, said on November 7 its subprime mortgages and related
securities lost $3.7 billion in the past two months, after prices sank further than the firm's traders
anticipated. The decline may cut fourth-quarter earnings by $2.5 billion. Colm Kelleher, Morgan Stanley chief
financial officer to the Financial Times in an interview: "You need to see some of these long positions
reduced, you need to see buyers coming in, you need to see an easing of liquidity in the market." Kelleher said
credit markets would take three or four quarters to recover, instead of the one or two he estimated when the
firm reported third-quarter results on September 19.
Concerns about potential writedowns at
Morgan Stanley have pushed the stock lower this week, bringing the year-to-date decline to 24 percent. The
stock fell $3.32, or 6.9%, to $51.19 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading on November 8. Analysts
estimate the firm would lose about $4 billion on asset- backed securities and collateralized debt obligations
and expected the remaining losses to be booked on residual mortgage interest and on credit lines to structured
investment vehicles.
Being
Right Can lead to Losses through Aggressive Hedging
Part of the losses Morgan Stanley
incurred stemmed from derivative contracts the firm's proprietary trading unit wrote earlier in the year. The
traders anticipated correctly a decline in the value of subprime securities and took up short positions and the
contracts made money for the firm in the second quarter. But the contracts started losing money when prices
fell below the level the traders had anticipated. As markets continued to decline, the firm's risk exposure
swung from short, to flat to long because the structure of the book had big negative convexity. For any given
bond, a graph of the relationship between price and yield is a convex curve rather than a linear straight-line.
As a bond's price goes up, its yield goes down, and vice versa. The degree to which the graph is curved shows
how much a bond's yield changes in response to a change in price. Negative convexity gives the investor a
greater loss in the event of a 50 basis points drop in yields than his gain in the event of a 50 basis points
rise in yields. For any given move in interest rates, the downside is bigger than the upside to give a built-in
loss for a short position with negative convexity. Sophisticated traders can create instruments which have so
much negative convexity that the price might start off moving in one direction as yields start moving, and then
eventually start moving in the opposite direction beyond a given range. The hedge then begins to cannibalize
profitability.For any given move in interest rates, the downside is bigger than the upside to give a built-in
loss for a short position with negative convexity, thus producing losses. For positive convexity, the upside is
bigger than the down side, thus giving short positions an advantage. Morgan Stanley's short positions
allegedly turned against them by negative convexity; at least that was how they explained the loss. Some
analysts think there must be more than meets the eye, assuming Morgan management itself even know. The people
who put on the bad trades were fired and not there to answer questions.
It is one thing to lose money, but it
is quite another to lose money without knowing why and how. Morgan Stanley, Citibank, and the rest still have
difficulty figuring out how they lost money last quarter and how much loss is waiting in future quarters. They
only know the numbers came in very bad.
SEC
Concern over Accuracy of Writedowns
US
market regulators have been working with investment banks and accounting
firms over the past few months to keep tabs on how they are dealing with changes to the accounting treatment of
securities that were introduced this year by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The SEC has
been particularly concerned during the third quarter earnings season, which resulted in billions of dollars in
write-downs at investment banks after problems in the sub-prime mortgage markets that triggered a wider credit
crisis. At issue is whether these write-downs accurately reflect the total financial impact of the credit
crisis on the banks and their investors.
The
SMELEC Super Fund Proposal
Citigroup, Bank of America and JP
Morgan/Chase announced on Monday, October 15, plans for a super fund to buy mortgage-linked securities in an
attempt to allay fears of a downward price-spiral that would hit the balance sheets of big banks.
US
banks collectively would put up credit guarantees up to $100 billion for
the fund, named the Single-Master Liquidity Enhancement Conduit (SMLEC).
The concept of an SMLEC first emerged
three weeks earlier when the US Treasury summoned leading bankers to discuss ways to revive the mortgage-linked
securities market and to deal with the threat to the credit market posed by structured investment vehicles
(SIVs) and conduits. The Treasury said it acted as a "neutral third party" in the discussions, but Henry
Paulson, Treasury secretary, was reportedly strongly in support of the initiative.
Robert Steel, under-secretary for
domestic finance, led the US Treasury side of the discussions, with the day-to-day work handled by Anthony
Ryan, assistant secretary. The plan is an attempt to address concerns about SIVs and conduits, vehicles that
are off-balance sheet but closely affiliated to banks.
Fears emerged that some SIVs might be
pushed into forced sales of assets, prompting further declines in the market price of mortgage-linked
securities as a class that could hurt the balance sheets of all lending institutions. SMLEC, designed as a
superfund to preserve the theoretical value of the high-rated tranches by creating a ready buyer for them, is
likely to be unpopular with some banks and non-bank institutions which have already started trading in
distressed low-rated subprime securities at knockdown prices.
SMLEC as proposed is intended as a
restructuring vehicle, repackaging credit securities to make them more transparent than existing SIV commercial
paper and less risky to investors. It would only deal in "highly-rated" assets. Although it is envisaged that
the scheme will initially focus on vehicles in the dollar market held by US banks, it is expected to extend to
non-US banks as well, and may even be extended to the euro market. The US Treasury declined to provide official
comment on the reported proposal.
In October, Citigroup Inc. posted a 57%
slump in third-quarter net income at $2.38 billion, or 47 cents a share, from $5.51 billion, or $1.10 a share,
a year earlier. The latest quarterly results included $1.35 billion of pretax write-down in the value of loans
that helped finance the leveraged-buyout boom and $1.56 billion of pretax losses tied to loans and sub-prime
mortgages. A couple of weeks after the SMLEC proposal, Citigroup announced a write down of $3.3 billion which
was later revised to $11 billion and that its Chairman resigned after an emergency board meeting on the first
Saturday of November.
SMLEC is in essence a big bet that a
consortium of banking giants, at the prodding of the US Treasury, can persuade investors to pour new money into
the troubled credit market to buy the assets of troubled SIVs to prevent the pending loss faced by the
sponsoring institutions.
Alan Greenspan, former Fed chairman,
immediately raised serious doubts over SMLEC, warning that it could prevent the market from establishing true
clearing prices for asset-backed securities. "It is not clear to me that the benefits exceed the risks,"
Greenspan told
Emerging Markets
, adding, "The experience I have had with that sort of intervention is
very mixed." As the person most responsible for a macro liquidity boom that had prevented "the market from
establishing true clearing prices for assets of all types", Greenspan is critical of the effort of the Treasury
to do the same thing on a micro level to save the banking system.
Greenspan explained: "What creates
strong markets is a belief in the investment community that everybody has been scared out of the market,
pressed prices too low and there are wildly attractive bargaining prices out there." He added: "if you
intervene in the system, the vultures stay away. The vultures are sometimes very useful." Goldman Sachs must
have heard the message loud and clear and decided to act as its own home-grown vulture.
Greenspan's remarks came amid growing
speculation on Wall Street that the current Federal Reserve sees potential benefits in the SMLEC proposal in
terms of preventing a possible fire sale of assets, and does not think it has been designed to allow financial
institutions to avoid recognizing losses. But the Fed is concern that the superfund plan could exacerbate
growing investor anxiety, and thinks markets might normalize faster if at least some troubled SIV assets were
sold in the market to allow prices to find a floor. Fed officials have been officially silent on the superfund
plan, leading to the impression that the Fed wants to keep its distance. The Treasury regards the Fed's
silence as simply reflecting the separation of powers and responsibilities between the institutions. In
reality, the Treasury leads the Fed on issues of national economic security, notwithstanding the Fed's claim of
independence.
Greenspan defended the 1998
Fed-sponsored rescue of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) by a group of creditor banks, saying it worked
because it took a set of assets that would otherwise have been dumped at fire-sale prices off the market,
allowing prices of the remaining assets to find a true equilibrium. But he said today "we are dealing with a
much larger market." To those who still have reliable memory, the justification for the Fed managed rescue of
LTCM was to prevent the total collapse of the financial market because of the dominant size and high leverage
of LTCM. Other distressed hedge funds would also have survived with a Fed managed bailout, but they did not
qualify as being "too big to fail".
Frederic Mishkin, a Federal Reserve
governor, admitted to the Financial Times that although the central bank could use monetary policy to offset
the macroeconomic risk arising from the credit squeeze, it was "powerless" to deal with "valuation risk" – the
difficulty assessing the value of complex or opaque securities.
Robert J Shiller, Yale economist of "
Irrational
Exuberance
" fame (2000), writing in the October 14 edition of the New York Times:
Sniffles That Precede
a Recession
: "While it may seem as though these private banks could have met by themselves and agreed to
create a fund without pressure from Treasury to do so, apparently there are times when the private sector
cannot take care of itself and it needs the government to intervene and prod it in the right direction, at
least that appears to be the attitude at Treasury (and I wonder if there will be government guarantees of any
sort as part of the bargain, a situation that rules out the private sector doing it on its own, but also a
situation that more explicitly recognizes the existence of market failure and the need for government
intervention to overcome it). It would be refreshing to see this same attitude extended by the administration
to other markets that cannot coordinate properly or that suffer from significant market failures of other
types, markets that produce outcomes where, say, children are left without health coverage. But don't get your
hopes up."
Warren Buffett, the Pied Piper of other
awed investors, told Fox Business Network that "pooling a bunch of mortgages, changing the ownership" would not
change the viability of the mortgage instrument itself. "It would be better to have them on the balance sheets
so everyone would know what's going on." Bill Gross, chief investment officer of Pimco, the giant bond fund
manager, called the superfund idea "pretty lame". Investors need to know what their portfolio is really worth
at any moment in time, not merely constructed value if conditions should hold.
"... I guess the CIA couldn't credibly stop AMLO from winning the election by popular vote and that major mass-media confidently plans to set on fire: paper bag after bag of ca-ca, on the front steps of Los Pinos whilst cooking-up virulent "anti-corruption" impeachment against the new president, a la Lula in Brazil. ..."
"... "Corruption Allegations" are one of the tools in the toolbox. It's how that evil Harper came to power in Canada. He's still lurking among the other nefarious vampires intent on destroying the commons. ..."
I wonder why it appears that the USA did not sufficiently meddle in the Mex. election. Typically the US heavily involves
itself to ensure a compliant austerity type is elected.
Lopez Obredor was robbed of the Presidency in 2006; there was a prolonged organized popular protest.
I guess the CIA couldn't credibly stop AMLO from winning the election by popular vote and that major mass-media confidently
plans to set on fire: paper bag after bag of ca-ca, on the front steps of Los Pinos whilst cooking-up virulent "anti-corruption"
impeachment against the new president, a la Lula in Brazil.
I remember that now. Same Obredor of 2006 who was expected to win at that time. There were USA instigated riots and a USA instigated
vote recount too, IIRC.
Yes, I suppose they intend to Lula him - Which will begin very soon.
"Corruption Allegations" are one of the tools in the toolbox. It's how that evil Harper came to power in Canada. He's still
lurking among the other nefarious vampires intent on destroying the commons.
"... The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority. ..."
There was a distinct change earlier this year, after the second US fusillade of cruise
missiles, and the Israeli bombing of "Iranian" bases in Syria.
We were all expecting further military action, but nothing happened, in particular no more
Israeli action, although Iranian forces in Syria were hardly damaged.
Instead they started muttering about subversion of the Iranian state from the inside,
which is what b is writing about here. That was a big sign that the all-out assault on Iran
has been called off.
Why? Evidently because the military say no. The scenario was the same as the one back in
2012, the last time we thought to see Israeli aircraft getting permission from Saudi to do
their bombing runs on Iran, but it didn't happen then, because the Israeli military were
saying no. Evidently the position hasn't changed, I was relieved to discover, although the
propagandists claimed the plan is all worked out now, and Iran has little defence.
Well, internal subversion of the regime, then. Hasn't the US been attempting to do
precisely that for 40 years now, ever since the revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979? What
are the conditions which mean that they are going to succeed now, when they've failed for 40
years?
The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles
in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with
their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to
fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the
Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime
appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked
well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a
majority.
I don't want to get into a historical disquisition (which in any case I've said before),
but the reason this works is that there's history behind it - I'm pretty sure that the
original Islamisation of Iran (I don't mean the Arab conquest, but the conversion of the
country) was a popular revolt against the pre-Islamic nationalist aristocracy, who didn't pay
any taxes. The present-day Iranian exiles attach themselves strongly to that old nationalist
aristocracy, including most academics of Iranian origin in western universities. They don't
seem to notice that the class they admire grindingly oppressed the poor, such that it led to
a revolution.
currently having an online debate about conditions in the crimea, specifically alleged
russian oppression of crimeans in 2018, but also conditions leading up to the initial
referendum (my opponents claim annexation or conquest, and cite a freedom house survey to back
it up--from what i can see freedom house is fully funded by the us govt). my understanding is
the us fomented the coup in ukraine, along with nato, as opposed to the ukrainian people
rebelling against a russian puppet, which is the us line i believe. any articles or sources
detailing the us role in all this, or rebutting claims that crimeans are being terrified into
silence in 2018 about russian oppression, would be appreciated.
About half of the respondents admit to having been taken by surprise by Russia's actions in
2014. Interestingly, there is agreement among the Crimean population, including the Crimean
Tatars, that successive Ukrainian governments had neglected the region. Roughly one third
of respondents pointed to this neglect as the main cause of the developments in 2014. ...
The majority of survey respondents agree with the statement that the different ethnic
groups in Crimea currently live peacefully side by side. Twenty percent disagree "fully" or
"rather" with this statement, thereby indicating both an uncertainty and unease with the
situation at the moment that reaches beyond the Crimean Tatar share of the population
(about 12 percent). This result is mirrored in the reaction to the ban on the main
political Crimean Tatar organization, the Mejlis, by the Russian authorities: 20 percent
"fully" or "rather" disagreed with this step, compared to 80 percent endorsing this policy.
... The survey clearly spells out the severe disruption of links to the rest of Ukraine,
limited travel to other parts of Russia, the absence of personal international reference
points, and a near-complete integration into the Russian media sphere.
This combination makes any change in the opinions of the majority of the Crimean
population on the annexation unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, it is also clear
that the Crimean population's high expectations in the Russian economy and trust in Russian
(but not Crimean) institutions needs to be carefully managed by Moscow in view of the
already strained financial situation of the majority of the Crimean population.
The authors are also cautious about drawing overly-optimistic conclusions about the present
time: "The risk of conflict emerging within Ukrainian society and growing serious remains,
based on noticeable differences among residents of different regions about the further
geopolitical direction the country should move in. There are also serious problems
connected to restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity and the model of coexistence with
those living in the regions that are currently occupied, how to reach reconciliation and
mutual understanding." ...
Joining the EU remains a strong desire among a majority of Ukrainians. In September
2016, 51% of those surveyed by the Rating Group put integration with the EU ahead of
joining Russia's Customs Union or some other association. Still, in Rating's September 2015
survey, 57% of Ukrainians did so, and in September 2014, 59% did. This noticeable decline
could be the result of a number of factors. For one thing, the Association Agreement did
not have a noticeable impact on the standard of living of most Ukrainians. Many Ukrainians
are also upset at what they see as the European Union's limp response to Russia's
aggression against their country. And the way the granting of a visa-free regime to the EU
has been dragged out for years and the obvious internal squabbles among the Union's members
have also left their imprint on Ukrainians.
Ukraine is a very diverse country. Trump coming to an agreement with Putin that eases
tensions instead of agreeing/dividing on spheres of influence would be their best hope.
pretzelattack@3 re: "...rebutting claims that crimeans are being terrified into silence in
2018 about russian oppression."
I honestly have not heard anything about actual oppression - just that some
Ukrainians and Tartars are still - today - not terribly happy with the
secession/annexation/transfer. Acts of civil disobedience were generally individual, "I don't
want to be part of Russia and I'm not signing these papers or paying taxes," kind of thing. I
know any polls of Crimeans are noted to be terribly flawed - neither the pro-Russian nor the
pro-Ukraine people trust anyone taking polls. They'll not answer or give an answer that seems
to agree with whatever 'side' the pollster might be from.
I can't see how this issue could be fairly considered without at least an acknowledgement
that in 1954, 1.1 million people in Crimea woke up one day to find they were now citizens of
the Ukraine SSR. No polls, no vote, no discussion and no terribly good reasons.
If you need sources to back up your argument that the US helped to foment the Maidan
uprising that overthrew the Yanukovych government, here are a couple that feature a video and
a transcript of a phone conversation.
Information CLearing House: Victoria Nuland [former US Assistant Secretary of State for
Europe during Obama administration] Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of
Ukrainian "Democratic Institutions" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm
The article includes the video of the speech Nuland gave to the Washington press corp in
December 2013 in which she talks about "investing" the $5 billion.
This is the famous phone call in which Nuland utters her most memorable lines: "Yats
[Yatsenyuk] is the guy [for deputy prime minister]" and "Fuck the EU".
-----
I have also found details of the Korsun massacre incident that occurred on 20 February
2014. I had known about this massacre but in a hazy way and had thought only a few people had
been killed. However this incident is much more grave and this was the stimulus for the
Crimeans to organise their independence referendum and break away from Ukraine.
Eight buses of Crimean supporters of the Yanukovych government were returning to Crimea
when the convoy was ambushed by Nazi thugs (who had known of the convoy's movements in
advance). The thugs ordered everyone off the buses, beat them up and tortured them. Several
people were killed.
"Americans prepared very seriously and thoroughly for their entrance into Crimea, –
said a member of the Federation Council Committee on defense and security, Dmitry Sablin.
– A year before the events on Maidan in Kiev, they made repair estimates of a number of
buildings in Sevastopol and in Simferopol, where they planned to house the headquarters and
intelligence units. Military airfields and garrisons, which then belonged to Ukraine, they
considered as their own military installations and even sent instructions for their
conversion to NATO standards. In the plans of the U.S. military April 2014 was the start time
of upgrades in Crimea. It seemed to them that the issue has been settled. But the referendum
had thrown off their plans, and on March 18, Crimea became Russian again, where the overseas
guests were no longer welcome. Americans later themselves acknowledged that the Russians
outplayed them on all counts. Well, and from helplessness imposed sanctions -- as a revenge
for Crimea".
This is the tender put out by the US Navy to invite private companies to propose
renovation plans for a school for naval officers' children in the military base in
Sevastopol.
Sabine @6: On political/national/ethnic determinations.
It is a messy situation. I had thought one of the reasons we hate the Nazis is because
ethno-nationalism is evil. And yet, most of the West's leaders fully support Israel, and the
AZ Empire is promoting Kurdish ethno-states in Iraq and Syria (though not in Turkey, where
50% of all Kurds live).
We were all ready to accept a referendum that would have seen Scotland secede from Great
Britain, and yet when people in regions of 1991 Ukraine resisted the Western-fomented coup in
2014, and voted to secede, we are told they are terrorists to be crushed.
Most of the national borders in the Middle East and Africa were created by an elite in
Great Britain and Europe, which divided families and crammed together enemies, creating the
inevitable century of turmoil. And yet, here most of us support the sovereignty of some of
those artificially-created neocolonial states.
Messy.
Personally, I believe in the right to self-determination. If a group of people in a region
choose to form, or dissolve, or maintain, or expand a political entity, then they should be
allowed to. Such decisions should be made by the will of those people only.
What I see as illegitimate is people from outside that region interfering to force their
will on others.
MFS also travelled to the Donbass and made a documentary about his journey there. I saw
the documentary a couple of years ago and from memory I believe he met Givi, one of the
Donbass military commanders. Givi died in early 2017 when a missile hit his office. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukQgVoTnAuE
Jen. Thanks for the great links on the Ukraine situation. Oliver Stone created a stunning
documentary, that is the best on the subject I've seen: "Ukraine on Fire"
Unfortunately, it appears to be banned or at lest heavily censored within the US. I saw it
on RT.
I've seen several uploads of this documentary, which was made in 2015. But the resolution
of this version is superb. I recommend it for everyone actually, and I'm happy to say that
it's being hosted on the Vesti News channel - which is worth exploring in its own right.
This is the definitive story told from the inside of the people of Crimea forming a
resistance force to take their land back from Ukraine. It was already happening but the
Korsun massacre detailed above by commenters was the galvanizing point that showed the
Crimeans that Kiev was coming to massacre it also, unless it resisted. And as everyone knew,
Crimea was hated most of all, and its suffering would be far worse than that of Donbass.
Kondrashev is a popular Russian news commentator, and he interviews Putin extensively in
the film. This was made one year after the Crimea restoration to Russia, after the events of
that time, coordinated by Putin, were de-classified.
The documentary is a dramatic and stirring work. You will be totally in love with with
Crimea and the Russian people by the end of it. And you will understand how the Maidan was a
US color revolution in classical style. Your heart will jump when you see the snipers kill
the hard-pressed Berkut. And it's a true story, made from real footage, and with parts
reenacted by the actual people.
When the polite green men show up, in the very nick of time, you may find yourself weeping
with gladness.
"... Since the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. ..."
"... These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke). ..."
"... Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? ..."
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a
flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for? ...
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills,
except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries,
especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What
is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech--both events
are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and
political mostly--his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since 2014 is
visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention that
Russia, quoting even Wiki:
Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas of
the economy.
Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land
sales, resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since
the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or
ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries.
Putin recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State
got from 2008 collapse and from sanctions.
These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is
considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all
this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead,
together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings.
And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke).
The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its
humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example,
it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a
protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a
military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "How can I help you? Do you want
money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.
Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to
take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom?
Their behaviour is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for
a competitive market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent
another Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the
whole process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of
court or make some high level examples?
Rostek, run by Chemezov, whose main qualification is being buddies with Putin in 1980s
East Germany, famous for passing off an
unsuccessful and outdated Taiwanese manufactured and American designed device as an example
of "Russian innovation" [at pilfering government money].
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned. Fortunately, overall domestic economic policy (with said
exceptions) is neoliberal, which rules out a Venezuelan scenario in Russia. That is a good
thing.
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned.
Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I
quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.
Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but
because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly
educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong
places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who
only reinforce your condescending ignorance.
I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1
is making the right points from it.
The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration
is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically
made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from
its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia:
The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh's US Ally Over a Barrel
I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale.
He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers
with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability.
It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect
most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.
No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long
been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete
within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far
from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out,
many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.
Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world
oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.
"... You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves. ..."
"... Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be. ..."
"... Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees. ..."
"... A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks. ..."
"... Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating. ..."
"... The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast. ..."
Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its
construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the
pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark
can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.
Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what
happens.
A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back
on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra
cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work
together against US attacks.
Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump.
Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are
limited and evaporating.
Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in
November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.
The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on
arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle,
N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia
should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.
The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show...
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
- more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
You seem to be obsessed with neocons, jews etc. Russia is arch-nemesis of the West long
before them. Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons
or Knight Templars.
Since Western Capitalism arose, Russia stands as anti-system to the West. As a model of
decent society that is possible without usury, exploitation, violence, enslaving and
pillaging other nations – i.e. outside imperialism-colonialism model. Powers that
control the West live in constant fear since with mighty Russia their time is always limited,
and their power is finite.
"Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or
Knight Templars."
They were.
Of course, the Freemasons also penetrated Russia under Peter the Great and were necessary
to all revolutionary activity in the Russian Empire from at least the 1820s.
A more constructive new on neocons is as well-paid MIC lobbyists. The fact that many Jews
are talented lobbyists can explain the concentration of this particular nationality far better,
although initially neocons really were mostly turn coat Trotskyites.
The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world
superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership
by force if necessary.
Sounds very similar to another nation that rules over the USA and uses our military for
their private merc army, Israel, who claims they have a divine right to Palestine and can
kill as many Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians as they want.
After all, their G-d declared them to be his pet project and you don't want to go against
G-d, do you?
Not all Jews are neocons, but damn near every neocon is a Jew.
Irving Krystol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism," is just one example. If you search
YouTube you can find a Brian Lamb Booknotes episode where he interviews Krystol about this
book, "Neoconservatism; an Autobiography."
He admits in this interview, as well as in the book, that he and most of the early neocons
were former Trotskyites.
The first generation of neocons -- Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, Gertrude
Himmelfarb, etc. Maybe Norman Podhoretz, but he was always more of a 'main chance' guy.
The rallying cry of world revolution has filtered down after a fashion to their heirs.
It's still all war all the time. And at the end of the day, when the wars have subdued the
planet, who will be chosen to grasp the reins of world government? One guess.
It was and is Jewish and Zionist at its core, without any question.
Wilton was a highly respected journalist whose claims seem to be reflexted in statements
by various, and equally maligned/suppressed writers of the time.
It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They
used to trumpet it, though.
There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals themselves celebrating
their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, et al were
communists.
Moreover, they were communists of the international revolution variety–the flavor
known as Trotskyism.
Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times,
titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:"
"I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was
the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth
International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not
"Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we
called them, of the day)"
Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of
neocons:
On the one hand, it has lately become common to hide the Judaism of various figures; 'I
wonder if he's Jewish' can turn into quite a hunt.
On the other hand, some parties seem to label all and sundry as 'Jews.'
Speaking for myself, I wish I just didn't care. Certainly as of twenty years ago, I could
have honestly said I didn't. However, Israel and the fact of our support for her, and the
fact that most Jews ultimately support Israel to one degree or another, make the question
relevant.
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the
part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to the Jewish fear that
the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a piece in the Washington
Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on
ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European
Communism.
The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues,
since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically
incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist
parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again
subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they
aren't too keen on Catholicism either.
It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be
mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal
Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism. I hope this taboo is
successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as the
only Christian power left in the world.
This is a very superficial view. Israeli interests are taken into account as long as they are
coincide with interests of military-industrial complex and the Us imperial/neoliberal foreign
policy agenda. There is some flexibility, of course, and Israel might be able in certain cases do
push more, but for example to say that invasion of Iraq was done due to Israeli lobbying would be
inaccurate. yes neocons in the US government were active, but that main reason was access to oil
which considered with Israeli geopolitical ambitions in the region.
One might well think that the only serious foreign policy imperative of the Donald Trump
administration is to defend Israel. A president elected because he promised to put United
States' interests first has turned out to be little different than his predecessors, bowing to
the power of various lobbies and constituencies to carry out their wishes while simultaneously
pretending to be serving poorly defined policies to promote the security and well-being of the
American people.
Israel possesses, to be sure, the most powerful foreign policy lobby operating not only in
the United States but as well in Western Europe and Australasia. When Israel makes its
incessant demands, politicians from Washington to Canberra and Wellington pause to listen. In
Britain, fully 80% of Conservative parliamentarians are members of the Conservative Friends of
Israel.
Israel benefits from a large, influential and wealthy community of diaspora Jews that is
willing to do its bidding and which also possesses easy access to the media and to politicians,
many of whom are more than willing to be corrupted by money. This has led to the creation of an
"Israeli narrative," most particularly in the United States, which glamorizes the state of
Israel through the incessant reiteration of expressions like "the only democracy in the Middle
East" and "America's best friend and closest ally," both of which assertions are completely
false.
It should surprise no one that the Trump administration is packed with Israel-firsters from
top to bottom. Those who deal with Israel directly – Ambassador David Friedman, Chief
Middle East Negotiator Jason Greenblatt, and Special Envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner are all
Orthodox Jews with long standing ties to Israel and its leadership. They are major financial
supporters of Israeli "charities," to include projects on the occupied West Bank, which are
both illegal under international law and contrary to long established U.S. policy. It would
seem, without being too hyperbolic, that Israeli interests are at least as important to them as
are the American interests that they ostensibly represent and are being paid by the taxpayer to
support.
Within the White House, there is virtually no pushback against Israeli pretensions even when
American interests are being damaged. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly voiced his
support of the Jewish state and his animosity towards that state's enemy of choice Iran.
National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time neoconservative, has never distanced himself
in any way from complete identification with the policies being promoted by Israel and its
increasingly right wing and racist governments. Donald Trump himself has declared that he will
be the best president for Israel ever, a pledge that he has worked to honor by moving the U.S.
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in spite of the damage that it does to actual regional
American interests.
But the most vocal advocate for Israel within the Administration is Nikki Haley, U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, who has consistently taken the hardest of all possible lines
against Israel's claimed enemies while also fully endorsing the most brutal actions undertaken
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Haley's most recent action reveals that
the United States has truly lost its sense of direction and moral compass. If one were
religious, it might be suggested that it has lost its soul.
Haley's most recent foray into her own style of what she might refer to as statesmanship
came on June 1 st . Kuwait had brought a resolution to the United Nations Security
Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to help protect the people of Gaza, who were
being bombed, gassed and shot dead by Israeli Army sniper fire. Nikki Haley, however, was
thinking of something quite different, a resolution she had drafted to denounce Hamas for the
alleged volleys of rockets that were launched into adjacent Israeli controlled areas in
response to the Israeli gunfire and bombings. Votes on the two resolutions followed,
with Haley failing to obtain any votes on her resolution except her own.
Haley again voted alone when she vetoed the Kuwaiti resolution to protect the Palestinian
people. And it was not Haley's first such bit of unilateralism. She had
walked out of a previous Security Council meeting on Israel's killing of Palestinian
protesters as a deliberate insult to their representative who had risen to begin to speak.
Haley unfortunately represents America. America the home of the free and brave?
Bullshit.
"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions
to emigrate is overlooked is wars.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial
wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness
of the trade union and solidarity movements.
We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to
the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.
Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration
The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood,
housing and communities and undermining there security.
As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries
would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.
Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor
to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.
Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the
West.
Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the
Gulf states and Iran.
Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship
and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of
Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed
toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.
The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee
across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant
parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class
turned anti-immigrant.
Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and
the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.
Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and
civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.
Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America
US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 –
2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by
spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists
were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.
The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.
US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama
and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and
wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants
to the US.
The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage
maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US
'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military
aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.
The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human
rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or
across the border.
US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health
insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.
Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants
into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.
Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living
standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.
Conclusion
Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran
President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington
and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.
The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international
law.
To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client
terrorists.
ORDER IT NOW
Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets
and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led
to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion
of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.
The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the
midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather
than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace
and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout
the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among
popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical
social democracy.
I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the
various western Trot. groups at the time.
It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it
was only of claimed affilliates to the nonsenical 'Fourth Internatiaoal'.
Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and
Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they
ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.
Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU,
cabinets in many European nations, etc.
Even without that, the chart and attached notes are bizarre enough.
The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among
themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not
understanding the content at all.
Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are
like those of the worst cult religionists.
I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundrd metres from my
house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until
recently. no more. I would buy it at times.
Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the
national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for
such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and
sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.
The World Cup proceeds as if carried along by an unstoppable force, pouring very positive
concrete into foundations somewhere, giving ordinary people another vision of a country that
has always fascinated me.
Graham Phillips, an Englishman and journalist, who joined with the Donbass people in their
resistance to the coup in Ukraine made an interesting podcast echoing b.'s piece about Shaun
Walker, my particular enemy. He quietly demolishes Walker's claims that Russians were singing
Nazi songs in a nightclub.
All in all there is a feeling of tensions subsiding a little, a feeling that one can carry
on a bit with one's life. The only thing I have learned is to enjoy such moments even if stuff
like Yemen is agonizing. Agonizing but not existential as Syria is. But is that not just a bit
cynical?
I am halfway through watching a film of US actor Peter von Berg travelling through the
Donetsk People's Republic and meeting Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko and various others
to find out how the Donetsk rebels are creating a socialist state under a situation of war. The
film is as much an implicit criticism of US society (and by extension, Western capitalist
society generally) as it is an investigation of the reality on the ground on Donetsk, ignored
by the Western MSM.
Von Berg visits a greenhouse farm growing tomatoes, a hospital and a factory among other
places he travels to (including the capital, of course) in the DPR.
There is even a short history of the city of Donetsk and how it was founded by 19th-century
Welsh engineer industrialist John Hughes, after whom it was originally named Yuzovka.
"... This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much of the world as possible. In addition to the banking families, the 'Globalists' include any number of extremely wealthy people, (Industrialists, Tech Entrepreneurs, Middle-East Sheiks, Saudi Royals, and Nouveaux Riches such as Soros, Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs, etc.). The 'Globalists' directly control virtually all Western NGOs (Soros), think tanks and major media. ..."
Thanks, everyone, for all the book recommendations – several I had not read. I would
add "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, "The Shame of the
Cities" by Lincoln Steffens, and "Who Will Tell the People" by William Greider, and
in that order.
I agree with your points, but would like to build on them a bit.
The 'Banking and Finance' cartel behind the U.S. deep state is said to consist of eight
families, half American and half European. (The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families,
Dean Henderson, Global Research, May 19, 2016)
This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the
military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an
international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much
of the world as possible. In addition to the banking families, the 'Globalists' include any
number of extremely wealthy people, (Industrialists, Tech Entrepreneurs, Middle-East Sheiks,
Saudi Royals, and Nouveaux Riches such as Soros, Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs, etc.). The
'Globalists' directly control virtually all Western NGOs (Soros), think tanks and major
media.
The 'Globalists' control not only the U.S. Deep State, but also the European Union
structures. They also have purchased a large number of politicians throughout the Western
World. Through this control they have stripped sovereignty from both the U.S. and Europe, and
converted them into effective 'Oligarchic Dictatorships'. These dictatorships are set-up for
the benefit of the 'Globalists' themselves, and have little interest in the well-being of
their citizens. This is seen in the impoverishment and societal collapse rapidly progressing
in both the U.S. and Europe.
Globalization is the 'Globalists' project of Global Governance, which effectively strips
nation-states of their sovereignty (and democracy) and transfers it to 'Global Institutions'
(IMF, World Bank, International Trade Agreements, U.N., Climate Agreements, etc.), enforced
by U.S. military might.
The 'Project for a New American Century' was the 'Globalists' blueprint to 'Globalize'
over the parts of the world that they did not already control. Almost all current and recent
international conflicts, from the Middle-Eastern Wars, to Ukraine, the Korean crisis, the
cornering of Russian and Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' are all related to this project.
Unfortunately for the 'Globalists', Global Governance is extremely harmful to citizens
that are subject to it. That is why we see 'populism/nationalism' rising throughout the U.S.
and Europe, in an attempt to block the stripping of these citizens' democracy, their nations'
sovereignty and their personal security and well-being.
I believe that President Trump is part of this populism/nationalism movement, and almost
all of his actions can be interpreted as an attempt to counter Globalization, to restore U.S.
sovereignty and to redevelop the U.S. economy, which has been devastated over the past four
decades by the 'Globalist' elites.
I second those 3!! Greider's Secrets of the Temple is a good primer on The Fed.
The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick documents the first undeclared war of
too many, this one with France during its revolutionary period prior to Napoleon. The
Seminoles and other Floridian tribes were used as proxies to force the Spanish out of the
Floridas; and too many forget that Louisiana was Spanish before its very short ownership by
France. Jefferson's purchase and dispatch of Lewis and Clarke educated him as to the
wide-open, unregulated nature of the Executive under the 1787 Constitution, which represents
the current plague on our planet today.
But the initial germ beyond Tordesillas of a continent spanning empire was the brain child
of one Richard Hakluyt whose ideas for planting North America infected many other English
elites. His idea was incorporated into the Charter for the Virginia Company--it went all the
way to the as yet undiscovered boundary of the Pacific Ocean.
This slide shows the continental extent of the charters grated Virginia and New
England.
One last book endorsement for two of Bernard Bailyn's many works: The Ideological
Origins of the American Revolution and The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson . If you
have a good university library close by, it ought to have the entire work, Pamphlets of
the American Revolution , from which Ideological Origins was just the
introduction.
One of my research methods was to find an author whose authority I trust, like Bailyn,
then read everything he wrote since I can't have him tutor me--and follow his footnotes to
where he got his information. Sure, that leads to a very extensive reading list; but if
you're going to become a historian, reading lots of books and journals is what you do. Same
thing with Chomsky; all his works are rife with footnotes. And don't just read the radical or
leftist historians; you must read the Court Historians too and thus discover their many
omissions--we all know history's manipulated, but that's not sufficient: just how and why are
necessary.
reply to:Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 25, 2018 5:01:46 PM | 79
"The 'Project for a New American Century' was the 'Globalists' blueprint to 'Globalize' over
the parts of the world that they did not already control."
I agree, their plan is to open up the Schengen region to ALL of Africa destroying/diluting
all allegiance to nations in Europe under the 2018 Marrakesh Declaration
(ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/20180503_declaration-and-action-plan-marrakesh_en.pdf)
signed by the EU and 40 African nations thereby ushering in the return of feudalism under UN
2050 plan.
Well worth a read if you are not familiar with it, it will chill your blood, chilled mine
anyway.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not
cater to gays.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the
accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a
gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into
total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster
American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any
enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are
hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers,
and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't
communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as
evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism.
The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives
I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not
quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a
heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way
are they actual communists?
"I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any
enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians
are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international
bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous
are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and
hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against
both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with
the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So
our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this
policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.
I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is
what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly,
have married outside our religion of birth.
I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a
historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German
medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the
great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book.
Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper
class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary-
right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a
romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy
Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his
generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his
friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out,
barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced
Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and
observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in
reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.
oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the
50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission
that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath,
since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal
he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch
in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.
"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal
advocacy such as this."
False characterization.
"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer
that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational
hatred. It is not."
It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the
purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that
diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda
machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed
into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact
human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own
accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a
snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume
that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other
group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind
control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the
masses.
"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their
own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to
define hate speech and racism."
That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a
particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You
have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind"
have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those
protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as
"racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October
2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired
30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over
the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of
Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to
machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the
water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be
brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a
President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have
on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador
Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward
Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own
service members and their families"
That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a
religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of
Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the
Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will
claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this
knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.
Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly)
for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a
tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.
The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable
to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For
Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a
religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges
the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.
Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions
of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically
Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of
suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they
ran much
of Hollywood , were among the
principal peddlers of porn in America , had
massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout
to determine
who holds many of the other seats in Congress .
None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and
an American-firster.
WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship
and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the
Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the
crucial WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating
around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has
evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to
the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed
that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to
Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian
government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in
advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would
have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.
"Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the
crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you
suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies
abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot):
"People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public
Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is,
that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are
entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this
country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers
among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for
Jewry in the US and EU?
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to
be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America
with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic
cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get
Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions
into smoking ashes.
"and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and
religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the
world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was
the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies
of the Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance,
restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown
institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a
"philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in
philosophy and instructs students in this field.
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and
federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in
the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory:
Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help,
at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the
aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries
which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full
constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and
engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities
have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In
Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past
thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of
Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular,
modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of
Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."
The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very
simply:
What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and
naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?
You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli
false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.
This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.
Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple
visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote
possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.
Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out
what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude
involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept
completely secret.
The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian
targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.
Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined
air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual
observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.
So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?
Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military
leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major
and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to
risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.
How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military
intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred
either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because
the local command went rogue.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin
a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish,
as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN
100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split
second about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took
IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to
pin it on Egypt.
(1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY
set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took
place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years
later.
(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined
air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.
The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War
trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.
CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing
high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.
If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of
radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.
QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt,
other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?
as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and
importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya,
and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your
logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the
excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian
natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy,
considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the
despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against
ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress,
"conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.
Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be
traced back to them within hours at the latest.
then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?
that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to
sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.
and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly,
murderous treason.
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military
forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is
happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of
Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US-
Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what
was going on. Duh.
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty"
of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of
people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by
Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.
We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were
called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not
once, but twice.
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that
purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about
it, we'll likely never know.
"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington
eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's
demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that
purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about
it, we'll likely never know.
This interpretation is at least internally consistent. It is also consistent with my
earlier observation that nobody could seriously claim that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for
even a split second about who launched the attack.
Putting the known factors together, we are left with two viable hypotheses as to the
Israelis' reason for sinking the USS Liberty:
(1) To eliminate a mortal threat to Israel's national security in a time of war, e.g.
because the USS Liberty was feeding intelligence information to Egypt and the Arabs.
(2) As an intentional false flag operation, with express (or at least hinted) support
from the Pentagon for the purpose of publicly "justifying" a U.S. war against Egypt.
This would necessarily mean that the sailors and staff on the USS Liberty were
intentionally betrayed and sacrificed by Johnson and McNamara.
In either case, the Israeli leadership would have been painfully aware that it could NOT
mislead the U.S. as to its authorship of the attack, whatever the Pentagon or Israel might
later say in public later.
"Jet aircrafts came in firing and strafing our ship," he said. "Within minutes they took
out hundreds of antennae and all of our .450-caliber machine guns. We were
defenseless."
But all those aboard were not without hope. Utilizing true American ingenuity and never
giving up their fighting spirit, Tourney described a miraculous effort.
"About half-an-hour into the attack," he said, "one of our men stretched a long wire so
that we could transmit a message to the Sixth Fleet: 'Under Attack by Unmarked Fighters.
Send Help.' A number of ships received this SOS, and soon Capt. Joseph Tully of the USS
Saratoga ordered planes to rescue us."
However, in an act that goes well beyond betrayal into the realm of full-fledged
treason, Tourney laid out how Liberty became a ship without a country.
"Defense Secretary Robert McNamara contacted the Saratoga and recalled the fighters,
telling them not to aid our ship," he said. "But, showing true courage, Tully re-launched
the jets, without authorization . . . After the second set of fighter jets were dispatched,
the president of the United States -- Lyndon Johnson -- personally recalled them," said
Tourney.
Tourney says Johnson told Tully: "I don't give a [expletive] if that ship goes to the
bottom and every sailor is lost. We will not embarrass our ally, Israel."
A day or two later as Liberty limped toward a port in Malta, Adm. Isaac Kidd assembled
the survivors in small groups and, after removing his stars, demanded to know what
occurred.
After learning the truth, a red-faced Kidd pinned his stars back on his uniform and
said, "If any of you ever repeat a word, I'll make sure you end up in the penitentiary, or
worse," Tourney said.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance,
restraint, privacy and secularism
It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American
Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they
were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.
The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier
ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.
"... A Stigler Center panel examines the influence of Big Five tech firms over political discourse and the marketplace of ideas. ..."
"... "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." ..."
"... "We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community." ..."
"... "Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect the process of competition." ..."
"... "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world." ..."
At one point during Mark Zuckerberg's
Senate hearing in April , the Facebook CEO had the following peculiar exchange with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
Graham: But you, as a company, welcome regulation?
Zuckerberg: I think, if it's the right regulation, then yes.
Graham: You think the Europeans had it right?
Zuckerberg: I think that they get things right.
Graham: . So would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry?
Zuckerberg: Absolutely.
Graham: Okay. Would you submit to us some proposed regulations?
Zuckerberg: Yes. And I'll have my team follow up with you so, that way, we can have this discussion across the different
categories where I think that this discussion needs to happen.
Graham: Look forward to it.
This telling bit of dialogue was part of an overall pattern: the hearing was meant to hold Facebook (and Zuckerberg himself, as
the company's founder, CEO, and de facto
single ruler ) accountable for the
mishandling of
millions of people's private data. Yet
one after
another , the senators were asking an evasive Zuckerberg if he would be willing to endorse their bills and proposals to regulate
Facebook. This mode of questioning repeated itself (to a somewhat lesser extent) during the House's
tougher questioning of Zuckerberg the following day.
Needless to say, most company CEOs grilled by Congress following a major scandal that impacts millions of people and possibly
the very nature of
American democracy are not usually treated in this way -- as private regulators almost on equal footing with Congress.
Facebook, however, is not a typical company. As
a recent Vox piece noted, with its vast reach of more than two billion users worldwide, Facebook is more akin to
a government or a "powerful sovereign," with Zuckerberg -- due to his unusual level of control over it -- being the "key lawgiver."
Zuckerberg acknowledged as much himself when he said, in a
much-quoted moment of candor
, that "in a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company." More than other technology companies,
he added, Facebook is "really setting policies."
The notion that corporations can become so powerful that they are able to act as a "form of private government" (to quote
Zephyr Teachout )
has long been part of the antitrust literature. Indeed, as the Open Market Institute's Barry Lynn and Matt Stoller recently noted
during a panel at the Stigler Center's Digital Platforms and Concentration antitrust conference, it is deeply rooted in the
rich tradition of antimonopoly
in America.
That digital platforms are major political
players has also been
well documented
.
Once disdainful of politics, in the past two years Google, Facebook, and Amazon have dramatically ramped up their lobbying efforts,
as the public and media backlash against their social, economic, and political power intensified. Google, which enjoyed
unprecedented access to the Obama White House, is now the
biggest lobbyist in Washington, with other tech platforms not far behind.
Market power begetting political power is
not new in itself. As the participants
of the Stigler panel noted, it is the immense power
that concentrated digital intermediaries like Google and Facebook wield over digital markets, human interaction and the marketplace
of ideas, particularly when it comes to the distribution of political information, that presents a unique challenge. As Lina Khan
(also of Open Markets)
recently
noted , the current landscape of Internet media is one in which a handful of companies "are basically acting as private regulators,
as private governments, over the dissemination and organization of information in a way that is totally unchecked by the public."
The latter part, at least, seems to be changing rapidly, as Americans (and millions more worldwide) grapple with
ongoing revelations showing the profound
impact that digital monopolies have on political opinions and outcomes, in the US and across the world. As Congressman John Sarbanes
(D-MD) said during Zuckerberg's House hearing
in April: "Facebook is becoming a self-regulated superstructure for political discourse."
Left to right: Scott Cleland, Ellen Goodman, Matt Stoller, Barry Lynn, Guy Rolnik
The exact nature of tech platforms' political power, its roots, and how to best deal with it -- all questions debated during the
Stigler Center panel -- are complex and varied. But the key question seems rather simple. As Sarbanes put it during the same Congressional
hearing: "Are we, the people, going to regulate our political dialogue, or are you, Mark Zuckerberg, going to end up regulating the
political discourse? ״
A Private Regulator of Speech
Facebook, said Rutgers Law School professor Ellen Goodman, operates as a private speech regulator. As such, much like public governments,
it "privileges some [forms of] speech over others." Unlike governments, however, which as regulators of speech purport to support
public good, Facebook has adopted a "First Amendment-like radical libertarianism" through which it has so far refused to differentiate
between "high- and low-quality information, truth or falsity, responsible and irresponsible press."
Facebook, famously, argues that it is not a media company, but a technology company. "It's not a player, it's not a [referee],
it's just the engineer who made the field," said Goodman, the co-director of the Rutgers Institute for Information Policy & Law.
The purpose of Facebook's "First Amendment rhetoric," she noted, is "to maximize data flow on its platform," but by doing so, "it
implies, or even says explicitly, that it's standing in the shoes of the government."
Facebook and other platforms, said Goodman, have benefited from the process of deregulation and budget cuts to public media --
a process that has predated the Internet, and led to Washington essentially "giving up" on media policy. The government effectively
"exempted these platforms from the kind of ordinary regulation that other information intermediaries were subjected to." With "platforms
in the shoes of government, [and] government out of media policy," the concentration of platform power over information flows was
allowed to continue undisturbed.
The problem, however, is that much like fellow FAANGs Amazon and Google, Facebook is not just an impartial governor, but a market
participant interested in "monopolizing the time of its users," with a strong incentive to privilege its own products and business
model that "eviscerates journalism."
"It also tunes its algorithm to favor certain kinds of speech and certain speakers," added Goodman. "There's almost no transparency,
save for what it selectively, elliptically, and sometimes misleadingly posts on its blog."
"People Live in Fear"
In a seminal
1979 essay on what he termed the "political content" of antitrust, former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky argued that "political
values," such as "the fear that excessive concentration of economic power will foster anti-democratic political pressures," should
be incorporated into antitrust enforcement. In recent years, this view has been
echoed by a
growing number of
antitrust scholars
, who argue that the way antitrust enforcement has been conducted in the US for the past 40 years -- solely through the prism of
"consumer welfare" -- is ill equipped to deal with the new
threats posed by digital platforms.
The Unites States, remarked Lynn during the panel, was born "out of rebellion against concentrated power, the British East India
Company." The original purpose of antimonopoly in America, said Lynn, was the protection of personal liberty from concentrated economic
and political power: "to give everybody the ability to manage their own property in the ways that they see fit, manage their own
lives in the way that they see fit. To be truly independent of everybody else. To not be anybody else's puppet." Liberty and democracy,
he added, "are functions of antimonopoly."
A state in which Facebook and Google wield enormous influence over the flow of information -- where, to quote
a recent piece by Wired
's Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein, "every publisher knows that, at best, they are sharecroppers on Facebook's massive
industrial farm" -- is antithetical to this ethos, said Lynn, and is firmly rooted in the "absolute, complete failure" of antitrust
in the United States. "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon
-- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." These digital
intermediaries, he added, are "using their power in ways that are directly threatening our most fundamental liberties and our democracy."
"Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly
more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company."
The blame for the outsize influence that Facebook and other digital platforms have over the political discourse, said Lynn, rests
squarely on the shoulders of the antitrust community: "For 200 years in this country, antimonopoly was designed to create freedom
from masters. In 1981, when we got rid of our traditional antimonopoly and replaced it with consumer welfare, we created a system
that has given freedom to master."
In today's concentrated media landscape, he contended, "people live in fear. We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our
newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear
[that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community."
"We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people
who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that?
It's the people in the antitrust community."
Lynn went on to quote from Thompson and Vogelstein's Wired piece: "The social network is roughly 200 times more valuable
than the Times . And journalists know that the man who owns the farm has the leverage. If Facebook wanted to, it could quietly
turn any number of dials that would harm a publisher -- by manipulating its traffic, its ad network, or its readers."
"This was hidden in the middle of the article," said Lynn. "[Thompson], as a journalist, felt obliged to put this out there He
was crying out to the people in this community, in the antitrust community. He's saying 'protect me, the publisher, the editor of
this magazine. Protect me, the reporter. Please make sure that I have the independence to do my work.'"
The "Code of Silence" Has Been Broken
Recent
changes
to Facebook's newsfeed have caused referral traffic from Facebook to media companies' websites to
sharply decline , once again raising concerns about the significant impact that the company has on the media industry. The satirical
news site The Onion , for instance, has launched a public war against Facebook, calling it "an unwanted interloper between
The Onion and our audience." "We have 6,572,949 followers on Facebook who receive an ever-decreasing amount of the content
we publish on the network," the site's editor-in-chief, Chad Nackers, told
Business Insider .
The
backlash by major news outlets and
politicians across
the
political spectrum against the power of Facebook and other tech platforms as de facto regulators of speech on the Internet is
a new phenomenon, said Guy Rolnik, a Clinical Associate Professor for Strategic Management at the University of Chicago Booth school
of Business, during the panel. Until not too long ago, he said, Internet monopolies were the "darlings of the news media." Less than
a year ago , he noted, Zuckerberg was even
touted
by several media outlets as a viable presidential candidate. "The idea that a person who has unprecedented private control over personal
data and the public discourse at large would also be the president of the United States was totally in the realm and perimeter of
what is legitimate," he said.
What has changed? "In many ways, what has changed is that many people associate Facebook today with the election of Donald Trump.
This is why we see so much focus on those issues that were very salient and important for years," Rolnik maintained. Trump's election,
and Facebook's role in the lead-up to it, broke the "code of silence."
Nevertheless, newsrooms today, he said, still do everything in their power "to make sure that everything is shareable on Facebook."
In the words of Thompson and Vogelstein, they are still "sharecroppers on Facebook's massive industrial farm."
Google has "Politically Hijacked the US Antitrust Enforcement Process"
Scott Cleland, president of the consultancy firm Precursor LLC and former deputy US coordinator for international communications
and information policy in the George HW Bush administration, has long warned that concentration among digital platforms will negatively
impact the US economy and society at large.
In 2007, Cleland testified
before the Senate on the then-proposed Google-DoubleClick merger, calling upon antitrust enforcers to block the merger and warning
that lax antitrust enforcement (of the kind that ultimately led the Google-DoubleClick merger to be approved) would allow Google
to become the "ultimate Internet gatekeeper" and the "online-advertising bottleneck provider picking content winners and losers"
-- both of which came true. In 2011, he published the book Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc . , in which he warned readers of Google's surveillance-based business
model and its "unprecedented centralization of power over the world's information."
US antitrust enforcers, he said, were initially "very tough" on Google during the first years of the George W. Bush administration.
Between 2008 and 2012, both the Bush II and Obama administrations brought "strong and consistent antitrust scrutiny and enforcement
to Google." Then, in 2013, the Federal Trade Commission decided to drop its case against the company, despite the
conclusion of its
staff that Google had used anticompetitive tactics. Following Obama's reelection, which Google at the time was credited with delivering,
antitrust enforcement against Big Tech firms essentially ceased. "They shut down all those investigations and they did nothing for
the last five years. DOJ went from very active -- four or five major antitrust actions -- to nothing. Crickets."
Back then, Google and Facebook were still "fiercely competing," he said. Google was going after Facebook's territory with Google
Plus, and Facebook countered by going after Google search with Yahoo and Bing. But then, in 2014, something happened: the large tech
firms "mysteriously stopped competing."
"Yahoo returned to working with Google. Apple dropped Bing for Siri and moved to Google search. Apple and Microsoft dropped their
patent suits, and then Microsoft and Google made peace after scratching each other's eyes out. Google went from 70 percent share
of search and search advertising in the PC market to 95 percent of that in both of those markets today," said Cleland.
What happened? Cleland points to the what he calls the "Google School of No-Antitrust," a narrative with which according to him
Google had been trying to "influence public opinion, the media, elected and government officials, and US and state antitrust enforcers,
to make the public believe Google (and other Internet platforms) have no antitrust risk or liability, because they offer free innovative
products and services, and to make conservatives believe that the Google School of No-Antitrust and the Chicago School's consumer
welfare standard and application are the same, when they are not."
Google, he asserted, "not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to
protect the process of competition." It did so, he argued, by "politically hijacking the most important market, which is information."
"Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect
the process of competition."
Cleland, who identifies as a free market conservative, argued that the current Internet is far from a free market. "Who thinks
it's a good idea that all of the world's information goes through one bottleneck?" he asked, adding that "all the bad things that
you're seeing right now are the result of policy."
One such policy is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provided Internet companies with legal immunity
for the content their users generated or shared and is
often
credited with enabling the creation of the Internet as we know it today. Cleland sees Section 230 as "market structuring" and
has compared it to the libertarian concept of creating artificial islands outside any governmental territory, known as "
seasteading ."
"Section 230 says -- I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it says -- that US policy recognizes that the Internet is a free market
that should be unfettered by federal and state regulations," said Cleland. "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They
got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world."
"Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative.
What they wanted was a no-government world."
Much of today's problems regarding the conduct of digital platforms, he said, results from this policy. "Twenty-two years ago,
we as a nation immunized all interactive computer services from any civil liability. We said, 'It is OK. There is no accountability,
no responsibility for you looking the other way, when your platform or things that are going on on your platform harm others.'"
Section 230, he maintained, "basically created 21 st -century robber barons. Those guys know they have the full weight
of the government. If they go to court, they're going to win, and they have almost all the time."
Antitrust Is "One Part of the Answer"
When it comes to addressing these threats to free speech and democratic discourse, said Goodman, antitrust is only "one part of
the answer." The other part, she asserted, is regulation.
"The First Amendment that we have, that we know and love today," she said, "was not born in 1789 in Philadelphia. It developed
in the latter part of the 20th century against a particular set of industrial and social practices that mitigated some of the costs
of free speech and spread the benefits."
Lawmakers and policymakers, she argued, should "retrieve and resuscitate the vocabulary of media policy," focusing on three core
values: "freedom of mind and autonomy; non-market values of diversity and localism/community; and a concept of the public interest
and fiduciary responsibility."
Whenever someone makes an argument for using antitrust or regulation as a way to structure markets of information, Stoller cautioned,
there are those who will argue that this amounts to censorship. When asked how to avoid censorship when discussing the use government
power over speech, Goodman was conflicted: "There is no way around that. There's a real tension here between absolute liberty of
speech and controls on speech," she said. We cannot have this whole conference with us fantasizing about various regulatory possibilities
that involve use restrictions -- limits on the flow of data, limits on the collection of data -- without acknowledging that under
our First Amendment doctrine right now, probably none of that passes muster."
However, Goodman pointed to the Northwest Ordinance as a possible roadmap. "Nobody would say, or maybe they did, that [the Northwest
Ordinance ] was an anti-private property rule. It was structuring the market so that more people could own property. That's what
the history of media regulation in this country has been: structuring speech markets so that more people can speak."
Disclaimer: The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts
represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its
faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket
Blog Policy .
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
Pertaining to your question about evidence of CIA and other deep state forces using cash
from illicit drug sales, b, if you have time check out a wiked documentary series called
"Cocaine Cowboys".
The first is a glimpse into how things got started in Miami, and is more of entertainment
value than anything else. The second, however, describes exactly how the CIA introduced and
established a massive crack cocaine market in California. It has a lot to do with the Ollie
North "Iran Contra affair", and how the CIA was allowed to circumvent the traditional begathon
for money from congress.
In fact back in the day it was public knowledge. Only congress remained blind.
Our joint favorite reporter, who passed away recently, wrote about it extensively. God bless
Parry. W. Bush pardoned Ollie North, by the way. I am always blown away by the fact these
assholes keep straight faces.
Bible clutchers. Last time I looked AIPAC in the US consisted of roughly half Israeli's or
Jews and half protestant evangelicals. A few years back I read the stats on the religion of
US voters by percentage. I think that showed close to 25% of US voters evangelicals.
While looking for those stats to provide a link, I ran onto
this WP article on the Trump election and ecumenicals. According to the article, 20% of
US voters are evangelicals. That is a huge zionist voting block and the majority voted for
Trump.
When I saw that Shawn Walker Tweet, and the mostly brilliant take-down responses, I hoped b
would mention it. I can think of no one better suited to address this particularly putrid
propaganda. Bravo! And to the (almost) universally excellent barfly commentariat.
BBC created a whole genre of Russian World Cup scare mongering. One they did was on the
deadly threat of "Russian Football Hooligans." RT did an excellent 4 minute job of combining
journalism with humor to expose that bit of 100% Fake News.
The Media is a complete weapon for propaganda. The "writers" are propagandists. There never
is a report on Russia from the Western media that does not vilify or demonize Russia or
Russians in some way.
The World Cup is experienced by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Russia. They are
going to be the truth-tellers.
The event, like Sochi Winter Olympics will stand for itself. It will be splendid.
And the lies will die.
Never expect the truth from the Media.
Always expect the Russian people to be extraordinary. They have demonstrated it for a
century.
"... The attributions of attacks to countries are very shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation. ..."
Could someone remind me the amount of country's America have invaded since the last world war
30 - 40 , I here'd. Compared to Russia 5-8 ? Russia is in Syria by invitation to deal with
rebels/terrorist's .America is now threatening both. Despite being there to attempt a regime
change. Just who do they think they are ? The sooner they are stopped the better and the
easier.
Russia intervened nowhere; the USSR intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 1993,
Yeltsin's cabal intervened in Russia to preserve Bush's and Clinton's New World Order. USSR
was invited into Afghanistan; Outlaw US Empire wasn't. An incomplete list from William Blum's
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II . A graphic map based on Blum's
book.
Yesterday, Putin met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Unfortunately, the Kremlin's recap of
the meeting's currently incomplete, but what is recorded is instructive:
"Of course, we look at the Russian Federation as a founder of the United Nations and as a
permanent member of the Security Council, but I would say that at the present moment we look
at the Russian Federation as an indispensable element of the creation of a new multipolar
world.
"To be entirely frank, these are not easy times for multilateralism and not easy times for
the UN. And I think that after the Cold War and after a short period of unipolar world we are
still struggling to find a way to have a structured, multipolar world with multilateral
governmental institutions that can work. And this is something that worries me a lot and is
something in which, I believe, the Russian Federation has a unique role to play."
Considering many think Guterres just an agent for the Outlaw US Empire, maybe his cited
words will cause a reassessment. I'd like to know what followed. Apparently there was some
discussion about Korea and the
economic initiatives being openly discussed since RoK President Moon will arrive in
Russia tomorrow.
Lavrov met with Guterres today, and his
opening remarks shine a bit more light on what was discussed:
"As emphasised by President Putin, we have invariably supported, support, and will
continue to support the UN, this unique universal organisation. We think highly of your
intention, Mr Secretary-General, to raise the profile of the United Nations in world affairs,
particularly in settling regional conflicts. As you noted yourself at the meeting in the
Kremlin yesterday, this is largely dependent on the general state of the international system
as a whole and the UN member states' readiness to act collectively, jointly, rather than
unilaterally, and to pursue the goals enshrined in the UN Charter rather than
self-centred,[sic] immediate aims.
"We note that you have consistently advocated the pooling of efforts by major players to
deal with world problems. This is the logic of the UN Charter, specifically its clauses on
the creation and powers of the UN Security Council. I hope that based on the values we share
we will be able to successfully continue cooperation in the interests of solving
international problems."
Lots of emphasis on the absolute necessity of making the UN Charter whole again and not
allowing any one nation to make a mockery of it by pursuing its "self-centered, immediate
aims."
Ben @ 14
Thanks Ben. Yep that's what l thought reality would look like, that's my sanity safe for a
while longer. Remember we are not alone!
Zanon @ 12
That is a perfect example of 'fake news' we can spot it here ! Or are we here now msm!
Pantaraxia @ 20
Wow that doubles what I was already shocked about ! And then of course there's the comercal
operations destablising country's using greed as a weapon. Plus the banks, I'm sure South
Africa would have been a real success if they'd kept the banking curuption out. Time for
immoral capitalism to fall.
Also don't you just hate victim blaming.There that's me done. Grrr
@b: I know you're just one man and can't do everything, but it would be wonderful if you
could cover the history of hacking accusations against Russia. No one lays out a sequence of
events better than you.
Just yesterday, another accusation has been leveled against Russia by the head of
Germany's BfV intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen:
German intelligence sees Russia behind hack of energy firms - media report (Reuters).
It's a serious accusation, and one would expect a serious proof. However, no proof has been
given except that "it fits the Russian modus operandi". Also, the fact that the alleged
attack has been named "Berserk Bear" by some unknown Western analyst. Apparently, that's
enough proof by today's standards.
There is a critical lack of independent thinking and skepticism in the international
computer security circles nowadays. The attributions of attacks to countries are very
shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain
IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are
uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of
all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and
programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation.
"... Fact is that the Guardian and the Telegraph are full of anti-Russian propaganda. There is no piece in them about Russia or Putin that does not include snide and fear mongering or repeats long refuted claims about this or that incident for which Russia is claimed to be responsible. The military industrial complex gave order to condemn Russia and the "western" main stream media follow through. ..."
"... But don't pity them. They made their choice, and are well rewarded for their services. With respect, I would rather despise them. ..."
"... And Shaun is trying to sneak out: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/20/police-england-fans-russia-nazi-salute-world-cup ..."
"... I can't prove Shaun Walker and Luke Harding are MI5 operatives but I feel it in my gut. ..."
"... Shawn Wanker personally witnessed Russian AFVs invading Ukraine when he was 1) too far away from the border to see them 2) had amazingly forgotten to bring his smart phone so he could take a geolocated photo. So his credibility is low. As in lower than snake shit. ..."
"... What a tangled web the west has woven for itself through its deceits. How these presstitutes had to work through the night, and sweat the details, to try to patch the holes in the sinking ship - while those who were part of the truth of discovering the reality of Russia slept soundly, and probably with a great beer buzz, and the ring of real people in their ears. ..."
Andrew Roth Retweeted Shaun Walker
Absurd the responses to this incident that multiple correspondents saw. And their point is that it was an outlier in
what sounded like a fine night at the football. Context is all here, should they ignore it instead?
If two British scribes say they heard something, which each describes differently, then it must be true. "Evidence?
We don't report with evidence. Trust us."
This morning a Russian blogger posted some evidence (machine translated from Russian):
Remember yesterday there was a lot of talk about the English journalist who wrote about the alleged Russians who
sang Nazi songs in a bar in Volgograd? They found them. But they were not Russian, but... British. Actually, for
that, it's e... Lo must be beaten. This is Volgograd! Stalingrad!
The attached a video shows three drunk
British blokes in an 'Irish' pub where the menu is written in Cyrillic letters and World Cup flags hang from the
ceiling. The blokes sing a line about putting someone to Auschwitz, give the Hitler salute and shout "Sieg Heil!" The
pub where the video was taken seems to be a different one than the Harat's Walker and Luhn visited. But the point was
made.
Fact is that the Guardian and the Telegraph are full of anti-Russian propaganda. There is no piece
in them about Russia or Putin that does not include snide and fear mongering or repeats long refuted claims about this
or that incident for which Russia is claimed to be responsible. The military industrial complex gave order to condemn
Russia and the "western" main stream media follow through.
Both of the scribes quoted English fans who lament about the false picture they had when they arrived in Russia.
Might that have something to do with the constant stream of russophobe trash the British media provides? Should a
British correspondent in Russia take some time to reflect upon that?
But the two scribes go off to have lots of beer to then send spurious, late-night, anti-Russian claims to their
100,000 followers without providing any evidence. Then they lament about being called out for that.
They are mediocre propagandists who's words no one trusts or believes. One must truly pity these guys.
Posted by b on June 20, 2018 at 04:14 PM |
Permalink
Pity these guys? Not really. Remember, they are not journalists. They are propagandist,
hired mouthpieces. They say what they are scripted to say by their corporate bosses, it doesn't
matter how absurd, the point is to just hammer and hammer and hammer away and mold public
opinion via brute force. The old Soviet Union had more subtle liars.
But don't pity them. They made their choice, and are well rewarded for their services. With
respect, I would rather despise them.
I can't prove Shaun Walker and Luke Harding are MI5 operatives but I feel it in my
gut. I got banned from the Guardian for contrasting Walker's article on the supposedly
insanely loud, strident music in hotels at the Sochi Olympics with a real journalist who said
the music was quiet and varied between classical and soft pop.
Most people are reading the sports journalists, thankfully, and watching them...
Every day the NYT has one or two op-ed pieces critical of Putin/Russia. Today it was by
Alexey Kovalev, and titled "The World Cup Is Fun. Except for the Russians Being Tortured." I'm still waiting for a mention that the host team scored 8 goals in their two
matches.
Shawn Wanker personally witnessed Russian AFVs invading Ukraine when he was 1) too far away
from the border to see them 2) had amazingly forgotten to bring his smart phone so he could
take a geolocated photo. So his credibility is low. As in lower than snake shit.
Aaaaaaaaaand in the meantime, people around the world are are amazed at the beautiful
stadiums, the fantastic atmosphere, the great welcome from local people who ar suddenly
"invaded", they wonder at the well functioning machine behind it all, the wonder at the tight
security and safety of spectators and sport stars.
Congratulations Russia and Russian people, well done! You are doing this exceptionally well.
The World Cup, will be billions of dollars worth in positive reviews.
Great to see that Brit fans laid a wreath at the memorial. Shows May and Johnson are not
connected to the public,
Seeing that the homophobia and racism claims are not sticking well in their relentless
anti-Russian narrative, the MSM has dug up the case of the Ukrainian film director Oleg
Sentsov who is currently on hunger strike while in jail in Labytnangi, in northern Siberia,
for planning to carry out terrorist acts on public infrastructure and a statue in Crimea and
to set fire to government office buildings in Simferopol in 2014, and is flaying it for all
it's worth.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/ukrainian-film-director-on-hunger-strike-in-a-russian-prison-casts-dark-cloud-over-world-cup-20180620-p4zmmr.html
The sports writers are the truth, while the established anchors are the party line. It was
never any different.
We forget the upside. We forget how much energy it takes to keep a lie believable. We
forget how the west has to strain against incredulity itself in order to counter the random
and unschooled manifestations of the truth.
What a tangled web the west has woven for itself through its deceits. How these
presstitutes had to work through the night, and sweat the details, to try to patch the holes
in the sinking ship - while those who were part of the truth of discovering the reality of
Russia slept soundly, and probably with a great beer buzz, and the ring of real people in
their ears.
We have to do something, but we don't have to do everything, in order to counter the lies
of the liars. The universe itself - the very nature of reality - abhors untruth, and causes
the truth to show the shallowness of lies on countless, unscripted occasions.
And these occasions are usually a party. A celebration by ordinary people, joining in
common understanding.
What the rulers most fear.
Because all it takes is a small consensus of 10-15 percent of any population and you have
an activist force. They know this. Minions like the presstitutes mentioned here probably
don't understand this in words, but in their bowels they know.
"... Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value" of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however; because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket. ..."
"... b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets if nothing else. ..."
"... I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution. ..."
"... I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia. For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight" placed on the bank. ..."
"... John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." ..."
"... Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of drugs into the nation. His investigation was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until 911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some manner. ..."
"... Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there. ..."
"... I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel, soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5 billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 / 2014. ..."
"... This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the planet. ..."
"... And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia. ..."
"... Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA. He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe. Read him if you want the real facts. ..."
thanks b... the speculation has always been in my mind anyway - that the money is controlled
by the cia... covert money for covert projects and on and on it goes...
The Taliban curtailed the poppy growing without any problem. Shortly after the US invasion
under the guise of capturing OBL. Almost 18 years later, long after the death of OBL (in
reality and in US military BS) the poppy production has increased exponentially. There are
Pics of US military personnel walking through poppy fields.
Other than drug production there is no need for the US to be in Afghanistan except maybe to
use it as a launching platform to attack Iran. Drugs are an excellent source for funding
black ops.
Not only is the US allowing the production, considering how easy it would be for them to kill
the crops, and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West.
If you understand the Afghan government as a narco state, then the fact that opium
production has actually increased –while the U.S. spent billions on counternarcotics
efforts and troop numbers surged – starts to make sense. A completely failed state
– Afghanistan in 2001 – can't really thrive in the drug trade. Traffickers have
no reason to pay off a toothless government or a nonexistent police force. In such a
libertarian paradise, freelance actors – like Saleem, the heroin cook –
flourish.
But as the government builds capacity, officials can start to demand a cut. It's not
that there's a grand conspiracy at the center of government, but rather that, in the
absence of accountability and the rule of law, officials start to orient themselves around
a powerful political economy. Big drug barons with links to the government take over the
trade. People who don't pay, or who fall out with government officials, might find
themselves killed or arrested.
In this light, U.S. counternarcotics programs, which have cost nearly $8 billion to
date, and the Afghan state-building project in general, are perversely part of the
explanation for the growing government involvement in the drug trade. Even the newly
rebuilt Afghan Air Force has been investigated by the U.S. military for alleged
trafficking. In many places, the surge had the effect of wresting opium revenue from the
Taliban and handing it to government officials. For example, in Helmand's Garmsir District,
which sits on key trafficking routes between the rest of the province and Baramcha, a big
Marine offensive in 2011 finally pushed out the Taliban and handed the district back to the
Afghan government. The result? The police began taking a cut from those drug routes. "There
are families, as in Mafia-style, that have the trade carved up between them, and when some
outsider tries to get in on it, they serve him up as a success for drug interdiction," one
Western official who worked in Garmsir told me.
I just luv-ed this next paragraph. Glad I wasn't sipping Coca Cola
while I read it. Would have chortled cola out my nose!
Here is government BS-speak at it's vacuous best (enjoy):
The U.S. government, for its part, acknowledged that there are no quick solutions at hand.
"The U.S. interagency is developing an updated counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan,"
says Jen Psaki, the State Department's spokeswoman. "These are long-term efforts that build
the foundation for eventual reductions in opium harvests."
Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in
Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from
the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value"
of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the
risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill
of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however;
because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military
contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket.
b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written
decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the
CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to
have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets
if nothing else.
I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been
involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had
Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one
and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they
overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution.
I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia.
For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought
the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director
and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US
Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug
smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight"
placed on the bank.
John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back
in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually
a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people.
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting
the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then
criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their
leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the
evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot
about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of
drugs into the nation. His investigation
was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until
911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was
connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to
view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only
released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some
manner.
The CIA is the planet's #1 Terrorist Organization, and it has all 3 types of Weapons of
Mass Destruction. It's often hard to determine which poses a greater threat to humanity: The
CIA or its parent the Outlaw US Empire. If humanity's to have any chance at a viable future,
both the CIA and its Imperial parent must be destroyed for their many crimes.
That CIA was experimenting with narcotics as a tool seemed to have metasticised into
something else during the Air America years, which in turn seems to have morphed via Barry
Seal (& Gary Webb's investigation)and the Cocaine Coyboys onward into Silk Airways (famed
by weapons to Syria scandal) - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cockburn-white.html
Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it
may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering
started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there.
Addicts were given small sums to
deposit in the banks, by the thousands, which didn't draw attention. A lot of the money was
sent to the U.S. to buy "American Muscle Cars", which were then shipped back to the E.U. and
resold again.
Pakistan was also a transit country where the "Labs" were first set up to
process the opium to heroin. How time fly's when having fun. Addiction to "drugs" isn't the
only addiction nor the addicts involved either. Only one leaf in the book of the minds of
those who believe they are doing the right thing.
I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of
foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel,
soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5
billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as
Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 /
2014.
Also a big portion of the counternarcotics dosh must be going to teams of people digging
up and burning opium and also to teams of people planting new opium seeds in the areas where
the first lot of opium was eradicated later on. Similar to stories people used to hear about
what supposedly happened during the 1930s Great Depression, when teams of people were
employed to dig ditches and then other teams of people were employed to fill up the ditches
which would be dug up again at a later time.
This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to
fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of
the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the
planet.
reply to:
".. and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West."
Posted by: ken | Jun 18, 2018 2:16:06 PM | 5
And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a
bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia.
The level of US "counter-narcotic" investment seems to be about right to support the GROWTH
of the narcotics industry...not the otherway around...its black and its dirty
Every comment on this post is like a fine champagne of reality. how do people get by with out
wanting to know the truth. keep the comments coming I need more! Brilliant links. The doors
of perception just opened for me. Who the hell runs our TVs stations that they can turn a
blind I to this lot.
-------
I to find great strength in music, to find the truth. For me it is reggae any group in
society that has sufferd what we discuss on this site for 300 years, but have survived got
stronger and put it to music, I feel needs listening to!!!
The "War on Drugs" was conceived to put black people in jail en masse as Jim Crow came to an
end. Nixon's aides admitted this. Read "The New Jim Crow" for the full story. Marijuana laws
were first introduced in the early 20th century as a tool to arrest and deport Mexicans from
the American southwest. Google it.
The bullshit "War on Drugs" is as phony as the bullshit "War on Terror" in the wake of 3
skyscrapers that were demolished and collapsed at freefall speed.
The real money is to be made in the bullshit wars spawned by these 2 hoaxes that boggle
the mind in their scope.
Basically, these two cornerstones of American domestic and foreign policy are frauds of
biblical proportions.
An empire built on these foundations will come crashing down as fast as WTC 7 on the
afternoon of September 11, 2001.
Various Contra-cocaine type operations of un/controlled shipments of drugs existed in the
early 1990s, some of which existed in order to arm Bosnia (local fighters and foreign
mujahideen), thereby undermining the UN's arms embargo of former Yugoslav states.
Between 1988 and 1992, 22 tons of cocaine was brought into the US via Venezuela by a team
consisting of Mark McFarlin (head of the CIA's counter-narcotics center), Jim Campbell (the
CIA's chief of station in Venezuela) and General Guillén (head of the Venezuelan
National Guard in the pre-Chavez era).
Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990
At roughly the same time Albanian mobsters had built a heroin smuggling network for the
purpose of illegally supplying arms to the Bosnian mujahideen. Drugs Paying for Conflict
in Europe
In the summer of 1991, Dutch drug lord Klaas Bruinsma, who had connections with members of
the Dutch elite (corporate and royal), the Colombian Cali cartel and the Yugoslav mafia, was
assassinated by either former cop Martin Hoogland (possibly working for intelligence), or the
Yugoslav mobster Branco Marianovic. In that same summer, the UN Security Council passed
Resolution 713 (the Yugoslav arms embargo), and soon after elements within Dutch customs and
police, in cooperation with Bruinsma's business heirs/infiltrators, started the controlled
shipment of large amounts of cocaine (estimated 25,000 kilo) and hashish (estimated 500,000
kilo) under the name "Operation Delta". The customs officials involved in Operation Delta
were most likely protected by their boss Fred Teeven, later rewarded by given the job of
State Secretary for Security and Justice. Mabel Wisse-Smit, daughter of a top banker
(possibly drug money launderer) and future sister-in-law of the current Dutch king, was first
the lover of drug lord Bruinsma (until his assassination, possibly she was sent to spy on
him) and then the lover of Wall St. banker Mohamed Sacirbey (Bosnia's ambassador to UN in
1992, Bosnia's foreign minister in 1995). Wisse-Smit (later a George Soros
protégé) co-founded the Dutch charity foundation War Child, which was used as a
cover for arms lobbying during the Bosnia war, and she is reported by Bosnian media to have
been involved in a specific arms deal with Egypt.
Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA.
He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe.
Read him if you want the real facts.
It's good to know so many are well informed on this. I've read Rupert/Webb's stuff and have
Dark Alliance. There's a good movie/documentary out there about Webb but I can't recall the
name right now. Levine wrote about his undercover work in South American being thwarted by
the CIA. And Bo Gritz was trying to set up a deal where the US would buy up Khun Sa's opium
before it could be distributed but the USG wasn't interested. The amazing thing about the
Afghan ramp up in supply was seeing pictures of US soldiers patrolling in the middle of poppy
fields. Meanwhile at home, congress takes bribes (lobbying efforts) to help protect the legal
drug pushers from prosecution by the DEA shoving millions of pills across the country. A
friend's term for this kind of thing is "racket science."
Yeah, his updated edition is a must read. They do not handle the money directly, they let
the guerillas/rebels/revolutionaries handle that as a reward and provide protection from
legal authorities and access to markets using various agencies and mafia at both ends of the
supply-distribution chain. The dollars from the drugs pay for the weapons and support. The
profits go into nameless offshore Eurodollar accounts which then flow into London and Wall
Street as eurodollar loans in many multiples of the deposits (not to be confused with the
euro) to speculate in various markets and drive up asset prices. When the Taliban shut down
opium production we had the Dot.com crash (coincidence?). 100 billion a year can generate 1
trillion in dollars for speculators, and that was sorely missed (along with Clinton running a
surplus instead of a deficit)
There is so much evidence that in many places where they were or are engaged that drug flows
in the region increased and production increased in those areas known for growing the stuff.
Like any organization only those with a need to know have an idea and the majority are clean
and without information
While we are discussing history of the War on Drugs another example of a major consumer
organization (at the time of print) being turned into a vacuous shell....
The WIkipedia summary
"
The book describes the effects and risks of psychoactive drugs which were common in
contemporary use for recreational and nonmedical purposes.[2] The New York Times paraphrased
some major arguments from the book, saying "'Drug-free' treatment of heroin addiction almost
never works", "Nicotine can be as tough to beat as heroin", and "Good or bad, marijuana is
here to stay. The billions spent to fight it are wasted dollars."[3] The book identifies
marijuana as the most popular drug after tobacco, alcohol, and nicotine.[4] A reviewer for
the Journal of the American Medical Association summarized it by saying that "Brecher holds
that the division of drugs into licit and illicit categories is medically irrational and
rooted mainly in historical and sociological factors."[5]
"
karlof1. Amazing that you knew Mike. And yes, the willful ignorance is horribly frustrating.
The way I see it, almost all "Westerners" are willfully ignorant. We all must know that
the only way we live to the "standards" we do is because of the plunder of both our colonial
past and neoliberal present. But most choose to look aside.
For those who haven't seen it, please spend 17 minutes to see Mallence Bart-Williams give an incredible
talk.
If Kiev wants to attack Donbas they better hurry. After World Cup, and definitely next year
when the pipelines bypassing Ukraine will be ready, Ukraine's strategic situation will get
worse. We are in a transition phase: sh..t happened in 2013-15 that is impossible to undo,
but there were fortunately constraints on all sides that prevented a meltdown. In a year or
two most of those constraints will be gone.
Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington
was always stupid – there are forces in Europe, in all countries, who want a
confrontation with Russia. Any event, real or fake, will be used to escalate. West cannot
lose this one without another fight. And if they sit on their hands, they will eventually
lose with a disillusioned Ukraine and slowly disintegrating EU. Populist energy needs to be
re-directed eastward, and for that a more aggressive policy is required. This is not
pessimism, there simply is no way for EU elite to climb down. How could UK make up with
Russia without looking like complete idiots? Or Macron and Merkel? The hostility is at this
point inherent in the situation – what started out as a badly thought-out attempt to
get some quick goodies (bases in Crimea, Nato expansion, sell weapons) has evolved into a
real death spiral.
We are one Franz Ferdinand moment away from a catastrophe. Let's enjoy the games while we
still can. Trump knows this, so he is trying desperately to organize a summit or send some
messages of conciliation. But he is powerless and it might be too late for that. Hubris never
dissipates, it requires a disaster and an elite turnover to cure hubris.
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events.
He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining
the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups
in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London
and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each
other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't
see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self
evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we
haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at
stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude
towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the
US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is
right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the
Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the
position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a
subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know
people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but
this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his
latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario,
it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also
put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is
Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This
interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos
seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian
institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is
again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
I don't think you realize that armies need supplies. To break into Donbas cities would be
hard enough, but to re-supply them would be impossible. Civilians would mostly evacuate, so
there would be little to 'hide in'. Kiev cannot win militarily as long as Russia opposes it.
Russia can always blast their bases from air, or with missiles. Don't kid yourself, if Russia
has the will, they will prevail.
Since you mentioned 2014, there was a perfect opportunity for Maidanistas to avoid this.
All they had to do was to be friendly and accommodating to its Russian minority. Offer them
autonomy, re-assure them, promise that trade and ties with Russia would continue. Kiev did
the exact opposite, an extremely bad tactic. US kept on telling them to cool it, that one
doesn't win by attacking before ready. But in Kiev emotions prevailed, and so we are where we
are.
Sooner or later a more accommodating government in Kiev will try the 'let bygones be
bygones' tactic on Russia. If we are lucky enough to make it that far.
So-called Ukrainian 'maidans' have bored the world community to death. And the public has
been taking the protests currently under way in Kiev for no more than traditional autumn and
winter open-air parties, similar to the Parisian 'fire shows'. Meanwhile, much more significant
confrontation has been taking place in Kiev, alongside with the circus of ex-president of
Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. An inner conflict between two anticorruption and power-wielding
departments of the country is long overdue. In their relations with the media, both
representatives of those organizations and members of various Verkhovna Rada fractions have
been describing specific processes that are taking place in Ukraine as 'Makhnovshchina' or a
war of all against all, literally speaking.
After returning from the international anti-corruption forum organized by the U.S. State
Department, Nazar Holodnitsky, head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office
(SAP) of Ukraine, stated in an interview
to TSN , the Ukrainian TV channel, that a standoff of law enforcement agencies may escalate
into a war harmful to entire Ukraine. Thus, a conflict between the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) has evolved into a hybrid
war with interrogations involving physical and mental pressure and mutual accusations of all
sorts of evils. Delegates of both sides have simultaneously visited their U.S. sponsors and
come back comforted with just another assurance of '1000% support'.
Such confrontation of the government institutions raises eyebrows, I must say. State
Department has publicly been sympathized with both the corruption fighters and the General
Prosecutor's Office upon condition of the settlement of conflict by legal means and punishment
of officials guilty of criminal charges. Meanwhile, the FBI has also been drawn in this
undeclared war. In June 2016, the FBI and NABU adopted the Memorandum of Understanding, which
allows the FBI to assist NABU and SAP in the matter of investigations and implementation of
anti-corruption actions. The Bureau's special agents and analysts have been working in NABU on
a temporary rotational basis.
The mere presence of the FBI suggests an idea about another U.S. security service which has
been standing invisibly by in Ukraine, since it gained independence. This is the CIA, a classic
rival of the FBI. The very secret visit in 2014 of the former Central Intelligence Agency chief
John
O. Brennan preceded the beginning of active hostilities in Ukraine. The CIA stood behind
the appointment of the recent Kiev government. It had also protected the acting president of
the country from rivals, up to a certain time. For instance, they conduced to the resignation
of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former rather ambitious Prime Minister of Ukraine who was in conflict
with Petro Poroshenko and running for his post.
That helps explain the real cause of furious intransigence of NABU and the General
Prosecutor's Office throwing wild accusations at each other. They have virtually been used by
power-wielding structures and political forces of another state for a showdown. A never-ending
internal fighting in the American national security environment has become the talk of the town
being eventually accreted with new dirty wash. It seems that it has become more acute, with the
passing of time.
For example, the FBI dealt a hard blow to the CIA bringing 12-count charges including
conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, and other
against Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman and his business associate,
Richard Gates. His other partner, Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager was involved as well.
Manafort was renowned for his associations with the CIA and for consulting the Party of Regions
which was led by Victor Yanukovych. It became clear who was he FBI's source of such detailed
and valuable data after the statements by
Artem Sytnyk , Director of NABU and Serhiy Leshchenko , a Ukrainian
MP.
Nevertheless, the CIA won at this stage of confrontation, because Trump came to power. Even
support to the current President of the USA prior to the elections wasn't of much assistance to
the FBI Director Comey.
History has witnessed a number of episodes when Ukraine was a stage for showdown by
political forces from other countries. It never ended peacefully. As far back as in the XVII
century Ukrainian territory had become a theatre of operations owing to the bloody strife
between Polish hetmans (high military commanders in the Army of the Kingdom of Poland) of
Ukrainian and Cossack origin. As a result, lands of the Zaporizhian Host voluntarily pledged
allegiance to Russia.
During World War II the Ukrainian people suffered much harder. At that time the Third Reich
was intensely seeking for ways to weaken the USSR, even before it invaded Poland in 1939. It
was decided to use the ancient divide-and rule tactics proven by Julius Caesar, involving
gradual tearing away of territories with malcontent population. Ukraine was considered the most
prospective area for fomenting disaffection.
However, there also was both ideological and political discord among the highest ranks of
the Third Reich. Thus, Alfred Rosenberg, the main ideologue of Nazism, along with admiral
Wilhelm Canaris (who was accused of 'spiritual instigation' of a plot against Hitler) were
planning the establishment of Ukrainian buffer state controlled by the Third Reich. Using such
promises they managed to recruit Andriy Melnyk, a central figure in the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and notorious Stepan Bandera who, just like Mr. Yatsenyuk, was
striving to lead the government in independent Ukrainian state. If the second one kept clinging
to his aims all the time, Melnyk was good at matching to desires of his sponsors from Hitler's
surrounding. When Himmler and Koch didn't recognize Rosenberg's ideas and wanted to weaken his
power in the National Socialist Worker's Party, Melnyk was quick to assure them of his
willingness to cooperate on any terms, especially when they let him know that Fuhrer didn't
like the idea of a Ukrainian buffer state.
It is a paradox that those relations that had developed both within various branches of
OUN-UPA and the Third Reich senior ranks coordinating them were similar to the recent situation
in Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalist leaders were used not only for German purposes, but also for
elimination of competitors in power. For instance, Rosenberg, after all, had to abandon his
point of view. Many of his influential followers resigned just like chief Comey did to the
delight of chief Pompeo, this May. Although NABU, the organization most thoroughly maintaining
a steady U.S. course prepared for Ukraine, has been successfully continuing investigations,
digging into Poroshenko who fell into disfavor for his poor record. And here you are, Marie
Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a close acquaintance of the U.S. president's
national security advisor McMaster and Secretary of Defense Mattis has
indirectly supported Saakashvili's demonstration. In September, Saakashvili hanged out
happily with contenders of the recent president in future election Valentyn Nalyvaichenko and
Andriy Sadoviy, in Lviv. Now a big friend of Senator McCain Yulia Timoshenko and a number of
Verkhovna Rada MPs endorse him.
This mess of warring parties seems to be disordered and extremely headachy. The situation
has been much worse for the number of competing forces and foreign organizations standing
behind them in Ukraine was much greater during the Third Reich and it continues to be so at
present. The recent Ukrainian bellum omnium contra omnes has been a reflection of competitive
battle between various security and governmental agencies in the USA.
A single distinct and unequivocal fact is that being a neighbour of such a huge state as
Russia, Ukraine was always suffering from those who wish to weaken that influential country.
Over and over again throughout Ukrainian history the country was exploited, with nationalist
sentiments artificially ignited and false promises made. Even 'humane' Rosenberg's scheme
ascribed Ukraine the role of a mere supplier of raw materials and a buffer state between
Germany and Eastern Slavic countries without any right to independence.
As such, the USA regards Ukraine as an administered territory which is useful for strategic
and economic aims. They skillfully manipulate Kiev government with carrot and stick.
Undesirable Ukrainian political puppet might be branded as corrupt and replaced by more
manageable nominee, at any time. There is always a possibility to initiate another blood
shedding Maidan with oppressions and civil war, in case of urgency. Today's Ukraine is no freer
than it was in 1941, during the invasion of Nazi Germany. Melnyks, banderas, hetmans
skoropadskies have been replaced by new 'heroes', who never changed their essence. For
evanescent promises and artificially inflated ambitions they've been tearing the country apart
without mercy either to each other, or their countrymen. Meanwhile, the world community has
been watching with approval the beacon of democracy vigorously setting things to order in 'dark
and ignorant' Ukraine. Each of them thinking, 'Better them than me.'
First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU
foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big
business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does
not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless
the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing
with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a
US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus
Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise
considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany –
only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite
which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The
undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests
of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.
Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU
organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those
fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible
force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are
completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force
multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance,
reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force
planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally
dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU
states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the
Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European
(I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO
Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who
is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red,
white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European
armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the
EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO
desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia
improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will
let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more
US troops on their soil, not less and they are all
pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military
exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases,
NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .
Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships
with Russia . They include:
Unpopular governments which need to explain their own
failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the
Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their
"Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a
"Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly
back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states
did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name
of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are
simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
EU prostitutes : states whose
only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the
most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and
willing loyal servant of the US". The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets,
but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now
willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same
Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars ). True, now that EU
subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they
know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to
change their tune anytime soon (even if
Bulgaria has
already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
Governments who want
to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political
party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best
example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are,
in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize
(correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all
the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).
Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a
powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany
(and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an
aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes,
money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the
big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these
sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but
it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is
why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the
sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.
Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days
when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it
was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very
demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So
when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all
quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian
agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the
Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more
sanctions on Russia .
The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at
all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is
the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6
reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia
needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on
occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally
joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other,
but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all
mobsters prey upon.
The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high
probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia
(DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis
will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:
Option one: they lose to the combined forces of the DNR and LNR. This is probably the most
likely outcome. Should this happen, there is a very high probability of a Novorussian counter
attack to liberate most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, especially the cities of
Slaviansk and Mariupol. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we can
be pretty darn sure of what the reaction in Kiev and in the West will be: Russia will be
blamed for it all. The AngloZionists will never admit that the Ukronazi regime lost a civil
war to its own people because the Novorussians will never accept a Nazi regime ruling over
them. Thus, a Novorussian victory will result in more hysterical Russophobia.
Option two: the Ukronazis succeed in their attack and threaten to overrun Donetsk, Lugansk and the rest of
Novorussia. Putin simply cannot allow this to happen. He has made that promise many times and
he has recently repeated it during his "open line" with the Russian people. If the Russians
are forced to intervene, this will not be a massive ground invasion – there is no need
for that. Russia has the firepower needed in the form of missile and artillery strikes to
destroy the attacking Urkonazi forces and to impose a no-fly zone over all of Novorussia. If
Kiev pushes on and launches a full-scale attack on Russia proper, the Ukrainian armed forces
will be totally disorganized and cease combat in about 48 hours. This scenario is what I call
the "Neocon dream" since such a Russian intervention will not be imaginary, but quite real
and the Kremlin will even confirm it all very publicly and probably recognize the two
Novorussian Republics just like what happened in 08.08.08 when Saakashvili decided to invade
South Ossetia. So, AngloZionists will (finally!) have the "proof" that Russia is the
aggressor, the Poles and Balts will prepare for an "imminent" Russian invasion and I think
that there is a pretty good chance that NATO forces will move into the Western Ukraine to
"stop the Russians", even if the said Russians will have absolutely no desire (or even
possible motive) to want to invade the rest of the Ukraine or, even less so, Poland, Sweden
or the Baltic statelets.
I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not
happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie
military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about "
grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will
happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev
will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you
find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame
Russia.
The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty
clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of
Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good
terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly
by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad
terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower.
Furthermore, Russia is now reporting
that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you
guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And
why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least,
it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even
if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or
in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to
become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be
blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be
attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from
over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least
US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion
is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither
of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And
if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all
quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).
The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for
Russia and the future does look rather bleak.
One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg
summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really
centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert
Doctorow on this topic
here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about
the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while
Russia and China are
having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire
with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic
block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all
(especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the
hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).
Conclusion :
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on
the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different
interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang
racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face
to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about
your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best
when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their
problems at our expense ".
However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will,
engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and
Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also
non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being
deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types
and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is
the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her
resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any
action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU
Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to
undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when
he
recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no
Russia ".
Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous
to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a
multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are
totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage
those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called "
the Europe of
fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound
crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one,
European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe
succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if
only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous
economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous
Europe " from the Atlantic to the
Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union
and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced
by sovereignists.
The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and
the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly,
treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This
is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe,
the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long
struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.
The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense".
As for this:
If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually
disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it
is really that simple.
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events.
He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining
the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups
in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London
and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each
other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't
see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self
evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we
haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at
stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude
towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the
US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is
right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the
Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the
position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a
subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know
people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but
this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his
latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario,
it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also
put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is
Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This
interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos
seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian
institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is
again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that
would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project
would threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern
Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia
could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told
reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in
the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop
it, according to the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr
20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump
administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that
Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been
commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of
Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars
that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons.
Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did
not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even
develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that
Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.
Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically
integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian
heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash?
Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.
Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that
Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat
your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately,
already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should
have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent
influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot
be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if
not.
The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or
all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.
Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak.
Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not
verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million
martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means
about everything that has happened since.
You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher
source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world
invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and
removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't
understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us
outside of the Judeo-Overton window.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense
With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe
past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such
things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945.
As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.
The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to
go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be
militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for
billions of dollars).
Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer
dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive
co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with
"historic enemy" Russia?
There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases
on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are
under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.
"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest
Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over
the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."
Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by
Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us
(proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the
Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of
holocaust biz.
What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?"
How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier
Division of the SS (1st Galician)?
"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater
Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in
Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite
occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will
continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign
and united State and a new order in the whole world.
Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the
Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act
We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to
export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But
the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre
Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt
es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet
sind.
Rough translation:
" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German
policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who
that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "
There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.
Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in
different parts of the world change history.
I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the
migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's
fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.
It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.
"... It is not "misunderstood" -- it is a complete caricature which now blows into the faces of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some exceptions merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language. ..."
"... Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US, regardless of their language proficiency. ..."
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the
Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never
go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within
the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how
misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is - to
borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song - is more alive than the living. The Soviet period
has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area:
culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards - culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does - the Soviet Union will live one.
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
It is not "misunderstood" -- it is a complete caricature which now blows into the
faces of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some
exceptions merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to
most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not
to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet
emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian
language.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
Here, I have to politely disagree since Russian "liberals" both grant-supported and ones
that are not is a separate animal altogether. First, most of them, grants or no grants, are
the real deal, they got grants because they are the real deal, not the other way around, and
causality in this case really matters.
I don't need even to know if Mr. Nekrasov or Gozman
are grant-eaters, their hatred of everything Russian is palpable. The only weaker feeling
than hatred they have is contempt. This cannot be hidden–it shines through. They do it
for the idea and grants are just a bonus. It all goes back to Russian "Westerners" and
liberals about whom Tyutchev (IIRC) left a profound paragraph.
Russia still is a neoliberal country. What do you expect ?
It is interesting that Russia which oppose neoliberal globalization in foreign policy, implements neoliberal reforms within
the country. The current pensoin reform is clienly neoliberal in spirit, even if it does not include privatization. there is
a big different between those who work at factories and those who work at offices.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified. ..."
"... Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime. ..."
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
"... I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe. ..."
"... I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level). ..."
"... I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. ..."
"... Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress. ..."
"... On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned. ..."
Maybe it is presumptuous to express my opinion about another person's faith, but let me
remind you that Putin was a KGB officer and a member of the communist party. As such, he was
(or pretended to be) a militant atheist. Now he publicly goes to church and remains there
throughout the service (mind you, Russian Orthodox Christmas and Easter services are
all-night affairs). Thus, he either lied then or is lying now about his faith. Take your
pick.
Yes, Orthodox Christianity was one of the pillars of Russian culture. But again, let me
remind you that one of the greatest Russian writers, Leo Tolstoy, was excommunicated by the
church. What's more, current patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox church, was
photographed with a watch worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, owns an apartment in the
center of Moscow, likely worth millions of $, and a collection or rare books in this
apartment with a huge value. If you are a Christian, you should know that "it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God" (Matthew 19:24; also Mark 10:25).
I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red
herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that
afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was
that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were
mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this
was amply justified.
I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving
humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best
conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime
mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and
after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even
worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death.,
There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine.
Basically there were real
issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force
caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and
these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and
other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism
regime.
Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of
these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people.
Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started
made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human
rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a
soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.
Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.
I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this
issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional
background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.
I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge
achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in
Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money
to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical
sites all over Europe.
I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they
degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these
"reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact,
American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US
level).
I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in
the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent
research in Russia now than there was in the USSR.
Huge inequality is another negative,
especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now
continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned
and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that
regress rather than progress.
On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in
international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a
thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps
those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be
damned.
An interesting point about refugees and emigration of Ukrainians to Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president. ..."
"... During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
"... Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton. ..."
"... the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance. ..."
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to
task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his
encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda
against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English
language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy
establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's
challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and
should be said in reply to Peter's comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In
one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down
of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS.
You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed
ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with
roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the
years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to
those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills
journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country
does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early
1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who
attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out
hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for
the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These
individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the
overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be
colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received
significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem
less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of
Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in
Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of
the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to
Russia.
Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more
anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin
views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters
isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11.
The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties
(even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has
appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the
Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true.
However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many
Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively
more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians
questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
I suppose many of us saw the Tucker with Max Boot. Boot seemed unhinged, really
emotionally overwrought by Tucker raising commonsensical challenges to his neocon orthodoxy.
Sad, angry man.
"... Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit. ..."
Six days after the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) revealed that it had staged the
supposed murder of the anti-Kremlin journalist Arkady Babchenko, the Ukrainian government
continues to seek to exploit the case for the anti-Russia campaign even as contradictions and
lies concerning the state operation pile up. (See: "
The New York Times and the murder that wasn't ")
Last Tuesday, the Ukrainian and Western press was filled with media reports about the
killing of Babchenko in Kiev. The journalist, who supported the US-backed far-right coup in
Kiev in early 2014 and the war of the Kiev regime in eastern Ukraine against pro-Russian
separatists, had fled Russia in early 2017 after receiving death threats.
Ukrainian officials and Western media outlets, including the New York Times ,
immediately rushed to blame the killing of Babchenko on Russia. Yet in a stunning turn of
events on Wednesday, Babchenko and the head of the Ukrainian Secret Service held a press
conference to announce that the murder had been staged in a "special operation" allegedly
designed to disclose a murderous plot against Babchenko by the Russian secret service, the
FSB.
At the press conference, Babchenko described how he had faked his fall, put on a T-shirt
that had been shot through to show bullet wounds, and was then covered in pig's blood. His
wife found him lying on the floor and called the ambulance. He was pronounced dead in the
ambulance and brought to a morgue where he started to watch news coverage of his alleged
murder.
The story since presented by the SBU to justify the faked murder and describe the alleged
Russian plot to kill Babchenko resembles a poorly written spy novel, filled with glaring
inconsistencies and blatant lies.
Only two suspects have been identified by the SBU. Boris German is allegedly the man
tasked by the Russian FSB to kill Babchenko. He is the executive director of the
Ukrainian-German weapon manufacturer Schmeisser. There have been reports, but no official
confirmation, that he was in fact working for Ukrainian counterintelligence.
The hit man allegedly hired by German is Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk, who had previously fought in
the civil war in eastern Ukraine for the fascist Right Sector on the side of the Kiev regime.
No explanation has been offered for why Tsimbalyuk, by all appearance an ardent Ukrainian
nationalist and opponent of Russia who has described the killing of Russian soldiers as "an
act of mercy," decided to change sides to kill Babchenko.
The Ukrainian general prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, said that the staging of the murder led
to the disclosure by the suspect of a list of 30 names of journalists whom Russia planned to
kill in Ukraine. This number has since been revised upward, to 47. German was supposedly also
tasked to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. How all of these plots were
connected and how they were to be executed by a handful of people has not been explained.
The SBU also published as proof of Russian involvement the "dossier" the Russian FSB had
allegedly compiled on Babchenko for his "killer." Yet, as the journal meduza has
pointed out, almost the entire biography of Babchenko in the dossier was copied from
Babchenko's Wikipedia article, while all other information had been published by Babchenko
himself on various social media platforms.
The dossier included no information about Babchenko's phone number or address in Kiev,
both of which would have been important for the "killer" and easy for any secret service to
obtain. The only private information in the dossier was Babchenko's registered Moscow address
and his Russian identification and passport numbers, all of which could have been (and in all
likelihood were) revealed by Babchenko to the SBU, but appear to be of no immediate use to a
hired killer in Ukraine.
These contradictions are in addition to more minor lies in the Ukrainian government's
account. For instance, Babchenko, in a very dramatic gesture, apologized to his wife at the
press conference last Wednesday for having made her believe that he was dead. Yet on Thursday
it was revealed that his wife had been in on the plot.
The Ukrainian government has not revealed whether it was aware that the killing had been
faked when it declared that Russia was to blame for Babchenko's "murder."
Babchenko and the Ukrainian government have staunchly defended the media hoax and continue
to seek to use it to whip up the campaign against Russia.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko hailed the staged murder as a "brilliant operation"
and said on Ukraine television, "The whole world saw the real face of our enemy It is not
Ukraine you should condemn, but Russia."
He promised that Babchenko and his family would receive around-the-clock protection,
arguing that "Moscow would hardly calm down" and that the Ukrainian secret services were
growing stronger in "fighting Russian aggression."
The advisor to the Interior Ministry Anton Gerashchenko wrote on Facebook: "Even Sherlock
Holmes successfully used the method of faking his own death to effectively investigate
difficult and complicated crimes, however painful that may have been for his relatives and
for Dr. Watson."
Babchenko, who worked for the Russian army in both Chechen wars in the 1990s, posted a
series of vulgar and aggressive comments on Facebook to denounce his critics. In one post, he
pledged "to die at 96 while dancing on Putin's grave."
Responding to criticism in the British press, he wrote: "Dear British press, will you
please go fuck yourselves. If you want to do something useful, you can give me a British
passport and British sanctuary. Then you will have earned the right to lecture me on how I
should save myself and my family. Fucking smart arses!"
He also wrote: "I wish all these moralisers could be in the same situation -- let them
show their adherence to the principles of their high morals and die proudly holding their
heads high without misleading the media."
Babchenko's boss at the Crimean Tatar television network ATR, Ayder Muzhdabayev, described
the journalist's critics to Al Jazeera as "vermin." Muzhdabayev had been the first
to report on Babchenko's alleged death last Tuesday.
Several pro-Western Russian journalists who are close to the liberal opposition have
published op-eds defending Babchenko. However, a few voices also raised concerns.
An editorial by Pavel Kanygin in the pro-liberal Novaya Gazeta argued that
Babchenko had "died as a journalist by breaking professional ethics and engaging in an
unprecedented collaboration with secret services." Another op-ed in the same newspaper
ridiculed the operation as a "parody" on Soviet spy novels and films.
The Russian business daily Vedomosti , which is associated with the Financial
Times and the Wall Street Journal , wrote in an editorial that the Babchenko
operation had "blurred the border between truth and fiction" and would lead to more distrust
in the media.
Similarly, numerous opinion pieces in Western outlets such as the Guardian and
the German Spiegel , which have been heavily involved in the anti-Russia and
anti-Putin campaign, raised concerns about the Babchenko operation and its consequences for
the credibility of the media. The Guardian noted that "by faking Babchenko's murder,
Ukraine has smeared itself," and that it had "handed Russia a massive propaganda
victory."
The New York Times ran an article on Sunday as an exercise in damage control that
was headlined "Faked Killing of a Putin Critic Can't Get Much Murkier. And Yet It Does."
Numerous Western politicians, including German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, have also
criticized how the Ukrainian government handled the case.
Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to
do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by
a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further
discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western
journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit.
As I pointed out in my last comment on the previous Korea thread, only the UNSC sanctions
are legal--Outlaw US Empire sanctions have no legal force outside its borders and can be freely
ignored. It's entirely possible Russia will use its position as UNSC President this month to
introduce a resolution canceling or greatly scaling back UNSC sanctions.
That almost the entire Imperial Establishment has given the Finger to the entire affair
isn't being ignored by the rest of the world, the EU in particular.
Although short, the Global Times link I provided has useful information as does the
Black Agenda Report item I linked to in my comment previous to my last on that
thread.
I very much approve of b's linking what was just accomplished with the NPT and hope other
writers pick it up and help further broadcast his very important point.
As for 100% denuclearization of Korea, lots of nuclear power plants will need to be replaced
and decommissioned, and that will likely take several decades to attain.
One can hope that an historical movement's begun to finally decolonize those nations
occupied by the Outlaw US Empire upon WW2's end. Admittedly, the Asian nations will find such a
process much easier than those in Europe. I doubt I'll live to see it, but somehow I can't find
any reason for Germany to continue being occupied in 2045, a full century after the end of WW2.
But if Germany is to become free, it cannot afford any more Merkels.
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to
discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little
risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy
by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to
an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation
just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain,
France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was
considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one
reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if
the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as
their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been
a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of
other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major
corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look
like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable
speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016
national elections in the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major
alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald
Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations
carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time.
The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all
according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels
succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the
attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to
avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the
evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring
instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation
of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will
apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible
motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations
made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely"
Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical
weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful
enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared
to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in
London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included
the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe
that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion
suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the
CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like
it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit
of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate
and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
The root is neoliberal government that came to power in 2015
Notable quotes:
"... Why is any of this still "surprising" ..."
"... Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term "ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now. ..."
"... Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little hope. Keynes' BANCOR was the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible. ..."
Thanks for the link. I will be spending some time thinking of what Argentina would best
employ as best practices from where it is.
Would they be best off if they stopped issuing such high paying bonds? Should they pay them
all off and stop with it. It does appear to me that issuing bond after bond is one of the
single most dangerous things you can do.
It would appear to me to be a superior practice to sell what you produce for the best price
you can get on the open markets and dictate the value of your currency.
I'll have to do some more study here.
Again, thanks for the link.
You're uttering the discourse of the most recalcitrant neo-liberal cum
austerity-fundamentalists around.
The US doesn't tax soybean exports. Argentina needs to maximize its exports to earn
foreign exchange.'
it's misleading to say the least to draw a comparison between how the US handles soybean
exports and Argentina does it. They're around a quarter of the latter's exports, barely a
hundredth of the latter's.
The US will never have forex issues, Argentina does have them, and they are very serious.
You make it as if simply exporting commodities will fill the country's economy with USD,
while in truth those dollars will be neatly parked in tax heavens. Eliminating tax and
controls over Argentina's biggest exports -agricultural commodities- is in practice as if
these commodities were produced not in this country but in some foreign territory over which
only the very few who hold most of the land are sovereign. Which is what the current
administration has been doing for the past two years.
You also make it as if the current situation where the value of the peso is given over
completely to whatever short-term speculators feel like doing with it whenever LEBACs are due
is more desirable than the capital controls imposed by the previous government. These
prevented the hurtful rapid rise we're seeing in the exchange rate and reduced the negative
consequences of the fiscal deficit thus allowing significant investment in and expansion of
the real economy.
Addressing the fiscal deficit through increased value added and income tax is something
that clearly benefits the owner over the working class and depresses private consumption. I
can only sarcastically wonder who would want such a thing.
I don't feel the need or the duty to defend the previous government, but victimization of
the Sociedad Rural is something I just lack the words to condemn strongly enough
Argentina is probably the most self sufficient country on earth. It has everything,
fertile land that produces an abundance of wheat, barley, oats, rye, wine grapes. As well as
oil, gas. uranium, silver, gold, lead, copper, zinc. Foreigners are well aware of the wealth
in Argentina and are more than willing to lend to Argentinian governments and companies. This
is why Cristina Kirchner refused to give in to the US vulture funds as it dissuaded
foreigners from believing that reckless lending would always be rewarded. Macri ponied up,
restarting the old familiar economic doom cycle. As always its the old dog for the long road
and the pup for the puddle. Macri is now in a place that he chose, the puddle. As long as
foreig lenders remain reckless Argentina will remain mired in the mud, well short of its
potential. I was last there in 2008 when the country was booming. When I heard of Macri's
plan to pay the vulture funds I knew they were headed for disaster. This is just the
beginning.
Those "foreign lenders" can't be called "reckless." Some, maybe most among them always
seem to profit from the looting, whether by "bailouts" or "backstops" from governments like
the US that for "geopolitical reasons" facilitate that lending, or by extortion after the
first-round lenders (who know the risks, of course -- they are big boys and girls after all)
have been forestalled.
Call them "wreckers," maybe. Like early denizens of the Florida Keys, and other places,
who set fires or put up lamps that resembled lighthouses to lure passing ships onto the sands
and rocks where their cargoes and the valuables of their drowned passengers and crews could
be stripped.
Why is any of this still "surprising" to anyone?! Most countries in the world
(non G7/G8) are forced to go into foreign debt in order to pursue their "development"
initiatives. They are told they can export themselves out of trouble but the "free
trade" (more like unfair trade!) mantra puts them at a distinct disadvantage –
"unequal
exchange" was the term Marx used for it.
Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term
"ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and
trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now.
Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little
hope. Keynes' BANCOR was
the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left
to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible.
"... The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership of Cadre, a real-estate startup he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal. ..."
I guess the "Deep State" is deeper than the White House is reporting.....
Jared Kushner didn't disclose his business ties with George Soros, Peter Thiel, and Goldman Sachs, or that he owes $1 billion
in loans, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership of Cadre, a real-estate startup
he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal.
This is prophetic article, no question about it. "National neoliberalism" and interesting term.
Notable quotes:
"... Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. ..."
"... By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism. But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives, appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism differs most starkly from its European cousins. ..."
And why the world is about to get much more dangerous The election of Donald Trump "represents a triumph of neoliberal
thinking and values." (Photo: Carlo Allegri/ Reuters) Many writers and pundits are currently framing Trump's election in terms of
a dispossessed and disenfranchised white, male working class, unsatisfied with neoliberal globalization and the insecurity and hardship
it has unleashed -- particularly across regions of the United States that were formerly manufacturing powerhouses (like the Rust
Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, four states believed to have cost Hillary Clinton the election). While
there is much truth to this perspective and substantial empirical evidence to support it, it would be a mistake to see Trump's election
wholly in these terms.
"What Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state."
Trump's election is in some ways a neoliberal apex, an event that portends the completion of the U.S. government's capture by
wealthy corporate interests. While in my opinion Trump's election does not signal the beginning of a rapid descent into European-style
fascism, it appears to be a key stage in the ongoing process of American democratic disintegration. American democracy has been under
attack from large and wealthy corporate interests for a long time, with this process accelerating and gaining strength over the period
of neoliberal globalization (roughly the early 1970s to the present). This time period is associated with the rise of powerful multinational
corporations with economic and political might that rivals that of many national governments.
In terms of the political consequences of these trends in the U.S., certain thinkers have argued that the U.S. political system
is not democratic at all, but rather an "inverted totalitarian" system. Political commentator Chris Hedges notes: "Inverted totalitarianism
is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in
the faceless anonymity of the corporate state." Citing the American political theorist Sheldon Wolin, Hedges continues, "Unlike the
Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and poor, inverted
totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an insecure
workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers." Our inverted totalitarian system is one that retains the trappings
of a democratic system -- e.g. it retains the appearance of loyalty to "the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press,
[and] the independence of the judiciary" -- all the while undermining the capacity of citizens to substantively participate and exert
power over the system.
In my view, what Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state. Trump gives inverted totalitarianism
a persona and a face, and perhaps marks the beginning of a transformation from inverted totalitarianism to totalitarianism proper.
In spite of this, it makes no sense to me to call the system toward which we are heading (that is, if we do not stand up and resist
with all our might right this second) "fascism" or to make too close comparisons to the Nazis. Whatever totalitarian nightmare is
on our horizon, it will be uniquely American. And it will bear a striking resemblance to the corporate oriented system we've been
living in for decades. Indeed, if the pre-Trump system of inverted totalitarianism solidified in the context of global neoliberalism,
the period we are entering now seems likely to be one characterized by what I call "national neoliberalism."
Trump's Election Doesn't Mean the End of Neoliberalism
Trump's election represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values. Perhaps most importantly, we should all keep in mind
the fact that Americans just elected a businessman to the presidency. In spite of his Wall Street background and billionaire status,
Trump successfully cast himself as the "anti-establishment" candidate. This configuration -- in which a top-one-percenter real estate
tycoon is accepted as a political "outsider" -- is a hallmark of neoliberal thinking. The fundamental opposition between market and
government is a central dichotomy in the neoliberal narrative. In electing Trump, American voters are reproducing this narrative,
creating an ideological cover for the closer connections between business and the state that are in store moving forward (indeed,
Trump is already using the apparatus of the U.S. federal government to promote his own business interests). As states and markets
further fuse in coming years, this representation of Trump and his administration -- as being anti-government -- will help immunize
his administration from accusations of too-cozy relationships with big business. Trump's attempts to "drain the swamp" by imposing
Congressional term limits and constraints on lobbying activities by former political officials will also help to hide this relationship.
(Has anyone else noticed that Trump only addresses half of the "revolving door," i.e., he plans to limit the lobbying of former politicians,
but not the political roles of businessmen?)
"Whatever totalitarian nightmare is on our horizon, it will be uniquely American."
Trump's Contract with the American Voter, his plan for the first 100 days in office, discusses policies and programs many of which
are consistent with neoliberal thinking. (I understand the term "neoliberalism" to emphasize at its core the importance of private
property rights, market-based social organization, and the dangers of government intervention in the economy.) Trump's plan redirects
the activities of the U.S. government along the lines touted by neoliberal "market fundamentalists" like Milton Friedman, who advocate
limiting government's role to market-supportive functions like national defense (defense stocks are doing very well since the election)
and domestic law and order (Trump's proposals have a lot to do with altering immigration policy to "restore security"). Trump also
plans to use government monies to revitalize physical infrastructure and create jobs. Other government functions, for example, health
care provision and education as well as protecting the environment and public lands, are open for privatization and defunding in
Trump's agenda. Under Trump, the scope of federal government activities will narrow, likely to infrastructure, national defense,
and domestic policing and surveillance, even if overall government spending increases (as bond markets are predicting).
Trump also seems content to take neoliberal advice in regard to business regulation (less is best) and the role of the private
sector in regulating itself (industry insiders understand regulatory needs better than public officials). Trump's plan for the first
100 days specifies "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated." As of the
time of this writing, his selection of cabinet appointees illustrate a broad willingness to appoint businesspeople to government
posts. As of mid-December 2016, a Goldman Sachs veteran, Steven Mnuchin, has been appointed Secretary of the Treasury; billionaire
investor Wilbur Ross has been appointed Secretary of Commerce; fossil fuel industry supporter and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott
Pruitt has been appointed as EPA administrator; and fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder has been appointed as Secretary of Labor. Trump's
business council is staffed by the CEOs of major U.S. corporations including JP Morgan Chase, IBM and General Motors. To be fair,
the "revolving door" between government and industry has been perpetuated by many of Trump's predecessors, with Trump poised to continue
the tradition. But this is not to say that neoliberalism will continue going in a "business as usual" fashion. The world is about
to get much more dangerous, and this has serious implications for patterns of global trade and investment.
Trump's Election Does Mean the End of Globalism
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan
outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself
as a global citizen. Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading
network. In other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized
system (this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization
trends around the world). I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape
of U.S. allies and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.
Trump's Contract with the American Voter outlines several policies that will make it more expensive and riskier to do business
abroad. All of these need not occur; I think that even one or two of these changes will be sufficient to alter expectations in business
communities about the benefits of certain cross-border economic relationships. Pulling the United States out of the TPP, along with
threats to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement and attempts to renegotiate NAFTA, is already signaling to other countries that
we are not interested in international cooperation and collaboration. A crackdown on foreign trading abuses will prompt retaliation.
Labelling China a currency manipulator will sour relations between the two countries and prompt retaliation by China. As Trump goes
forward with his anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, he will alienate the United States' traditional allies in
Europe (at least until Europe elects its own nationalist and xenophobic leaders) and communities across the Global South. The U.S.
election has already undermined performance in emerging markets, and bigoted rhetoric and policy will only increase anti-American
sentiment in struggling economies populated largely by people of color. Add to this the risk of conflict posed by any number of the
following: his antagonizing China, allying with Russia, deploying ground troops to stop ISIS, and pulling out of the Korean DMZ,
among other initiatives that seem likely to contribute to a more confrontational and violent international arena. All of this is
to say that Trump will not have to intervene directly in the affairs of business in order to nationalize it. The new global landscape
of conflict and risk, combined with elevated domestic spending on infrastructure and security, will bring U.S. business and investment
back home nonetheless.
National Neoliberalism and State-Market Relations
Fascist states are corporatist in nature, a state of affairs marked by a fusion of state and business functions and interests,
with an often significant role for labor interests as well. In the fascist states on the European continent in the 1930s and 1940s
-- systems that fall under the umbrella of "national socialism" -- the overwhelming power of the state characterized this tripartite
relationship. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. in regard to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy
(as well as Stalinist Russia), "The state was conceived as the main center of power, providing the leverage necessary for the mobilization
and reconstruction of society".
By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt
and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace
and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State
and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism.
But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives,
appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring
them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the
landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism
differs most starkly from its European cousins.
Sasha Breger Bush is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado–Denver and author of Derivatives
and Development: A Political Economy of Global Finance, Farming, and Poverty (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
"... our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ..."
"... The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. ..."
"... "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home." ..."
"... "Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , ..."
"... "The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side. ..."
A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals
don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that
their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed
crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed
authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and
occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous
governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed,
sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.
Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49
nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as
"dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba,
and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about
Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent
of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba,
Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most
politically aware people," Whitney wrote:
"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for
foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military
assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi
Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our
nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our
government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They
are the rule ."
The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated
from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with
misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious
right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .
The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is
that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home
while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked
invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the
twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic.
She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the
helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at
home."
"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian
Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template
for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red
Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on
the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows
in his latest book, In the Shadows of the
American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process --
internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices abroad and
justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" -- has recurred ever since. Today, the
rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National Security Agency has
cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and Obama44, not just
under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as beyond the
U.S.
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever
been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary
dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless
Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the
rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on
our side.
The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its progressive
wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to compete with
Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal politicians to
center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader plan to rebuild the
party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall Street, big business,
and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning
candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people and
replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more responsive to the needs of business. The
ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised
almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to
implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors. Here's more
background from Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as
widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as
many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power
in the lower chamber of Congress .
it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters
or other "left"-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the
221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as
"progressive." None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election." ("The CIA
Democrats, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right
functionaries who will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade
policy, and supporting the foreign wars. This new wave of fiscally-conservative Democrats will
execute their tasks in a party that serves as the political wing of the federal bureaucracy.
Democrat leaders have long-abandoned the idea that a party should be a vehicle for political
change. Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists
and liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions that impact corporate
profitability. Here's more on the Dems' attack on its liberal base from an article by Patrick
Martin:
"The New Jersey Democratic Party establishment successfully imposed its choice in
contested congressional nominations, brushing aside several candidates backed by Bernie
Sanders and his Our Revolution group. Nearly every Sanders-backed candidate in other states
-- for governor of Iowa and congressional seats in Iowa, Montana New Mexico and California --
suffered a similar fate." ("US primary elections in eight states confirm rightward shift by
Democratic Party", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
As a result "Only a handful of candidates running under the Bernie Sanders banner survived
primaries held in six states on Tuesday. As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates
endorsed by Our Revolution -- - had been declared winners." (USA Today)
Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon. Even so,
Sanders role vis a vis the Democratic Party has always been a bit of a ruse. Here's how author
Tom Hall sums it up:
"The major political function of Sanders' campaign is to divert the growing social
discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to
contain and dissipate it. His supposedly 'socialist' campaign is an attempt to preempt and
block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class." ("Is Bernie Sanders a
socialist?", July 16, 2015), Tom Hall, World Socialist Web Site)
Sanders task will become increasingly more difficult as progressives realize that
the Dems are building a party apparatus that sees activism as a fundamental threat to their
strategic objective, which is to create a secure environment where business can flourish.
Sanders has helped the party by seducing leftists with his fake liberalism, but he has
undermined the aims of working people who need an independent organization to advance their own
political agenda. As long as Sanders continues to sell his populist snake oil from a Democratic
soapbox, liberals are going to continue to hope that the party can be transformed into an
instrument for progressive change. The evidence, however, suggests the party is moving in the
opposite direction. Here's more from Patrick Martin's:
"The Democratic Party's promotion of a large number of military-intelligence candidates
for competitive districts represents an insurance policy for the US ruling elite. In the
event of a major swing to the Democrats, the House of Representatives will receive an influx
of new members drawn primarily from the national security apparatus, trusted servants of
American imperialism The preponderance of national security operatives in the Democratic
primaries sheds additional light on the nature of the Obama administration (which) marked the
further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party .
The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that
takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and
representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and
covert, on behalf of American imperialism. .
The upper-middle-class layer that provides the "mass" base of the Democratic Party has
moved drastically to the right over the past four decades, enriched by the stock market boom,
consciously hostile to the working class, and enthusiastically supportive of the
military-intelligence apparatus which, in the final analysis, guarantees its own social
position against potential threats, both foreign and domestic. It is this social evolution
that now finds expression on the surface of capitalist politics, in the rise of the
military-intelligence "faction" to the leadership of the Democratic Party." ("The CIA
Democrats", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
The dramatic metamorphosis of the Democratic party hasn't taken place in a vacuum but in a
fractious and politically-charged environment where elements within the intelligence community
and law enforcement (FBI) are attempting to roll back the results of the 2016 presidential
elections because their preferred candidate (Hillary Clinton) did not win. And while these
agencies have not yet produced any hard evidence that their claims (of collusion with Russia)
are true, there is mounting circumstantial evidence that senior-level officials at these
agencies were actively trying to entrap members of the Trump campaign to justify more intrusive
surveillance in the hopes of uncovering incriminating evidence that could be used in
impeachment proceedings.
As more information surfaces, and we learn more about the "unmasking", wiretapping, National
Security Letters, FISA warrants, paid informants and other surveillance abuses that were
directed at the Trump campaign, we should think back to 2005 when the New York Times first
reported that the National Security Agency had been eavesdropping on Americans inside the
United States "without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."
("Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts", New York Times) That incident was reported
just 13 years ago and already we can see that the infrastructure for a permanent Orwellian
police-state –that uses its extraordinary powers of surveillance to sabotage the
democratic process and maintain its stranglehold on power– has already arisen in our
midst. And while Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already
being used against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and
their military allies so they continue to prosecute their war against personal liberty and the
American people.
"The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty
comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be
depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors."
If by "regressive" you mean a move away from a mixed economy to a more fundamentalist
market-based approach, then yeah, I would agree.
"Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists and
liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions "
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do with
economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality. The
cultural-Marxist troika.
" Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already being used
against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and their
military allies "
You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their
warmongering in the liberal media. Currently the Democrats are inflamed with identity
politics; more than likely this infection will continue to fester for another two election
cycles. Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict,
civil war.
The Democrat party is a high-low coalition of the fringes. The ultra rich use the poor to
attack the middle so they can distract everyone else from uniting and doing something like
raising taxes on the rich or deporting minorities to democrat neighborhoods. So, it's not
surprising that the high part of the coalition would strike back.
This only further strengthens my desire to see a secession movement. When statist
democrats are in power, they will surely abuse this growing national security state to keep
us down. It's time to break up the USSA ASAP before it's too late.
"Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should
promote issues that are important to working people."
Note to M. Whitney: the New Deal coalition is dead. Left/Progressives today despise
working people. Didn't you get the memo? Working people are deplorable! Antifa, BLM, the
Women's Studies Dept, the sex lobby, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore – they all hate working
people.
"Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right functionaries who
will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade policy, and supporting
the foreign wars."
Note to M. Whitney: Progressives today love free trade and advocate war against Russia.
Didn't you notice when pro-war progressives kicked you off the Counterpunch website? Today's
Progressives love War! Punch the Nazi!
"Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon"
Note to M. Whitney: The progressive bandwagon exists solely for identity politics
hysteria, and it is not derailed. Haven't you noticed the race and gender, baiting and
slander bandwagon barreling down the highway? It's getting louder all the time.
Stop holding out hope that someday there will be a groundswell of progressives on the left
who are on the side of the little guy. Progressives are an elite crowd of identity politics
ideologues. Radical reformers are misanthropes – they don't like social norms because
they don't like basic human nature. They will never like working stiffs. They will never care
about 3rd world villagers getting bombed.
The fault line here is race and gender politics. You are on the right side on war and
economic issues and you are on the wrong side on race/sex/gender issues. Don't blindly accept
the dogma that differing group outcomes are caused by Bad White Males. Trust in facts and
reason. Don't feel you have to grovel because you're white or male. Change your mind on these
issues – it's called learning.
It brings power to its practitioners. Which is the whole point.
You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their
warmongering in the liberal media
Why wouldn't they? Warmongering has been a "liberal" preoccupation for a century, since
the income-taxing suffragist Wilson. Remember Bob Dole's "Kinsley gaffe" in the 1976 debate
with Walter Mondale.
Economics has a lot of similarities with Theology.
People can believe whatever interpretation fits with their own indoctrination.
The difference being there is a truth to economics that seems to be invisible to most people,
major economists included.
Your post highlights some of the stark realities that people just refuse to accept for some
inexplicable reason.
Maybe the better economic managers will come to the rescue or maybe there will be a
collective awakening when in a moment of clarity we start to realise how badly we have been
conned.
There are many societies that tolerate a certain degree of economic inequality, but still
provide decent living conditions, services and infrastructure for most citizens. The notion
that we either have extreme inequality or extreme poverty is empirically and morally empty.
Further down the thread, 'Weakaspiss' makes a pertinent observation; " government has
forgotten they govern for all, and have a primary duty for those who are least able to
prosper."
In fact, they've "forgotten" nothing.
Instead, they've fallen for the self-serving blandishments of Libertarian dogma.
Where have I learned of these ?
By reading the posts of GA's resident Libertarians.
The sub-texts of which are wonderfully instructive.
1. Nothing is more important than the individual.
2. And as an individual and a Libertarian, I am infinitely superior to you.
3. Plus I resent paying taxes, which are outright theft.
4. Since I believe, utterly without basis in reality, that taxes levied on hard-working,
wonderful freedom-loving ME, sustain the likes of lazy, parasitical YOU.
5. Meanwhile, govt, if it cannot be destroyed, must always be demonised and underfunded. And
so-called 'programs of public benefit' for the parasites--like Medicare, or the ABC-- must be
sold outright to the private sector.
6. No I don't want to debate about it, if there's a chance I'll lose the argument.
My ego demands I win every time..
7. Certainly not with losers of lower social status, who were 'educated' in a union-run
public school.
8. And don't even come near me, losers. Yuk ! You're probably not even white !
9. Because I socialise only within my own tribe, thank you very much.
10. Besides, you're probably living off my taxes.
11. Did I mention taxes somewhere ?
12. Taxes are theft.
Our conservatives have "forgotten" NOTHING.
Instead, they've fallen for a sociopathic ideology which tells them their least attractive
impulses are positively praiseworthy.
Hence the nasty, ego-driven tone of current political life.
Injected directly into the bloodstream of our body politic by a Lying Rodent.
Its philosophy may be simply stated
Does your policy shit all over people you never cared for anyway ?
THEN DO IT.
This message is clear and concise. It is however never going to be heard beyond the
'Guardian'.
The MSM are hardly going to publish this article, nor are they going to
reference it, why should they? It goes against everything they have been fighting for and the
tin ear of their readership are unwilling to change teir views.
The only thing that they understand is money and the concentration of wealth. This
misonception as Dennis So far this has been handed to them on a plate, the taxation system
has enabled them to manipulate an multiply their earnings. So much of money the has nothing
to do with adding value to this countries economy but is speculative in nature based on
financial and overseas instruments.
No is the time for our government to take the lead and start as the Victorian ALP have
done and invest in people and jobs on the back of strategic investment. It is a fallacy that
governments don't create jobs they, through their policies do just that.
Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating schemes
have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in persuasion.
"Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of scandalous.
Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision for
fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History is
littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen in
this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
It is indeed important to make the distinction between the ideology of neoliberalism - the
ideology of private enterprise is good, and public spending is bad - and the operational
system of crony capitalism - the game of mates played by government and the special
interests.
And it is certainly equally important to call out the monumental hypocrisy involved in the
government's application of the ideology's set of rules to the powerless and public and the
government's application of corrupt practice rules to the special interests.
The system is destroying the egalitarian character of Australia and fanning the flames of
nativist authoritarianism here.
But what's even more dangerous is the fundamental dishonesty that the system necessitates,
and the alienating influence it has - on top of the growing economic inequality.
The system has destroyed the economic and environmental viability and sustainability of
the planet on which human civilization depends.
What is becoming increasingly clear to more and more of the public is that - simple put-
the system cannot be allowed to go on as it has been proceeding because it threatens the
future of civilization on earth.
Change is imperative now. However, how that will unfold is unclear, as well as, the toll
the destruc5turing system will take.
What is clear is that a great restructuring must happen - and soon.
The neo liberals are intent on defacing Australia. Their pusstulant tentacles stretch into
our classrooms forcing our kids to believe in their god. They tell us that white millionaire
farmers deserve refugee status and all the benefits bestowed on poor persecuted minorities.
They tell us that the disgustingly rich deserve tax relief. Their's is a world where their
children are entitled to safe electoral sets. But they can be defeated and sent to misery. We
did it in the Same Sex Marriage fiasco and we can do it to their more insidious behaviours.
Write to your local member. Barrage them with emails. Write to their propaganda Letters to
the Editor. Donate to GetUp. Keep on keeping on.
Neoliberalism, the dogma was was sourced from Milton Freidman's Monetarism economic theory.
When it morphed into the 'Greed is Good' credo is unclear.
Guess you have to call the disease something, so Neoliberalism it is.
Is capitalism stuffed?
There is much debate at the moment about which Party has the best economic plan going
forward. The Coalition maintains that the best way is by giving large tax breaks to
business.
This is currently being called 'Pre GST theory or old style trickle down economics'.
Lenore Taylor writes:
"The investment bank once chaired by Malcolm Turnbull has backed the view that much of the
benefit from the Coalition's company tax cuts could flow to offshore investors, as the
prime minister insisted his plan was the best way to ensure continued economic growth".
"The domestic benefits would be far bigger if companies used the tax cut to grow their
business, but according to Goldman Sachs "survey evidence suggests that companies are less
likely to voluntarily lower the dividend payment ratio", in other words, the real-world
impact was likely to be closer to the scenario where 60% of the benefit flowed
offshore"
"Neoliberalism will literally be the death of democracy."
In fact, that's the plan.
Openly alluded to by the IPA's Gary Johns;
".... a cardinal tenet of libertarianism is to keep democracy in its place, to regard it
as an activity of limited application. Government's role is to depoliticise much of life, to
make it less amenable to public dispute....."
From Margo Kingston's 'Not happy, John !' (2005).
Get on to the 'Catallaxy' site.
You'll soon find out what Libertarian sociopaths think of democracy.
I actually think many people go along with neoliberalism because they perceive it will turn
out well for them. It's the every man for himself Darwinian approach to life, but the LNP
reflects that view most closely. It's the one where everyone is a welfare scrounger, but if
for some reason you end up needing welfare, you deserve it because of all the tax you paid,
even though you've been minimising your tax for decades.
The other great con is convincing the public that voting for anyone but the two major parties
is "wasting your vote". This political duopoly means only those interests are ever
represented and that has also led to Australia's systematic decline. Yes it's true that the
majors hold majority in parliament but we've already seen that voting below the line can
work- Labour had to take notes from the Greens last time they held power. Despite how
hopeless it all seems we do still have the power to affect change as long as we- all of us-
stop swallowing the lies.
The current two party system is like a coin. On one side we have the head of Malcolm Turnbull
and on the other Bill Shorten. When it comes to the toss up the corporations and wealthy get
to call heads.
How many voters even have any idea of what "neoliberalism" is? I would be thinking not many,
especially as the Murdoch press don't even use the term in their publications. They might feel
the effects , but without any conceptualisation of its underpinning ideas and ideology be
less likely to be able to identify policy which reflects neoliberal values. And I'm sure the
powers that be like it that way.
For that last 40 years some variant of neoliberalism has been the predominant dogma.
Unfortunately once we moved on from hunter gatherer to an agriculture supported society we
lost the connections to each other that existed at the tribal level. That sense of community
does not flourish in our eight thousand year experiment with city based civilisation. It
seems to only do so during times of disruption and war.
Personally my experience of living in a socially cohesive society was the 30 year period
leading up to the reinfestation of the neoliberal curse that started in the 80's with Reagan
and Thatcher.
So neoliberalism is the norm, socialism requires more work. We can't take it for granted
that society will naturally gravitate towards egalitarianism.
Turnbull and his LNP cohort can openly mock the population with impunity safe in the
knowledge that a small but powerful and rich minority, joined by group think and supported by
exclusive membership institutions, schools, corporations, have a shared goal of controlling
the monetary, economic system and government.
It's apparent that elections can be won by throwing enough resources into well aimed
propaganda, (cue Murdoch). Cambridge Analytica was brutally effective at the last elections
in the US and UK. Anyone who believes a similar scam won't be tried in Australia is being
naive.
So people will still vote against their long term interests and we will likely still get
another dose of self inflicted neoliberalism at the next election.
The real problem will be that no where near enough voters will read this article or pieces
like it. The Murdoch press for example would never publish it and the content won't be
seriously discussed on morning TV. The ABC wouldn't dare mention a word of it.
I don't think it is all doom and gloom. I have 12 grandchildren, some now teenagers. They
and their kind are smarter than we give them credit for and they won't put up with the crap
we have bequeathed them. They don't get information from main stream media and although their
social media contains an enormous amount of rubbish, embedded are real grievances about their
lot in life. Soon they will vote. Goodbye and good riddance to the conservatives.
It is actually just a pan-national oligarchy, where legislatures and media are
compromised into acceptance of destructive and unethical policies by Big Money.
Worthy of repetition since I'm not able to give you more than one 'uptick'.
In this instance, I very much suspect it will be the staggering load put on the natural
environment that will spin the current "Eternal Empires" "down the sinkhole of history".
Sadly for everyone and everything else.
Neoliberalism wins by manipulating public distraction. The so-called reality shows of
mainstream media are the furthest flight imaginable from lived experience, and even the
serious news outlets succumb to the Peyton Place of Barnaby's baby and a disappeared Melania
Trump. All of which makes a considered analysis such as the one republished here such a
notable exception.
That man has the real meaning of neoliberalism. Neoliberal way is not incompatible with
unions, wages, social services or governments that protect their citizens.
His way there should be no division and no angst of politics. Maybe that's where the problem
is/ His way is not the way of modern politics and greed. Being rich does not mean being
greedy. But that is what modern neoliberam with its free markets mantra have come to be seen
as.
My Grandfather and Great Grandfather, would see this man as being correct with a very good
attitude. He would see Wall St and many financial businesses as greedy and managed by bullies
and tyrants.
Half the population prefers a politics that is racist and unethical, that demonises the poor
and idolises the rich, that eschews community and embraces amoral individuality. These people
don't care about the economic inconsistencies of neo-liberalism, they are far more attracted
to the divisive societal aspects of free market fundamentalism.
Like Joe Hockey, Rinehart saw the problem of inequality as having more to do with the
character of the poor than with the rules of the game:
They don't "see" it this way. They just say they see it this way to perpetuate that
inequality. They know that their wealth depends on the labour of the other 95-99%.
To keep us all working and voting for their lackeys, they make promises of wealth if you
are a persistent hard worker, never mentioning that the entire game depends on only a tiny
minority ever reaching the top. No, the real people holding them back are those who don't
work hard. Who don't contribute to the game. They're the ones to blame for why you're not
levelling up. The true scapegoats.
Victim blaming is a classic neo-con tactic, they seek to deflect from the impact of their
heartless policies by demonising the victims, from the unemployed and those stuck in the
welfare cycle to refugees trapped in offshore detention, indefinitely . We've all seen how
appalling their commentary can get, from Abbott and Hockey's "lifters and leaners" to Gina
Mineheart's "two dollars a day" & "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"
they show just how out touch they are. They honestly believe that people can lift themselves
out of poverty if only they "spent more time working", ignoring the fact that many are
working two jobs just to stay ahead.
Seems that on planet RWNJ there are more than 24 hours in a day..
Half the population need welfare to survive.
1% have 90% of all the toys in the sandpit and won't share. They feel that they are entitled
to all the toys.
This piece is well worth the reading particularly in light of the trashing of society's
values we see played out in Trump's America. However, the writer's definition of
"ideology " as a "system of ideas and ideals" even though it accords with the
OED's, fails to take into account the current pernicious influence of the ideologue who
distorts "ideology" into the "rationalisation of a suppression" as Joseph Dunne
noted in his book, " Back to the Rough Ground" .
This is the most apt description of the modus operandi of today's neoliberalists - the
justifying of their project to maximise wealth accumulation in their own self-interest by
promoting the propaganda that we are powerless cogs in the machine of the
economy , slaves to the whim of the omnipotent market, rather than active
agents who wish to contribute to a flourishing society .
Neoliberalism idealises competition against each other to ensure the
rights of the few, by suppressing our capacity to take
responsibility together through cooperation and collaboration with each
other.
This classic divide and conquer tactic will prevail only as long as we permit
it.
I'm a conservative and I have an good economics degree. I have to say though that I don't
understand neoliberalism at all.
As a example, when I was doing economics it was made very clear to me that natural
monopolies (such as electricity and water) cannot be made into a competitive market (rather
like trying to put lipstick on a pig). Similarly oligopolies introduce opportunities for
price manipulation (e.g. the banks). The neoliberal mantra that "markets are always right" is
just rubbish. Markets work well only when certain criteria are met.
Secondly, the right of workers to collectively bargain is fundamental to a well
functioning market economy. Labour is one of the inputs to production and the workers have a
right to a proper return on their labour. Individual workers have no real bargaining power
and can only act collectively through unions.
Finally, the related casualisation of the workforce is a disaster for workers and the
long-term interests of the economy. The stagnation of wages (and inflation) is one of the
products of this strong trend to casualisation (my blood boils when I hear of examples of
wage theft affecting vulnerable workers).
Income inequality is a product of a capitalist system. However, when the distribution of
wealth becomes very badly skewed (such as in the USA) then the political system starts to
break down. Trump was a beneficiary of this flawed income distribution. All Hillary Clinton
was promising was "more of the same". In short, Bernie Sanders was right.
Walter Schadel, in his book, The Great Leveler (see below), points to the role of income
inequality in driving revolutions and disruptions. There are lessons in this book for our
current crop of politicians both on the left and the right.
Wow! Richard Denniss says it like it is, neatly summing up "the big con".
I believe Australia is being sold from under our feet. The big asset-strip is on. Why are
we not benefiting from the mining boom? The answer lies in the way Rinehart companies and
others like hers have been permitted to use Singapore or other low-taxing countries to
minimise taxes. That these large companies should have the gall to demand large tax cuts as
well is preposterous.
When headlines indulge in fear-mongering about China, why is angst directed at Dastyari
for taking a relatively small donation, whilst at the same time the Australian government has
approved a joint purchase of large swathes of the Australian outback by Rinehart and Chinese
interests? Have we already forgotten the Darwin port deal? Why were Robb, Bishop and the
Liberal Party allowed to benefit from deals or large donations from "Chinese interests"? Yet
Bob Carr is being slammed for trying over many years to develop a more harmonious
relationship with China?
Australians have told federal and state governments that they hate privatisation. Not
content with selling off profitable businesses such as Medibank Private, the Liberal/National
Party federal government is privatising its services. Detention centres and prisons acted as
a stalking-horse for the creeping privatisation of jobs. Politicians assume most voters don't
notice or care when government jobs in those sectors are privatised, but other government
departments are following suit.
By permitting the Future Fund and superannuation funds to invest in tax havens, the
federal government has opened the door to a growing trend. If my super fund uses the Cayman
Island tax haven, it is easier to justify everyone else from the PM down to evade Australian
taxes as well. More insidiously, tax havens make it easier to cheat creditors in bankruptcy
cases, launder dirty money, break trade sanctions and much more. We aren't even aware of how
these may be playing out behind closed doors in our name. The problem with allowing Rinehart
to use Singapore or Turnbull to use the Cayman Island is that other companies and individuals
will increasingly Do so, and in the end, everyone is doing it. And when will we take note of
cryptocurrencies and how they can act like tax havens?
Our participation in wars not of our own making is also having dire results. Think of all
the money spent and lives of servicemen destroyed by serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine
if that money had instead been invested wisely in defence capabilities. And yet there we are,
interfering in the South China Sea, trying to provoke China at Trump's behest, and it is not
clear whether the Phillipines wants us there now anyway. And all the while, the cost of our
participation in war games is crippling our ability to acquire defence assets, making us more
reliant on the US.
The banking enquiry has only scratched the surface of how voters are being ripped off with
impunity. There are growing demands that the superannuation industry, in particular retail
funds, be subject to greater transparency and regulation. Yet Turnbull, Cash and colleagues
prefer to direct their scorn at industry funds, simply because they are controlled by
workers, via their unions.
We can sense "the big con" is all around us. We can almost smell it, so pungent is the air
of exploitation, corruption and fraud. Hopefully Denniss will join others in focussing us
more clearly on how we are being cheated of our birthright.
Despite the huge changes in communication in the last several decades
and the ever increasing levels of education in our society, politics have
failed to engage the vast majority and that cohort of the cynical, the alienated,
the disinterested, the lazy, the simply care less continues to grow.
In the last decade the only cause that evoked passion and engaged a larger
number, finally forcing our elected members to act was same sex marriage
.....a crescendo that took years to generate.
With the complicity of our media and the decline of that part of education
that teaches analysis, social psychology and political philosophy (let alone
teaches about basic political structures and mechanisms) our level of disengagement
from the political process appears to be at an all time high. The performance
of our legislators has become increasingly unaccountable and purely self interested
.... we have re-created the "political class" of pre-war times where alienation
was based on a lack of education and awareness and a sense of inferiority and
powerlessness DESPITE our vastly improved communication, access to information
and educational standards (not to mention affluence).
Basically, we have "dumbed down" to the extent where passion and ideology in
politics is now the preserve of fewer and fewer. In a democracy this trend is of
massive concern and a threat to its sustainability.... it also completely suits those
that are focused on concentrating power and wealth... the more that don't give
a toss the less likely you are to be encumbered by limitations, social considerations,
ethics and morality.
Until we re-engage far larger numbers into the political process, raise the levels
of awareness of political thought and choices, stop dumbing down and re-inject
some broader passion and participation into our political processes then vested
interests will continue to dominate.....and democracy will become increasingly
undemocratic !
Coded language:
or,
how we bade farewell to publicly-owned electricity.
Part 1
The perceptions of George Orwell seem as valid now as then
Since he dealt with sly deceptions of tyrannical men
So 'Orwellian language', though imprinted on a page
Now has impacts universal, which resound in every age
And in ours, language functions like a fingerprint-free glove
To absolve of guilt the guilty as, imposed from up above,
Has come theft of public assets, for the benefit of those
To whom money by the truckload only ever upward flows.
By subversion of our usage may such larceny be won
And I speak as a Victorian, so know how it is done.
It begins when greedy forces, with a nose for seeking rent
Need to seize and reshape language to conceal true intent
So collusion is essential, 'twixt such forces and the man
Who will slake their gross desires. He's a poll-i-tish-i-an
It is he who'll grasp the nettle, perform tasks of Hercules
Telling punters it is raining, while upon their backs he pees
Yet his task is mitigated. Because, what should hove in sight,
But the money-driven think-tanks of the predatory Right
Which have spent long hours fixated by their loathing of the State
So won't even wipe their bottoms, unless at an outsourced rate.
Now the think-tanks wunderkinden turn to '1984'
Where they find therein a tactic once employed in days of yore
It's to pick out words and phrases from contemporary use
Then submit their basic meanings to an arse-about abuse
Yet an overarching irony attends this tour de force
Since there's precedents in stating that a cart is now a horse.
For who bastardised a language, drawing from their bag of tricks ?
It was Stalin and Vyshinsky, back in 1936
O the horror ! O the shamefullness ! That, Sons Of Liberty
Must resort to basing tactics on the Kremlin's tyranny !
It's a classic situation when rent-seeking runs amuck
But there's easy money looming, so who gives a flying f**k ?
So consumers are persuaded, via mantra-laden talk
That they come before big shareholders in London or New York
Thus, a host of euphemisms sugar-coat the bitter pill
To the melodies seductive of a loudly-ringing till
Hark to incantantions joyous and of outcomes bound to please !
'Competition', 'lower prices', 'market-based efficiencies'!
(Though their very warmth and fuzziness will reinforce the fact
They've dragooned the highest language to describe the lowest act.)
"Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called "the bourgeois mode
of production." He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own
destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies -- think neoliberalism -- were created to serve
the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since "the class which has
the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means
of mental production" and "the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the
dominant material relationships the relationships which make one class the ruling one." He
saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse. He
did not know when that day would come. Marx, as Meghnad Desai wrote, was "an astronomer of
history, not an astrologer." Marx was keenly aware of capitalism's ability to innovate and
adapt. But he also knew that capitalist expansion was not eternally sustainable. And as we
witness the denouement of capitalism and the disintegration of globalism, Karl Marx is
vindicated as capitalism's most prescient and important critic."
We need a Nationalist government, which will automatically see itself as the mortal enemy of
the primary Internationalist (there used to be a song about that) force in the world today,
and which affects us greatly in terms of resource exploitation: Globalisation, or what we
used to call 'multi national corporations' or 'international capital'.
Nationalism is a decision-making tool as it always poses a question; what is good for
this country ?
When/if he mentions de-Globalisation, an Aus-Indonesian defence alliance, citizen
initiated referenda, and a Constitutional ban on donations and parties , then people
may listen, however he cannot be accused of being too imaginative or bright. He is
however advocating authoritarianism not fascism.
Fascism doesn't require a state sanctioned religion or suppression of religion
That said the Catholicism/fundamentalist Christian bent of the present cabinet and the
demonisation of any green beliefs is uncomfortably close to what you describe
And the nexus between big business and govern, the destruction of public institutions, the
reduction in the capacity of media to report truth and the vitriolic attacks on opponenents
are straws in an ill wind
You are right, it's not "fascismmmmmmmmmmmmmm".... it's Fascism. Which brings back to my
memory what Tom Elliott (the son of Liberal Party former president John Elliott) wrote in the
Herald Sun on 6 February 2015: "It's time we temporarily suspended the democratic process and
installed a benign dictatorship to make tough but necessary decisions."
he first page of Tim Winton's new essay collection,
The Boy Behind the Curtain
, sets a disturbing scene. A 13-year-old boy stands at the window of a suburban
street, behind a terylene curtain, training a rifle on passersby.
"He was a fraught little thing," says Winton
of that boy – the boy he used to be. "I feel related to him but I'm no longer completely him, thank god."
The passage opens a surprisingly intimate essay about the role of guns in Australian life, setting the tone for
a collection being billed as Winton's most personal yet.
In spite of his inclination for solitude, Winton has spent much of his life in the spotlight. His first novel,
An Open Swimmer, catapulted him into the public eye when it won the Vogel literary award in 1981, but it was his
1991 novel, Cloudstreet, that cemented his place in Australian letters. Winton has won the Miles Franklin award
four times and been shortlisted twice for the Booker. His books have been adapted for film, TV and
even opera
.
ss="rich-link">
Island Home by Tim Winton review – a love song to Australia and a cry to
save it
Read more
The contradictions of having such a high-profile career while working in a quintessentially solitary artform
are not lost on him. "I spend all day in a room with people who don't exist, and I'm not thinking about any public
– but once the thing's done it goes out there and it has a public life over which I have no, or very little,
control," he says.
On one reading, the boy with the rifle lurking out of sight, watching the world go by, could be a metaphor for
the life of a reclusive writer. But Winton is quick to distinguish himself from such a reading. "I wouldn't like
to see myself as somebody who was just cruelly observing the world behind the terylene curtain of art."
For Winton, the perceived lives of other writers always seemed completely unrelated to his own experience. "I
grew up with a kind of modernist romantic idea of the writer as some kind of high priest, someone who saw
themselves as separate and better, which I now find a bit repellent," he says. "I think that was something that
was sold to us at school and certainly at university that writers were somehow aloof from the ordinary business
of life; they didn't have to abide by the same rules as other people. The worse their behaviour off the page, the
more we were supposed to cheer them on. Once I woke up to that idea as a teenager, I think I consciously resisted
it."
Winton's own background was characterised by a working class sensibility and evangelical religion. His parents
converted to the Church of Christ when he was a small boy, the circumstances and his experiences of which form the
basis of a number of the previously unpublished essays in The Boy Behind the Curtain. As a result, when he finally
did start writing, it was with a particularly industrious work ethic.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Tim Winton: 'There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what writing was about.' Photograph: Hank Kordas
"I approached it like I was a tradesperson," he says. "It didn't necessarily involve FM radio played very
loudly on a worksite; it didn't always require plumbers' crack or a hard hat and there was certainly no
catcalling, but for the rest of it I went a different route. There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what
writing was about."
ss="rich-link">
A fish called Tim Winton: scientists name new species after novelist
Read more
Yet it was finding words, what Winton calls "the enormous luxury of language", that took him from being a
13-year-old boy who watched strangers through the eye of a rifle – a boy who was "obviously insecure and feeling
threatened and probably not quite one with the world" – to a well-adjusted adult.
The "emotional infancy of men" has a lot to answer for, he says, suggesting that it's something society would
do well to pay more attention to in its early stages. "The lumpiness and surly silence of boys is not something
we're sufficiently interested in. They're not sufficiently attractive to us until they become victims or dangerous
brutes and bullies."
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say much doesn't have strong
feelings
Tim Winton
Conflicted masculinity is recurring theme throughout Winton's fiction, and his characters often suffer as a
result of their inability to articulate their feelings. "I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say
much doesn't have strong feelings," he says. "I think we stifle people's expression or we ignore people's signals
of wanting to express things at our peril."
The distinct tenor of Winton's prose, a lyricism which manages to turn even the Australian vernacular into a
kind of rough poetry, lends itself to the intimacy of the personal essay. The Boy Behind the Curtain contains a
number of vignettes that reflect the imagery and landscape that characterises his fiction: hot bitumen roads
through the desert; the churning ocean.
But there is also a clear political streak to Winton's nonfiction, and the inclusion of a number of more direct
essays in this collection mean it's difficult to collapse the work under the category of memoir. Stones for Bread,
for example, calls for a return to empathy and humanity in Australia's approach to asylum seekers. The Battle for
Ningaloo Reef is a clear-eyed account of the activism that prevented a major commercial development from
destroying a stretch of the Western Australian coastline. And Using the C-Word concerns that other dirty word that
Winton believes we are avoiding: class.
"I think there are people talking about class but they're having to do that against the flow," Winton says.
"We're living in a dispensation that is endlessly reinforcing the idea that we are not citizens but economic
players. And under that dispensation it's in nobody's interest, especially those in power, to encourage or foster
the idea that there's any class difference."
The market doesn't care about people, Winton argues, and neither is there any genius in it. "There's no
invisible hand," he says. "And if there is one, it's scratching its arse."
It's clear to Winton that neoliberalism is failing, but not without casualties, two of which are very close to
his heart: the arts and the environment.
"People in the arts are basically paying the price for this new regime where we pay no tax and where we get
less public service and more privatised service," he says. "The arts are last on, first off in people's minds and
I think that's not just sad, it's corrosive. They're just seen as fluff, as fripperies, as indulgence, as add-ons
and luxury. And I don't think the arts are luxury; I think they're fundamental to civilisation. It's just that
under our current dispensation, civilisation is not the point; civilisation is something that commerce has to
negotiate and traduce if necessary."
Winton is one of a number of high-profile critics of the Productivity Commission's proposals to allow
the parallel importation of books
, and a signatory to petitions opposing
funding cuts to the Australia Council
. But he has also been a grassroots activist in the area of marine
conservation for over 15 years.
"I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life on the side," he says.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life
on the side
Tim Winton
Years of lobbying by conservation groups and the general public contributed to the Labor government
announcement in 2012 of
42 marine reserves in Australian waters
, including over the entire Coral Sea. The Abbott government, however,
implemented a review which, in September this year, recommended
significantly scaling back those reservations
. It was, says Winton, an act of cowardice.
"The Abbott review was basically all about applying inertia to imminent progress," Winton says. "We've gone
from world leaders [in conservation] to being too frightened to lead."
When asked what role writing fiction plays in his activist work, Winton says it comes back to the idea of
"keeping people's imaginations awake".
"Imagination is the fundamental virtue of civilisation. If people can't imagine then they can't live an ethical
life."
"... The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as "American exceptionalism." Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon. ..."
"... Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders. ..."
"... The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater ..."
"... Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial. ..."
"... The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future. Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology. But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow descend into a backwater across the Atlantic. ..."
"... Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:" "I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)" ..."
"... Here's a good PBS movie lauding these "intellectuals:" http://www.pbs.org/arguing/about.html ..."
"... There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate: ..."
"... 1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor. ..."
"... 2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians. ..."
"... 3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an end-of-life crisis. ..."
"... To some extent you're mistaking your target here. I'll readily agree the neo-cons amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel. On the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and Bolshevism should be checked. ..."
"... Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism ..."
"... For example a piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European Communism. ..."
"... The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues, since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they aren't too keen on Catholicism either. ..."
"... It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism ..."
"... my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback. ..."
"... I think that people can be inclined to claim that everyone they don't like is a Jew. I also think that while Jews were certainly disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks and the leftist revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century in general, these movements weren't overwhelmingly Jewish, nor even necessarily mostly Jewish except in the case of Hungary. ..."
"... With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex international problems. However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela. The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach. ..."
First of all not all neocon are Jews and not all jews are neocons. neocons are first and
foremost lobbyists for MIC. This job does not require any ethic component. but it is very
attractive for intellectuals who are not good for anything else, including many Jewish
intellectuals ( Max Boot is
a nice example of this trend; Rephrasing Tucker Carlson remark we can say that he is a neocon
because he does not want to paint houses ;-)
Also the role on Jews in Russia during Perestroika and the dissolution of the USSR was
enhanced by the fact that they were one of the few with strong connection to relatives in the USA
who emigrated earlier under the USA pressure and this they have larger financial resources to
operate with which was of tremendous importance during privatization. It is unclear how many of
them were simply puppets of foreign interests, not an independent players. For example William
Browder was probably closely connected to MI6.
It would interesting to see on the USA in 30 years -- in 2050. I wish I would be one of those
people who do understand what is going on and were the USA is moving. I am not. The worst outcome
based on current trends is that in 30 years from now the USA might turn into a country similar to
large Latin American countries: demographically messy and ungovernable, with weak infrastructure,
but above all quasi-provincial. Looks like the the US neoliberal elite (including Silicon Valley
techno-elite) now tenaciously cling to the idea of "world superpower" and at the core that means
maintaining technology superiority along with the controlling oil and gas deposits, first of all
in the Middle Easts (with Israel and Saudi help) as well as weakening and, possibly, dismembering
of Russia and China as two dangerous competitors alliance between which is very undesirable
outcome for the USA and can make the USA irrelevant for Europe. Euromaidan was an important step
in this direction on Russia front, a bold and brilliant political move if you ask me. Poor
Ukrainians do not understand how they were played.
Having just returned from a trip to Russia, I am pleased to report that the Russian people
and the officialdom that I encountered displayed none of the vitriol towards Americans that I
half expected as a response to the vilifying of Moscow and all its works that pervades the U.S.
media and Establishment. To be sure, many Russians I spoke with were quick to criticize the
Trump Administration for its hot and cold performance vis-à-vis the bilateral ties to
Moscow while also expressing mystification over why the relationship had gone south so quickly,
but this anger over foreign policy did not necessarily translate into contempt for the American
people and way of life that characterized the Soviet period. At least not yet.
Somewhat to my surprise, ordinary Russians were also quick to openly criticize President
Vladimir Putin for his autocratic tendencies and his willingness to continue to tolerate
corruption, but everyone I spoke to also conceded that he had generally acted constructively
and had greatly improved life for ordinary people. Putin remains wildly popular.
One question that came up frequently was "Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?" I
responded that the answer is not so simple and there are a number of constituencies that, for
one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be
unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need
the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help
sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk
just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to
keep everyone "safe."
And then there are the neocons. As always, they are a distinct force for creative
destruction, as they put it, certainly first in line with their hands out to get the funding of
their no-expenses-spared foundations and think tanks, but also driven ideologically, which has
made them the intellectual vanguard of the war party. They provide the palatable intellectual
framework for America to take on the world, metaphorically speaking, and constitute the strike
force that is always ready to appear on television talk shows or to be quoted in the media with
an appropriate intelligent sounding one liner that can be used to justify the unthinkable. In
return they are richly rewarded both with money and status.
The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world
superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by
force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as "American exceptionalism."
Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves
little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that
everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you
do not have a neocon.
The founding fathers of neoconism were New York Jewish "intellectuals" who evolved (or
devolved) from being bomb throwing Trotskyites to "conservatives," a process they self-define
as "idealism getting mugged by reality." The only reality is that they have always been faux
conservatives, embracing a number of aggressive foreign policy and national security positions
while also privately endorsing the standard Jewish liberal line on social issues. Neocon
fanaticism on the issues that they do promote also suggests that more that a little of the
Trotskyism remains in their character, hence their tenacity and ability to slither between the
Democratic and Republican parties while also appearing comfortably on disparate media outlets
considered to be either liberal or conservative, i.e. on both Fox news and MSNBC programs
featuring the likes of Rachel Maddow.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WWII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia
should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17
show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant
reminders.
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade
with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the
railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater
more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to
many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable,
weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial.
The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future.
Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology.
But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up
Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow
descend into a backwater across the Atlantic.
It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They
used to trumpet it, though. There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals
themselves celebrating their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving
Kristol, et al were communists. Moreover, they were communists of the international
revolution variety -- the flavor known as Trotskyism.
Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY
Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:" "I was graduated from City College in the spring of
1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the
Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and
correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the
official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)"
Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of
neocons:
I am currently reading "The Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky. Trying to understand this
Trotsky neocon link better and to determine to what extent it makes sense. One connection is
certain: (1) Trotsky was completely insane. (2) Neocons are completely insane.
The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the
cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party
was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder,
grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously
proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes.
Earl Browder was not, so far as I know, born a Jew. While living in the Soviet Union he
married a Russian Jewess named Raisa Berkman. One of their sons, Felix, married another
Jewess, Eva Tislowitz, and Bill Browder was their son. He is matrilineally Jewish.
Apart from this minor quibble, the description of Bill Browder's career seems quite
accurate.
There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate:
1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external
aggressor.
2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians.
3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It
isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are
having an end-of-life crisis.
4. Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets,
undercutting our Ruling Class's cut.
5. Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists
beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. Back when Russia
started their anti-gay thing, American leftists went nuts on them. Of course, Saudi Arabia is
much worse but we didn't hear anything about them because they aren't white and being
critical in such a case would be waycist.
To some extent you're mistaking your target here. I'll readily agree the neo-cons
amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel. On
the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and
Bolshevism should be checked.
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to
nationalism on the part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to
the Jewish fear that the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a
piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet
invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so
bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for
eastern European Communism.
The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues,
since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically
incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist
parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again
subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they
aren't too keen on Catholicism either.
It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be
mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal
Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism . I hope this taboo
is successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as
the only Christian power left in the world.
I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the
various western Trot. groups at the time.
It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it
was only of claimed affiliates to the nonsensical 'Fourth International'.
Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and
Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they
ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.
Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU,
cabinets in many European nations, etc. Even without that, the chart and attached notes are
bizarre enough.
The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among
themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not
understanding the content at all.
Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are
like those of the worst cult religionists.
I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundred meters from my
house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until
recently. no more. I would buy it at times.
Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by
the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support
for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural
and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants)
blowback.
' That's not how research works. You're searching for a low figure which will
magically be reliable, right?'
I think that people can be inclined to claim that everyone they don't like is a Jew. I
also think that while Jews were certainly disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks
and the leftist revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century in general, these
movements weren't overwhelmingly Jewish, nor even necessarily mostly Jewish except in the
case of Hungary.
Finally, I think the press tends to exaggerate, and that particularly in 1920, claiming
that the Bolsheviks were Jews would have been a good way of vilifying the movement. After
all, it remains one to this day.
So for all these reasons, while as I have said it is possible the figures are
accurate, I don't think they should be accepted on faith.
It's all an interesting question. On the one hand, we have 'data' of dubious reliability.
On the other hand, there's a decided reluctance among modern researchers to go into the
question in detail.
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many
NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name
for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7 Voted for me 1 (myself only) I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (republican votes) 4 I win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.
What I miss is USA fear that the European states, as they did before 1917, will resume
trade with Russia. Contrary to popular opinion, the Dutch Golden Century was not golden by
trade to east or west Indies, but because we were halfway between the Iberian peninsula and
the Baltic Sea.
This fear, I fear, now is intensified by the China Russia Iran railway facilities, with
the Khazakstan dry port. If the important European countries turn around, the USA will become
an economic backwater.
Just yesterday USA ambassador Pete Hoekstra tries to sell us expensive USA gas, 20% more
expensive, to punish Russia for MH17. Another statement that shows that Russia had no
interest whatsoever in shooting down MH17.
Pete does not seem to understand that he's urging the Netherlands to punish itself.
I'm ashamed, Pete must be a Frysian, like me, w're supposed to be intelligent persons.
There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of
Communism played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The
role of Jews in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston
Churchill in his 1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party
members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the
20s and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the
terms of the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to
involve at least the willingness to use force to remove the burden.
The democratic parties were insufficiently decisive and would likely have succumbed to
Communist agitation or at best preserved a very unpleasant status quo. The weakness of
Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and the material dimension. It demands
the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual dimension of life.
Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in addition to the
national need to escape from poverty. Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a
quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this
initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between
themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality!
With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs
non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country
with those of the US as an Empire. It is in the best interests of the US as a country to
maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic
prosperity and to solve complex international problems. However, as an Empire, the US does
not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even
Venezuela. The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational,
more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being
destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach.
The Ukrainian government's staged assassination of anti-Putin journalist Arkady Babachenko has taken
an even stranger turn, as evidence has emerged that his would-be "Russia-ordered" assassin and the man
who supposedly hired him, both say they worked for Ukrainian counterintelligence, casting serious
doubt on the official story.
To review, Ukrainian authorities announced last Tuesday that Babachenko
had been assassinated after returning home from the store. On Wednesday, Babachenko appeared at a
press conference with Ukrainian authorities
who said that the faked assassination was an
elaborate sting to bust an actual hit planned by Russia
.
Only now we find that the hitman,
Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk
, is an outspoken critic of Russia who says he worked for Ukrainian
counterintelligence -
a claim Ukraine initially denied but later admitted to be true
.
Meanwhile the guy who supposedly hired Tsimbalyuk, Boris L. German, 50, also says he worked for
Ukrainian counter-intelligence, a claim Ukraine denies as its immediately destroys the carefully
scripted, if rapidly imploding, Ukrainian narrative meant to scapegoat Russia for what has been a
"fake news" story of epic proportions, emerging from the one nation that not only was the
biggest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation
, but has made fake news propaganda into an art
form.
Supposed "hitman" Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk
Boris German, suspected of organizing an attempted hit on anti-Putin Russian journalist Arkady
Babachenko sits in a cage during trial in Kiev, Ukraine
The
New
York Times
reports that Tsimbalyuk - a former Russia-hating priest was featured in a
10-minute documentary in January 2017 in which "
he called killing members of the Russian-backed
militias in eastern Ukraine "an act of mercy"
,
further calling into question why Russia
would hire him for the supposed assassination in the first place.
Facebook pictures also reveal Tsimbalyuk wearing a Ukrainian ultranationalist uniform from "Right
Sector," a group deemed to be neo-Nazis.
Given such strong and publicly avowed enmity toward Russia,
it is odd to say the
least that Mr. Tsimbalyuk would be selected to carry out the contract killing of a prominent
Kremlin critic
.
German claims he took orders from Moscow businessman Vyacheslav Pivovarnik - who he says works for
one of Putin's personal foundations.
Ukrainian officials also claim that German has a list of another 30 targets which Moscow wants
to wipe out - something he claims he has since passed onto Kyiv.
Prosecutors claimed German had been given a down payment of $15,000, half what he was promised
for carrying out the hit.
German said: 'I got a call from a longtime acquaintance who lives in Moscow, and in the process
of communicating with him it turned out that he works for a Putin foundation precisely to
orchestrate destabilization in Ukraine.' -
Daily
Mail
"
Six months ago, my old acquaintance contacted me, an ex-citizen of Ukraine, now living in
Moscow
," German told a Ukrainian court, adding "
He works in a personal foundation of
Putin's
- and is in charge of organizing riots in Ukraine and planned acts of terror at the
next presidential elections. He is called Vyacheslav Pivovarnik. This is not a fairy tale, there's
nothing mystical here, everything has been proved."
German's lawyer Eugene Solodko wrote on Facebook that his client was an executive director of
Ukrainian-German firm Schmeisser - the only non-state owned arms producer in the country.
Russia has denied German's claim, with a Putin spokesman saying "No such foundation exists in
Russia. Any allegations about Russia's possible complicity in this staging is just mudslinging. They
do not correspond to reality."
Meanwhile, senior Ukraine officials have been on the defensive since Wednesday, when the head of
security services announced they had staged the death of Babchenko so they could track his would-be
killers to Russian intelligence, a story the
International Federation of Journalists
slammed as idiotic, nonsensical and completely undermining
Ukraine's credibility.
I think that the Ukonazis must have been inspired by their friends at
MI6's and their brilliant execution of the Skripal father and
daughter hit. They needed Jihadi John Brennan to organize things for
them, but he seems to be tied up at the moment. And the Thai
Torturer is still getting comfortable in her new saddle. But I am
confident that she will be able to execute both fake and real
assassinations shortly.
Just when you thought that the US had become a banana republic.
The Ukrainian government, screws shit up as a US puppet that is
beyond belief. Putin is laughing so hard that he won't sleep for
days. Your right about Britain, they have been so influenced by
Soros that they screw everything up as well.
Is this the year that the left falls into the bottomless pit?
How can you screw everything up so bad and still live. Look at the
left in the US, failure upon failure. Their media proclaims
victory, yet know one believes them about anything. The
corporations are keeping them afloat. Not for long!
It's true though, the jews
never were really creative in the first place (that is why
there is no true innovation in the world, these fuckers hold
tight purse strings).
Because they
are
morons. The short-bus crowd seems to think that
every person on earth is as stupid as they; and that these are really smart,
fiendishly clever plots that in reality are Scooby-Do level theatrics at best.
Wouldn't shock me if some Ken doll™ wearing a blue ascot tore off this guy's
rubber mask to reveal Old Man Joe Biden who's scheme to set his idiot kid up
with the biggest Porsche dealership in Europe was foiled by 'those damn kids.'
"Why are so many people so desperately trying to make Russia look bad and
managing only to make themselves look like morons?"
Public is even dumber.
Just ask any joe or jane on the street. They think all this non-sense is
caused by the Russians, Assad uses chemical weapons, etc
Ukraine - The Babchenko Hoax Was Part Of A Corporate Raid
The case of the death and resurrection of the Russian journalist Babchenko in Kiev is even
more surreal than it seemed so far. According to Ukrainian sources and court documents the
whole hoax was part of an attempt to raid and take over a private company.
Babchenko himself and the man who was hired to "kill" him had cooperated with the main
branch of the Ukrainian national security service (SBU). The "operator", who is accused of
having hired the "killer" for Russia, appeared in court. He claimed to have cooperated with the
Ukrainian counter intelligence agency, which is side branch of the national security service.
The accused "operator" is an executive of a private joint venture and has been under pressure
over claims against his company. There are indications that the whole stunt may have been
staged to get him "out of the way" to then take over the company he leads.
The suggestion is that high levels of the Ukrainian security services staged the whole
affair not only to blame Russia but also for someone's personal gain.
In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open
hostility against its people , came
via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position. Babchenko
found a job
with ATR , a Crimean Tatar TV station. The fine-print on the ATR websitesays that it "was supported by the
Media Development Fund of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine".
On May 29 the Ukrainian government claimed that Babchenko had been assassinated. As usual
the death of a journalist hostile to Russia was used by NATO aligned media to blame Russia, the
Kremlin and Putin. That there was zero evidence that Russia was involved did not matter at all.
A photo of the allegedly killed Babchenko laying in his blood emerged.
The very next day the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko and the head of the
National Security Service (SBU) Vasyl Grytsak (also written as Hrytsak) held a press conference
and
presented a very alive and happy Arkady Babchenko. He had not been shot at all. The whole
hoax, it was explained, was launched to find the people behind an alleged assassination
campaign originating in Russia. In this official version the Russians hired some Ukrainian
"operator" who then hired the "killer" to assassinate Babchenko. The hired killer told the
police about it and the hoax of Babchenko's death was staged to find the culprits behind the
plot.
All those western "journalists" who had believed Ukrainian government claims without any
evidence and wrote unfounded accusations against Russia were not amused. The Ukrainian
government exposed them as the mere propaganda tools and fools they are. The "journalist"
Babchenko himself,
interviewed by Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky, comes off as a naive and rather dim
light.
Yesterday the "hired killer", one Alexey Tsymbalyuk,
went
public . He is a Ukrainian nationalist who had fought against the the Russia supported
entities in eastern Ukraine. He has since become an orthodox priest.
Well done b, how the fok did you see that angle?
Nevertheless, the whole story defies imagination, I mean the scrips are wilder than a 3rd
rate Hollywood flick, but maybe the Ukrainian Idiot unservices watch.
Ukraine has debased itself (Further) with this, the already known connections to the vile
scumbag at Bellincat, Elliot Higgins, made people wary. Now they are not wary, but fully
aware of the lies.
If we keep on being bombarded like this, eventually I will doubt who I am.
funny how the US/UK-established vassal puppet regime in ukraine closely resembles the ones in
africa and south america. i guess you can export sociopathic ayn rand thinking anywhere and
have it turn out roughly the same.
good work. it's always fun to be reminded what actual journalism looks like.
thanks b... that is pretty impressive how insane and whacked out all of these ukrainian
nationals are, not to mention how they have succeeded in providing another example of how the
msm at present is a real joke... i am sure the reporters are not impressed though.. the fact
this story is as convoluted as it is tells me how messed up ukraine and the west are at this
point.. all there attempts to smear and frame russia are looking very unstable at this
point.. add this to the pile of bs that includes the white helmets, syrian defense, moderate
headchoppers, and etc. etc.. i think the point is already passed where ordinary people don't
trust the media as they might have in the past.. this story helps in that regard..
It is also possible that the Russian intelligence have cynically organized the fake murder
affair with the aim of ridiculing and discrediting the western media and the western
intelligence and their impatient leaders.
It could be Russia's revenge on the Skripal affair.
The EU should get serious about admitting Ukraine to the club. It would mean much less
paperwork for lonely European bachelors and there would be an immediate boom in the
camouflage clothing and partially used military equipment business.
If only Poland could be a bit more reasonable about Galicia.
Am a bit confused. Was it Boris Herman the German who headed the joint venture who is
referred to as 'German' in the following text? His fellow victims being SBU head Grytsak and
the Prosecutor General Lutsenko? The bad guys being unnamed creditors..?
Some insignificant imperfections:
line 5: ... As usual the death of a journalist hostile to Russia ...
line 27: ... the German (the count r y) company Schmeisser ...
line 45: ... was on l y one aspect ...
Other than that, another fine piece of investigative reporting!
Virgile, it is hard to imagine how the Russians would have been able to involve the Ukrainian
president, the head of the SBU and the prime minister among others. Those people made those
choices themselves. If those people are all plants of the Russian SVR (foreign secret
service) then they'd be mad to burn them in such a small scale plot and certainly not all at
once.
Wheels within wheels? Yet more evidence that Ukraine has not left the 1990s unfortunately.
Meanwhile, Airbus is palming off old CHC H225 helicopters (that oil workers refuse to fly
in after two catastrophic crashes killing everyone aboard) to the Ukraine.
On the plus side, they will be used by ' ...a variety of security agencies, including
the national police and border guard service.. ' so if they crash they'll mostly kill
scum. Pardon my French. Who's paying for it?
@mbur Am a bit confused. Was it Boris Herman the German who headed the joint venture who
is referred to as 'German' in the following text? His fellow victims being SBU head Grytsak
and the Prosecutor General Lutsenko? The bad guys being unnamed creditors..?
Herman/German is the name of Boris (H and G are often interchangeable in translations from
Russian). Boris is Ukrainian, not German (the country).
The SBU head seems to be on the side opposed to Boris German.
But I admit that I am not totally sure of that. I do not even know who is the bad guy
here.
Who is really raiding the company? Boris, who is the executive who leads the company, or
the former founder/creditor and his companions?
The case is confusing, the stories (not all are quoted above) contradict each other as do
the various people telling them.
It seems clear the Boris German has been under SBU pressure for some time over the company
and credit issue. Now he gets framed as a Russian asset by the SBU while he claims to have
worked for the Ukrainian counter espionage department which is nominally part of the SBU but
still a sort of separate service.
If the SBU wanted him "off the street" to let someone else take over the company they got
their wish fulfilled. The judge put him under 60 days pre-trial custody.
@6 dh
The EU should get serious about admitting Ukraine to the club.
Definitely. An agreement like "full membership for a guaranteed intake/redistribution of
100.000 refuges per annum" would be my favourite option. Only for the fun of it, of
course.
I am not sure that we can take Meduza.io's reporting all that seriously as its agenda is
anti-Russian and, like Arkady Babchenko's Crimean Tatar TV station employer, receives some
funding from the US or a US agency. Although I suppose that like the Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights, Meduza journalists do tell the truth occasionally so as to not to compete with
the BBC as a complete propaganda nutcase outfit.
Whether the publicity given to the Babchenko hoax murder in deceiving a gullible Western
news media will translate into success for the SBU in court is another thing. Boris Gherman
may be in pre-trial detention (perhaps for his own safety) but if the court finds in his
favour then what other stunt will the SBU try to pull off to shake him down? They can only
pull off a successful hoax murder stunt once or twice before everyone outside Ukraine becomes
suspicious and cynical.
Meanwhile real Russian journalists working in Ukraine, whether they support or don't
support Russia, probably just found their jobs and their lives more endangered by the SBU
than before.
Ukraine must be in really desperate straits to seize modest-sized industrial assets in the
tens of thousands of US dollars, Mafia-style. It can't be long now before the country's
economy and finances are put under direct control of the IMF if that organisation is to
recover its loans.
et Al @ 13: It will be fun watching Nazis trying to fly those helioopters and crashing them.
The downside is that if they crash in eastern Ukraine or near the border with Russia, you
know who will get the blame.
Britain appears to be the must Russophobic country at the moment, while at least some of the
U.S. elites appear to be more concerned about China. Guardian journalists Shaun Walker and
Luke Harding have conducted a vicious campaign spanning years, and one suspects both are
close to British intelligence (if you can call what they do intelligence). We know that
English hatred of Russia goes back centuries, but there must be something else. Any opinions?
Radiator @ 16: You mean Ukraine should agree to accept Jabhat al Nusra, ISIS and other
headchoppers currently holed up in Idlib once the Syrian Arab Army starts squeezing them into
Turkey and Turkey in turn squeezes them into Europe?
Should be fun watching the Nazis and jihadis fight each other when they're supposed to be
fighting the Donbass fighters.
Slightly off topic ( i apologize, but the various spellings and pronounciations of the actors
in this storey are far too difficult for my poor Newfoundlander's tongue) ...i have been
curious the last few years to find out:
"Who , if anyone, oversees the 'City of London'? I understand it has a special place due to
history of england ....and it seems to me that all of the Financial whoremongers of the world
set up shop in the 'City of London' to do their nefarious evil deeds ....but ...is there
anyone actually in control of the 'City of London', other than the 'COL' itself?
PLease , anyone?
Ukraine must be in really desperate straits to seize modest-sized industrial assets in the
tens of thousands of US dollars, Mafia-style. Posted by: Jen | Jun 1, 2018 5:01:58 PM | 17
We have tall tales explaining what happen, and the reality is too bizarre for some
sensible explanation. Nevertheless, the mechanism behind "sizing modest-sized industrial
assets" is not some nation-level policy, or even "SBU leadership", but most probably some
personal feud. In a classic novel "Dead Souls" that take place "somewhere in Malorossia",
written by Ukrainian born Gogol, the main character participated in a successful corrupt
shakedown that unravelled wh one partner call another "popovich" = a son of Orthodox
clergyman; the insult was probably in doubting membership to dvoryanstvo, the noble
estate.
Corruption fosters something like feudal lord-vassal system, with patrons and clients, an
insult to a client shows ill will to the patron, so disputes concerning smallish enterprises
can percolate toward the top.
Thank you b for a great morning read and laugh. Cynical laugh, that is.
@jen #17: "It can't be long now before the country's economy and finances are put under
direct control of the IMF if that organisation is to recover its loans."
Thanks jen I appreciate your input here. The IMF is the mafia and they are in control in
that they 'issue the permit' to minor oligarchs to steal in return for guaranteed arms
purchases from the IMF primary backers. This is a deeply corrupted system and it is truly
alarming.
I never did see a story on how those two enormous arms depots were destroyed in Ukraine
but it must have seriously damaged the Ukrainian economy as they were all likely headed to
the 'anti isis' fake war games in Africa or the ME.
Oh well any people 40 and under or thereabouts who use this site would be smart to pick their
corporation now, because this will be SOP if the evil arseholes prevail. Sovereign entities
in the form of geographically defined nation states will take a back seat as Google goes to
war with Instagram, snapchat with facebook in the hope that the former FB monolith can be
separated from it's now dominant overlord,
instagram .
Of course the fact that Google shareholders may have neighbors in their gated community whose
hedge fund is big in Instagram will make everything piquant for the un-allied masses who like
their grandparents never got around to 'registering' with any of the pr1cks.
Not sure if these new assertions are credible or not, but either way this escapade is full up
on crazy. When the west says that Ukraine has 'western values,' is this what they mean?
Does Newfoundland support Trust Funds or their like? Ask yourself why there is not public
reporting of the largest trust funds in our Western world....maybe the same reason you don't
know who pulls the strings behind the COL curtain.
To the subject of this posting by b, I think about how many other "two-bit players" the
elite have groomed for disruption of this, that or whatever is needed....public manipulation
by any means and morals are for weaklings sort of attitude.
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine, seeking to reassure its Western allies after faking the murder of
a Russian dissident to thwart what it said was a plot on his life, told them on Friday its
ruse led to the discovery of a hit-list of 47 people whom Russia planned to kill
abroad.
Знаєш, просто
серце
сжимається,
коли бачиш, як в
редакціях
телеканалів,
як в офісах --
сьогодні я
бачив реакцію --
я ж про це все
знав, а ніхто в
адміністрації
про це не знав.
You know, it pained my heart when I saw how in the TV channels' newsrooms, in the
offices -- I saw the reaction today -- you see, I knew everything about it, but nobody
in the administration knew about it.
My guess is that those army depots were deliberately allowed to deteriorate to the point
where the munitions "spontaneously" combusted. The Ukrainians are probably treating them as
write-offs, figuring that these can be replaced by free ammunition from the US, Canada or
other countries if they (the Ukrainians, that is) jump up and down often enough and loudly
enough about the encroaching Russian "menace".
The earlier answers were not correct. The Corporation of the City of London is controlled
by its 13 man (naturally!) board. This is known as 'The Crown'. People naturally assume that
term applies to the monarch but this is not the case, it is one of the many passive
deceptions played out on us. The Lord Mayor of the City is a ceremonial role rotated on an
annual basis.
To show who is really in charge consider this. Once a year the Queen turns up at one of
the City gates dressed in her ordinary clothes. She awaits the Mayor who comes out in his
full ceremonial regalia including chain of office. The Queen bows, thens begs permission to
enter the City. So who is sovereign there?
So there was not 'a' British empire as such, but two concurrent empires as the 'Crown
colonies' were all directly owned by the City and not by 'Britain'.
There are many layers of deception played out on us by these evil entities, and the status
of the City is one of them. It is an epicentre of evil in this world. Unsurprisingly we are
not taught any of this stuff at school, and there has never been a BBC documentary on the
matter.
I don't think I want to comment more on this ridiculous farce. It must be
obvious to even the daftest Brexiteer (They are uniquely stupid) that Ukrainistan is "FAIL
!!"
Even a bachelor myself :) I say thank you but NO! Off course there are decent people in
Ukraine, as there are in the US, we just can't hear them. I have met people from all parts of
the world and you can divide them in two: Arseholes and non-arseholes.
The arseholes we just send to Coventry, the non-arseholes are maybe not aligned with your
political opinion, way of life etc. but they always are respectful about their non-alignment,
as you should be to them.
I am a socialist, no a Socialist, and I have conservative friends, it is not a problem, to me
at least.
But Ukraine, sigh, what to do.... Well there is a nice place, where there is nature in
abundance, it is called Pripyat, so if we can export the remaining xx million neo-nazis to the
US and Canada, it can all be a nature reserve, under joint EU-Russian control.
And the US and Canada will be happy, their people have come home, maybe even Israel could be
persuaded to the same trick...
Imagine the Zio's would have free reign on a continent, they can fight or hold marches
together.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe , Jun 2, 2018 5:43:45 AM |
39
I don't think I want to comment more on this ridiculous farce. It must be obvious to even the
daftest Brexiteer (They are uniquely stupid) that Ukrainistan is "FAIL !!"
Even a bachelor myself :) I say thank you but NO! Off course there are decent people in
Ukraine, as there are in the US, we just can't hear them. I have met people from all parts of
the world and you can divide them in two: Arseholes and non-arseholes.
The arseholes we just send to Coventry, the non-arseholes are maybe not aligned with your
political opinion, way of life etc. but they always are respectful about their non-alignment,
as you should be to them.
I am a socialist, no a Socialist, and I have conservative friends, it is not a problem, to me
at least.
But Ukraine, sigh, what to do.... Well there is a nice place, where there is nature in
abundance, it is called Pripyat, so if we can export the remaining xx million neo-nazis to
the US and Canada, it can all be a nature reserve, under joint EU-Russian control.
And the US and Canada will be happy, their people have come home, maybe even Israel could be
persuaded to the same trick...
Imagine the Zio's would have free reign on a continent, they can fight or hold marches
together.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Jun 2, 2018 5:43:45 AM |
39 /div
On another note:
Denmark has had a May month with more than 350 hours of sun and almost warmest ever. Several
counties prohibited garden watering.
Malmoe town in Sweden cautioning people not to use sprinklers on their lawns, the waterworks
cant keep up in production. (Sweden has immense freshwater reserves, like Finland) and is a
large country with only 10 million.
And Orangeturd in the WH says climate change is a hoax... I hope to see his Florida Trumpland
in the swells of the Atlantic.
Another Russian oligarchs made by neoliberal reforms in the 1990s
Thomas Piketty
According to our estimates, the offshore assets alone held by wealthy Russians exceed one
year of GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official financial assets held by
Russian households. In other words, the natural wealth of the country, (which, let it be
said in passing, would have done better to remain in the ground to limit global warming)
has been massively exported abroad to sustain opaque structures enabling a minority to hold
huge Russian and international financial assets. These rich Russians live between London,
Monaco and Moscow: some have never left Russia and control their country via offshore
entities. Numerous intermediaries and Western firms have also recouped large crumbs on the
way and continue to do so today in sport and the media (sometimes this is referred to as
philanthropy). The extent of the misappropriation of funds has no equal in history.
There has been an attempt to turn Russian emigres against Russia by threatening their
capital - the sanctions basically warn oligarchs "
not to be close to Putin ".
The case of oligarchs' "closeness to Putin" is less obvious. Any discussion of it should
start with the term "oligarch," which, when it came into broad usage in Russia in the
mid-1990s, referred to a group of people who had succeeded at state capture. The reason the
Putin-era elite rejects the term is that the state turned the tables on those particular
people. Essentially, it captured their assets without confiscating them.
Britains main industry is financial services. Of course they have the main problem if
Russia is not playing by "the rules".
Over all, Russia is disappointing Western investors.
Western oil majors have been attempting to gain access to Russia's enormous oil reserves
since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but have often found themselves stymied by local
oligarchs and domestic politics.
Germany is different as they are not so much interested in financial services but
business. And that
business is seriously hit by sanctions not by the Russian state.
Regarding the City of London corruption cesspit: It's more apt to say that it runs Britain,
rather then the British government controlling it. Think of it as the traditional
world-looting centre of what's left of the English empire, still going strong, although the
empire is just a fag-end of what it was, and the imperial military machine is a shrunken joke
compared to its hey-day - but still killing people and destroying things overseas, and
operating as an assistant attack-dog for the Anglozionist empire in its global looting
operations, even now.
The City appears to operate as a handy top-of-the-range monetary and financial swindling
and laundering centre for the USukiznato-axis powers (and indeed for freebooter gangsters
from anywhere in the world, as long as they come with large sums of money in their hands; a
leading centre for laundering global drugs-trade money, for example); with Frankfurt as a
possible competitor, I suppose. It clarifies matters if you think of the City as a continuing
loot-source for the small English-raj class, who are still the entrenched controllers of most
of what goes or doesn't go in Britain; and think of the Conservative party in Paedominster
(the London parliament) as the political-wing of the raj, in the 'democratic' politics
theatre carried on there, solely to serve the rajistas' perceived interests.
The British tories and their various me-too clones in the other parties loathe like poison
any hint of real, popular, glasnostic democracy, of course, and are in politics to make sure
that it never takes hold in The Isles (Dáil Éireann in Eire being a rather
unwelcome growth in that respect, especially as the island of Eire slides slowly towards
re-unification; with the other rival national parliaments in The Isles, weak though they are
currently, being seen as further irritating thorns in the English-raj class's flesh). One
reason that Jeremy Corbyn and the grassroots support that he attracts are so loathed and so
virulently traduced currently is because they represent a genuine upsetting threat to this
centuries-old traditional arrangement. If JC makes it to Downing Street, expect to see coup
d'etat scams set going to neutralise him one way or another, including lots of CoL
shenanigans - though of course all done in the style of 'A Very British Coup' (qv).
Dear oh dear, seems the Keystone Cops are still alive and well in the Ukraine. Excellent
forensics on this latest insult to the intelligence, well for the minority in any case. I
suppose Ukraine still has a ways to go to get as smooth as the West in its false flags, but
we should in all fairness give a newcomer time to get up to speed. No doubt they will soon be
BS-ing with the best of them.
The British defending the free world: According to the Independent (prolly a lie) the Royal
nave sent a destroyer and a heli to "escort" a Russian "naval" vessel through the Channel...
WTF!!!!
The Channel, last I remembered is International Waterway, like the belts in Denmark, and
everybody can pass. Russian need no foking escort or to be harassed, they have the right like
anybody, to pass through.
The British are getting increasingly annoying, maybe I should ask my European MEP if they
have found a final solution to "The British Problem" namely tell them to fok off.
They are continuously trying to set of Europe in another conflict it does not want. I say we
go fighting, invade and start killing civvies in Birmingham and Chelsea and central London.
We will start at Westminster.
These guys are mad they will get us in another war. Which we abhor.
Foking Tory dimwits, when is the people going to wake up? Their beer is thin, their women
ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?
I can't wait to see the movie. This story has twists and turns worthy of a suspense thriller.
For comic relief, we have the western "news" media, behaving like dunces in the midst of all
this intrigue.
I have counterchecked the Meduza piece I quoted. It is basically a copy of an Interfax
report. The English Meduza version was simply easier to quote. The facts in it are also
confirmed by the longer piece I linked in comment 14.
@BreadonWaters @23 - is there anyone actually in control of the 'City of London', other
than the 'COL' itself?
PLease , anyone?
The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In
one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of
Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the
Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the
City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the
boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two
cities, one of which must unsee the other.
Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by
its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have
seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at
Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind
of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed
in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories.
@Piotr @24 - an excellent explanation.
@Palloy - That article needs a 1 paragraph who-what-when-why-where overview before the
detailed analysis starts, especially when the details are all so dubious.
I have added a bit at the top but I am not sure it helps. This stuff is so unbelievably
crazy that is difficult to summarize.
Den Lille Abe
You just described the fall of the Roman Empire and most other empires in history!
Ah there's hope yet! Cheered us all up no end. I'm with you bro.
Corporation is old English for council,it used to be slang for working for the
council.It was the first enterprise zone in modern parlance to develop the core of
London.
The original six Worshipfull Companies, or Trade Guilds own the CoL corporation.
It owns all the land within the CoL boundaries, its a landlord to the Banking scum,
not the scum itself.
As a member of one of the six Companies attending meetings at Guild Hall, its a combo
of a property managers conference/royal tea party.Hardly SPECTRE.
interesting how the conversation has spun over to the city of london.. i agree with the brief
history @41 somebody offers.. also @42 Rhisiart Gwilym and Den Lille Abe's comments on this
as well..
In the interest of networking, useful ground roots reporting and being less dependent on this
one fantastic site-Moa I'd suggest googling- '
Winter Oak Press. Totally different but heart in the right place !!!
B @ 49: Thanks for clarifying the source of Meduza.io's report.
Interestingly RT.com, quoting Ukranews.com, offers a different view: that Boris Gherman
was framed for plotting a hit on Babchenko after he refused an offer of lenient treatment by
law enforcement officers (for whatever he may have done or not done in the past, including
the recent past) in return for testifying against someone else. https://www.rt.com/news/428392-ukraine-fake-falling-appart/
"... According to ukranews.com, German was offered a deal by the investigators, who
offered him leniency in exchange of testifying against a person who was not named by the
officials. The source said he rejected the offer and also said the businessman works with
arms procurement for the Ukrainian army.
Strana.ua said its source confirmed that German had connections in the arms business.
It also added that he was apparently framed by the Ukrainian law enforcement, which offered
him to take part in a sting operation.
"It was a clear set up, a provocation. Now the man, who came to him with the
suggestion, has disappeared and the SBU claims he was working for the Russian intelligence,
but they don't have any clear evidence to prove it," the source is cited as saying
..."
It was bad enough to have read the vile comments of the toxic troll calling itself 'Den Lille
Abe' above, full of hateful, racist, mysogynist, terroristic and wannabe mass-murdering bile.
Bad enough that he wants to massacre me and countless other civilians in Britain (actually we
already have the UK state-backed ISIS trying to do that, thanks) but to see a whooping chorus
of approval from many other posters was just too much to stomach.
It's bad enough to have to put up with a sinister cabal of warmongering scumbags running
the West, with their corrupt and blackmailed presstitutes blaring out their lies, but when
one of the few places I had hoped to hear a credible and intelligent opposition is sinking to
this level I just despair. I really do.
How should I continue to persuade my countrymen to question the bellicosity of their
rulers? By showing them the vicious poison of Den Lille Abe and its cheerleaders and saying
"hey, these are my pals who are also opposing the empire?".
This creature and his supporters are as bad as the headchoppers themselves and their
powerful sponsors. The pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.
With a mass sentiment like this proudly on display I cannot continue to recommend this
site to anyone, or link to it. I realise that the internet is full of repulsive cretins like
Den Lille Abe, and that site owners are not responsible for some of the trash that is written
under their articles, but filth like that surely can only harm the excellent work Mr B does
(assuming he does not also agree with their position, and if he does I would be wracked with
guilt for having financially supported him).
It's called empathy! It seems OK to distroy other people's country but not our own?
Self defence is not violence.
Tens of millions killed by the west. But when someone hypathticly points out a picture of
your city being distroyed you suddenly wake up! You just got caught out. We are all equally
important in this world. So please stay and help stop the madness.
@59 I assume you are referring to Den Lille Abe's rather ignorant comment "Their beer is
thin, their women ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?".
I don't see a 'whooping chorus of approval'. I thought it was pretty stupid myself but
anti-British sentiment runs deep here for some reason. I know a lot of people in the UK are
very unhappy about the state of things. I guess they just aren't sure what to do about it.
Perhaps DLA does have a point about docility but he could apply the same standard to
Scandinavia.
@62 The beer isn't bad at all and they import a lot anyway for fussy drinkers. The women do
tend to run a little on the heavy side these days. And the climate can be awful which is why
so many of them moved to Spain. That said I think DLA needs to reflect on his opinion.
" at its deepest level, consensual reality is a fragile thing that can very easily have
nothing to do with truth or fact or actual reality."
At its best - when no" special interests" are manipulating an entry - this describes
Wikipedia.
" the issue was going to be "who did it?" not "was it even done?"
Not even. The whodoneit was already "answered" in the very unveiling of the "news." The
issue was going to be "how are we - who are all goodness and light and truth and freedom -
going to "bring justice" to the perp?"
"See how little it occurred to any of us, even those who make a habit of interrogating
narratives, to ask whether or not it really happened."
And this is why I have been saying I have no reason to believe that the Skirpal poisoning
ever really happened.
If they were meant to be dead, they'd almost certainly be dead.
If they were meant to survive, then why take the chance of actually poisoning them,
regardless of what agent was allegedly used?
"
Meanwhile the guy who supposedly hired Tsimbalyuk, Boris L. German, 50, also says he worked
for Ukrainian counter-intelligence, a claim Ukraine denies as its immediately destroys the
carefully scripted, if rapidly imploding, Ukrainian narrative meant to scapegoat Russia for
what has been a "fake news" story of epic proportions, emerging from the one nation that
not only was the biggest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation , but has made fake news
propaganda into an art form.
"
"
Meanwhile, senior Ukraine officials have been on the defensive since Wednesday, when the head
of security services announced they had staged the death of Babchenko so they could track his
would-be killers to Russian intelligence, a story the International Federation of Journalists
slammed as idiotic, nonsensical and completely undermining Ukraine's credibility.
"
Hiya it is a grey sunday afternoon here with the view out my back window over the back
paddock obscured by a drizzle haze which is atypical for these parts where the weather at
this time of year is either wet in a absolutely p1ssing down but warmish way, or dry, sunny
and pink bits-shriveling cold.
I dunno what's up with that but the break from usual sunday arvo routines has given me time
between the weekly family catch ups via voip to try and learn what howlingpixel a site I have been
using in lieu of wikipedia is about.
I have learned sfa since a net search has only the site's own 'about' page which I will
not consider; being as I never trust that sorta self serving nfo sharing.
Does anyone know any of howlingpixel's history - who runs it, pays for it etc?
Posted by: V | Jun 3, 2018 1:17:51 AM | 70
Thanks V I had seen that as one of the few non howlingpixel references to howlingpixel I
could find - it appears to be some sort of net traffic counter website.
Posted by: Cortes | Jun 3, 2018 3:13:15 AM | 71
There is nothing new under the sun eh. Although must give Pohl his due, the whimper that
humankind seems likely to expire with, was much less predictable in 1953 than it is in
2018.
I'm still a little hopeful that the lack of common geographic proximity will make corporate
entities more difficult to unite mugs behind than nation states have found when cranking up
jingoism.
In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open hostility against its people, came
via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position.
You mean he was adversarial to the Russian government. That hardly makes him "hostile" to
the Russian people, but that does put his life in danger. Just ask the six journalists from
Novaya Gazeta murdered during Putin's rein.
There is a major logical fallacy in using past criminal cases in justifying present
fakes.
PS:
*Babchenko in Vilnus, 'Open Russia', 12 April 2018 "...the one who is responsible is not
Putin's regime, but Russia", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGeiabB6kM
, 4:50 and 9:00
*Just ask the six journalists, -who?
Anna Politkovskaya (well known/look up), Yury Shchekochikhin (illness and suspected
poisoning, 'open verdict'); Baburova (journalist) and Markelov (lawyer, not journalist),
killed by a neo-Nazi couple who were caught and sentenced for life; Estemirova, run into
problems, kidnapped and killed in Chechnya. And number 6 is ?
Why would the suspect have hired the same hitman all at once to carry out multiple crimes
that were so different?
Ukraine's National Security Agency says Boris German (who was named the suspect in
Babchenko's case on May 31) was instructed to do even more than have 30 people killed: he
was also supposed to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. German's lawyer
says his client is the executive director of the Ukrainian-German company "Schmeisser" --
the only private arms manufacturer in Ukraine.
This might explain why Boris German would have been selected to arrange the secret
weapons caches, but it remains unclear why he would have been the man to entrust with the
organization of 30 murders. These two crimes -- the murders and the secret weapons caches
-- appear to be two separate projects.
From a
Meduza piece suggested after the Meduza article b linked above (the 'went' link).
Has anyone seen more information about these weapons caches? Is it true that Schmeisser is
the only 'private' arms manufacturer in the Ukraine?
If b's right that the interior logic of the assassination hoax is about ownership/control
of the company, what is the point of the weapons caches accusation? Perhaps this also gives
SBU cover to either "find" these weapons in the wrong hands or cover over/disavow past trades
they don't want acknowledged. (Makes me think about Paddock in Vegas or the kid caught with
all those guns in California who claimed to be with Omar Mateen and also set up... )
Or maybe this gives 'legal' cover to raid other places in search of those secreted
weapons?
Also, in the Zerohedge piece psychohistorian (~@68) linked, one picture shows Tsymbalyuk
wearing a top with an embroidered swastika. The NYT article b linked above (the Russophobic
link) is only willing to say that "some portray" Right Sector as neo-nazi.
So Denmark now erects fences to keep swine fewer out of Denmark. Cool and good. (Germans are
lax) but Trump is arriwing in London this summer? WTF Is fat piece of garbage to come in via
the idiot British regulations ? He is....
Had he been my pig we would have had him this Christmas, he is growing stale now and too fat,
only winter food is he good for. Gule ærter, Brunkål and so. Any pig will do for
those courses.
I don not live in the "paradise" called England, I live in Scandinavia. We are quite well
off thank you. We have not got much room for you English serfs. :) There you got it. We do
not respect you, because you have always voted "out". No foking go and die in obscurity.
Your idiot public shall bear the consequences as the Germans did in 1945, England is reduced
to a two bit whore, I rejoice personally, as I have ancestors who died at Brit hands 200
years ago-and no repentance!! Germany paid repentance at least morally.
So please fok off. Accordinf to stats you will soon anyway. You are just taking up oxygen
needed by other living stuff, snails etc.
It actually says " Like mobile version of Wikipedia" Then wikipedia rates it 'low/none'.
It appears to be one of those reference sites which scrapes some wikipedia pages as well as
other sources. I'm going to use it in preference to wikipedia esp for non-controversial stuff
eg it had a list of cabinet members of the June 1 Italian Government before anywhere else
(how I stumbled across it from a yandex search) until I know one way or another how objective
it is. I don't wanna give wikipedia any page clicks at all after the Phillip Cross bizzo. If
Howling Pixel is just as biased towards western propaganda I shall look for another source.
We still don't know who funds it. I use an ad blocker so I dunno if it tries to pop at me -
if it does, it doesn't whinge about the blocker.
In the end a reference source is still essential for background info.
Ha ha, great exposé b. - it all just gets nuttier. one couldn't make this up and put
it in a movie, no way.
Ukraine was the country that 'suffered' the most from the USSR dissolution. In terms of
GDP per capita, population, health, 'democratic advances' (depending on definition some are
no good etc.), schooling, flourishing culture, etc.
Why exactly idk, nor does anybody else imho, as there are dozens of partial
explanations.
I favor the happenstance of a collection of particularly crazed and rapacious oligarchs;
being 'rich and large' (thus a prey), and pehaps the East-West thing, in the sense that a
partition into two federated quasi-states might have saved it. Ukr. was color-revolutionized
Orange in 2004, a failure, always does great harm, and no doubt the failure infuriated the W
powers.
Since then it has been mad-cap downhill, its territory subject to carving. Crimea retuned
to Russia (ok), and in other circs. all would have been no prob. The Donbass is now a
separate territory (subject to the foreign-directed GWOT from Kiev), terrible situation, in
limbo, Russia cannot take it over and Kiev cannot re-integrate it, and it cannot become
independent without *massive* outside support which nobody will provide. Galicia seems to be
out of control of the Center as well. (Look up news articles.) In short, Ukraine provides a
terrain for 'proxy wars' as it is large and rich.
and to date US and Germany (>..EU) have lost in Ukr. - Crimea and de facto the
Donbass.
Bombing Yugoslavia, destroying and breaking it up sucessfully can't be repeated in
Ukraine. Which leads to anger, disdain, and victim blaming, and in fine stasis for a
while, and then abandonment. The IMF will continue to 'support' but they hate it.
"You mean he was adversarial to the Russian government. That hardly makes him "hostile" to
the Russian people, but that does put his life in danger."craigsummers@75
He appears to have made himself unpopular by dancing on the graves of the Choir which was
killed, en route to Syria, in a plane crash. Unpopular, that is, with most Russians, Putin
and decent people everywhere.
"Just ask the six journalists from Novaya Gazeta murdered during Putin's rein."
Are they the source of your information?
How many dozens of journalists were killed, every month, when the US, through Yeltsin reined
in Russia? In the past month we have seen three journalists and several medicos killed by
Israel in Gaza, with the enthusiastic support of the US government.
"... Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces ..."
"... By WashingtonsBlog ..."
"... February 25, 2016 ..."
"... With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it. ..."
"... "[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again. ..."
"... "When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces – we ..."
"... dismantled their army ..."
"... , and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was ..."
"... , and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – ..."
"... electrical plants ..."
"... water facilities ..."
"... – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was ..."
"... , leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all. ..."
"... By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Global Research, November 2006) ..."
Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli
thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break:
a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the
incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu . As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing
Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an
entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the
nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism "
***
The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning
with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.
With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan
and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it
suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria
and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of
Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded.
***
The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote it was Richard Perle – now
chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon . Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds
one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy .
***
Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US
thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy , August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of
Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers
portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise
Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton,
the under-secretary for arms control and international security.
A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory
board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas
Feith.
***
With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington,
the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more
achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to
achieve it.
(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people –
including Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views
during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the "Project for a New
American Century".)
Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut –
writes :
[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the
chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in
Washington and Tel Aviv .
***
One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the
territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet .
***
The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash
the target country's social matrix and physical infrastructure.
***
Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the
military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.
In short divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial
game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.
To those -- and I suspect there are still many out there -- for whom all this seems too neat
or too conspiratorial , I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:
a) the "Clean Break" manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996
and
b) the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper generated by The Project for a New American
Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the
aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of George Bush Junior to the White
House, to the most exclusive sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.
To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents -- which speak, in
the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel's
"strategic environment" and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of
US "forward bases" in the region .
To do so now, after the US's systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya -- two notably
oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or
out of government with more than passing interest in history -- , and after the its carefully
calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in
Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media's deafening silence
on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.
And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise
the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the
ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously
fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this
part of the world.
Iraq's fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I
pointed out again and again
in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate
states: the Shi'ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest,
and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion.
This was the War Party's
real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the
entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are
seeing today.
"[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush
it, so that it would never rise again.
"When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces
– wedismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other
institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not
reconstituted. The infrastructure waspulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized
society –roads,bridges,electrical plants,water
facilities,museums,schools– were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair.
Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to
function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – wasdissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.
" What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can
say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized."
Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why
deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors
were living in trees?
The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who
have advanced Israeli interests – at America's expense – at every opportunity. In "
A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of
neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg,
David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged
to "break out" of Israel's alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of "regime change"
across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the
exception of Iran – and that one's still cooking on the back burner – this is
precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq,
then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these "rogue states"
– Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party's target
list.
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the
Pentagon for more than 10 years .
What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the
institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the
elimination of Iraq as a country .
This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an
impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines .
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the
Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US
ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation
of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states" (Serbia, Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of
redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed
Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map
Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the
balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to
break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate
nation.
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry
allegedlywrote a book
expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units . Dissolution of
Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated : Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.As Michel Chossudovsky
points out :
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas
said :
Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As
long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.
Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of
the Iraq war – John Bolton –
said:
The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going
to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That's what ISIS has been able to
take advantage of.
I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the
eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical
Islamists. What's left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the
ayatollahs in Tehran. It's not anything we should try to aid.
In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said
that he has "a tough time" seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign
nations.
In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable
puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize . Better to divide and conquer than to
countenance a "rogue" (independent) neighbor.
So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are
making it plain that Plan A (" Assad Must Go ") is not
happening any time soon.
And SecState John Kerry confirmed
just yesterday that "Plan B" is to break Syria up into different states.
Paul Craig Roberts is right about dominance of neoliberal economics in Russia. But what is the alternative?
Notable quotes:
"... If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand. ..."
"... For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments. ..."
"... Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West. ..."
"... As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies. ..."
"... Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development. ..."
This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to
address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.
Executive Summary:
From the standpoint of Russia's dilemma, this is an important column.
Putin's partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics
exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes
that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia's integration within the Western
economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial
establishment.
Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war,
especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its
foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the
Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This
totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West.
Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that
would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of
resolve on Putin's part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until
Russia's only option is surrender or war.
If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could
give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what
Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance.
The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe's recognition of the threat to its own
existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and
NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the
West.
If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth
Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the
country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal
economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught,
the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful
America was there with a helping hand.
In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through
privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue
about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while
loading them up with debt.
But worse happened. Russia's economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking
that serves Western imperialism.
For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation,
and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then
at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up
domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards.
Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.
Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that
Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief
threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all
internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not
realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would
be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American
neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with
foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the
West.
As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from
the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia
cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go?
They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central
bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the
project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar
debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself
into the hands of her enemies.
Indeed, it is the Russian government's mistaken belief that Russian economic development is
dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the
provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to
these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the
nationalist elements in Russia.
Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while
retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the
element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic
development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic
elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept
Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.
Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look
to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal
economics.
The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade
and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it
hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find
jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment.
The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for
a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a
handful of "banks too big to fail," banks that became too big to fail because of the
deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting "free trade" and "globalism,"
neoliberal economics sent America's manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad
where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US
wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World
country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve
recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise
$400 without selling personal possessions.
Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently
there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 -- $1.48
trillion! https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be
nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering
school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.
What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into
indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and
were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many
university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors' pay
and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men
and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the
well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the
student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents,
because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment
rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.
In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics -- privatize,
privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt -- prevents any economic growth as the
American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America
the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From
the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has
$1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the
interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the
University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will
be $2 million.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975
If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal
economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are
bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to
Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era
practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while
loading her up with debt.
I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson's term, that is
neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.
John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian
financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will
destroy Russia without war.
So Strzok was involved with this part of the story too. Strzokgate now has distinct British accent and probably was coordinated
by CIA and MI6.
Harper was definitely acted like an "agent provocateur", whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to
say things that would corroborate-or seem to corroborate-evidence that the FBI believed it already had in hand. It looks like among
other things Halper was tasked with the attempt elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier memo: "Russians
do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
London was the perfect place for such dirty games -- the territory where the agent knew he could operate safely.
"Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now
by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over
the White House."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times' ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
"... Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta? ..."
The New York Times'
4,000-word report last week on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to Russia
revealed for the first time that the investigation was called "Crossfire Hurricane."
The name, explains the paper, refers to the Rolling Stones lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane," from the 1968 hit "Jumpin'
Jack Flash." Mick Jagger, one of the songwriters, said the song was a "metaphor" for psychedelic-drug induced states. The other,
Keith Richards, said it "refers to his being born amid the bombing and air raid sirens of Dartford, England, in 1943 during World
War II."
Investigation names, say senior U.S. law enforcement officials, are designed to refer to facts, ideas, or people related to the
investigation. Sometimes they're explicit, and other times playful or even allusive. So what did the Russia investigation have to
do with World War II, psychedelic drugs, or Keith's childhood?
The answer may be found in the 1986 Penny Marshall film named after the song, "Jumpin' Jack Flash." In the Cold War-era comedy,
a quirky bank officer played by Whoopi Goldberg comes to the aid of Jonathan Pryce, who plays a British spy being chased by the KGB.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is therefore most likely a reference to the former British spy whose allegedly Russian-sourced
reports on the Trump team's alleged ties to Russia were used as evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Service Act secret warrant
on Trump adviser Carter Page in October 2016: ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele.
Helping Spin a New Origin Story
It is hardly surprising that the Times refrained from exploring the meaning of the code name. The paper of record has
apparently joined a campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Justice, FBI, and political operatives pushing the Trump-Russia collusion
story, to minimize Steele's role in the Russia investigation.
After an October news report showed his dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, facts that
further challenged the credibility of Steele's research, the FBI investigation's origin story shifted.
In December, The New York Times
published a "scoop " on the new origin story. In the revised narrative, the probe didn't start with the Steele dossier at all.
Rather, it began with an April 2016 meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Maltese professor named Joseph
Mifsud. The professor informed him that "he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had 'dirt'
on Mrs. Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.'"
Weeks later, Papadopoulos boasted to the Australian ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, that he was told the Russians had
Clinton-related emails. Two months later, according to the Times , the Australians reported Papadopoulos' boasts to the
FBI, and on July 31, 2016, the bureau began its investigation.
Further reinforcement of the new origin story came from congressional Democrats. A
January 29 memo
written by House Intelligence Committee minority staff under ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff further distances Steele from the opening
of the investigation. "Christopher Steele's raw reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation
in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September."
Last week's major Times article echoes the Schiff memo. Steele's reports, according to the paper, reached the "Crossfire
Hurricane team" "in mid-September."
Yet the new account of how the government spying campaign against Trump started is highly unlikely. According to the thousands
of favorable press reports asserting his credibility, Steele was well-respected at the FBI for his work on a 2015 case that helped
win indictments of more than a dozen officials working for soccer's international governing body, FIFA. In July 2016, Steele met
with the agent he worked with on the FIFA case to show his early findings on the Trump team's ties to Russia.
The FBI took Steele's reporting on Trump's ties to Russia so seriously it was later used as evidence to monitor the electronic
communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But, according to Schiff and the Times , the FBI somehow lost track
of reports from a "credible" source who claimed to have information showing that the Republican candidate for president was compromised
by a foreign government. That makes no sense.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is further evidence that the FBI's cover story is absurd. A reference to a movie about a British
spy evading Russian spies behind enemy lines suggests the Steele dossier was always the core of the bureau's investigation into the
Trump campaign.
Was Halper an Informant, Spy, Or Agent Provocateur?
Taken together with the other significant revelation from last Times story, the purpose and structure of Crossfire Hurricane
may be coming into clearer focus. According to the Times story: "At least one government informant met several times with
[Trump campaign advisers Carter] Page and [George] Papadopoulos, current and former officials said."
As we now know, the informant is Stefan Halper, a
former classmate of Bill Clinton's at Oxford University who worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Halper is
known for his good connections in intelligence circles. His father-in-law
was Ray Cline , former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Halper
is also reported to have led the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign team that collected intelligence on sitting U.S. President Jimmy
Carter's foreign policy.
So what was Halper doing in this instance? He wasn't really a spy (a person who is generally tasked with stealing secrets) or
an informant (a person who provides information about criminal activities from the inside). Rather, it seems he was more like an
agent provocateur, whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate --
or seem to corroborate -- evidence that the bureau believed it already had in hand.
It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things.
Halper met with at least three Trump campaign advisers: Sam Clovis, Page, and George Papadopoulos. The latter two he met with
in London, where Halper had reason to feel comfortable operating.
Halper's close contacts in the intelligence world weren't limited to the CIA. They also include foreign intelligence officials
like Richard Dearlove , the former head of the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence service, MI6. According to
a Washington Times report , Halper and Dearlove are partners in a UK consulting firm, Cambridge Security Initiative.
Dearlove is also close to Steele. According
to the Washington Post , Dearlove met with Steele in the early fall of 2016, when his former charge shared his "worries"
about what he'd found on the Trump campaign and "asked for his guidance."
London was therefore the perfect place for Halper to spring a trap -- outside the direct purview of the FBI, but on territory
where he knew he could operate safely. It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things that
corroborated the 35-page series of memos written by Steele -- the centerpiece of the Russiagate investigation -- in order to license
a broader campaign of government spying against Trump and his associates in the middle of a presidential election.
Halper Reached Out to Trump Campaign Members
Chuck Ross's reporting in The Daily Caller provides invaluable details and insight. As Ross
explained in The Daily Caller back
in March, Halper emailed Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 with an invitation to write a research paper, for which he'd be paid $3,000,
and a paid trip to London. According to Ross, "Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during the London trip," with one meeting
scheduled for September 13 and another two days later.
Ross writes: "According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking
the emails from Russia, right?' Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking." It seems Halper
was looking to elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier
memo : "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true.
Had Papadopoulos confirmed that a shadowy Maltese academic had told him in April about Russians holding Clinton-related emails,
presumably that would have entered the dossier as something like, "Trump campaign adviser PAPADOPOULOS confirms knowledge of Russian
'kompromat.'"
Another Trump campaign adviser Halper contacted was Page. They first met in Cambridge, England at a July 11, 2016 symposium. Halper's
partner Dearlove spoke at the conference, which was held just days after Page had delivered a widely reported speech at the New Economic
School in Moscow. According to another
Ross article reporting on Page and Halper's interactions, the Trump adviser "recalls nothing of substance being discussed other
than Halper's passing mention that he knew then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
Page and Manafort both figure prominently in the Steele dossier's July 19 memos. According to
the document ,
Manafort "was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." Page had also, according to the dossier,
met with senior Kremlin officials -- a charge he later denied in
his November
2, 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Evidently, he also gave Halper nothing to use in verifying the charges
made against him.
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and
now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to
take over the White House.
Using Spy Powers on Political Opponents Is a Big Problem
That portions of the American national security apparatus would put their considerable powers -- surveillance, spying, legal pressure
-- at the service of a partisan political campaign is a sign that something very big is broken in Washington. Our Founding Fathers
would not be surprised to learn that the post-9/11 surveillance and spying apparatus built to protect Americans from al-Qaeda has
now become a political tool that targets Americans for partisan purposes. That the rest of us are surprised is a sign that we have
stopped taking the U.S. Constitution as seriously as we should.
The damage done to the American press is equally large. Since the November 2016 presidential election, a financially imperiled
media industry gambled its remaining prestige on Russiagate. Yet after nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories
feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New
York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.
The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential
campaign.
There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could've easily checked, if it weren't
in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ's crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key
questions that the article raised with its revelation that "at least one government informant" met with Trump campaign figures.
So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names?
What were they doing?
Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James
Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John
Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta?
These questions are sure to be asked. What we know already is that the Times reporters did not ask them, because they
do not bother to indicate that the officials interviewed for the story had declined to answer. That they did not ask these questions
is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials
responsible for their crimes. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
[May 27, 2018] Turning on Russia by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
Who knew? Not me. The FBI does not discuss its operations with other agencies
of the US Government. Period. I made liaison with the FBI on many occasions when I was with DIA and they were always careful to make
it clear that whatever you might give them in the way of information they would give you exactly nothing in return. In retirement
from government I have often observed the FBI working in support of DoJ in court cases.
It has always been my understanding that when the FBI investigated you they searched through records, listened to your telephone,
read your E-mail and in the end interviewed you.
Now I learn that they also recruit "confidential sources" to speak to you about the subject of FBI interest WITHOUT bothering
to inform you that they are going to tell the FBI what you said about things. Some of these "confidential sources" are employed by
the FBI for long periods of time. The American professor now teaching at a UK university who was sent by the FBI to talk to several
Trump campaign people was one such. Other "confidential sources" are recruited for a particular case Sometimes they are recruited
from among the existing acquaintances or "friends" of the person targeted by the FBI. In other words if DoJ, the WH, or the Bureau
(FBI) want to know what I, or anyone else, really says about a given topic, they can recruit someone I know using pressure, persuasion
or money to "rat" me out.
Felix Dzerzhinsky would have been proud of their skills if they had been his men. pl
Of course the FBI uses confidential informants. So does the DEA, ICE and every state and local LEA. It's a staple of every TV
crime show and novel dealing with police. Every gangster, crook, drug dealer, pedophile, terrorist and spy is obsessed with the
idea that some snitch is going to rat him out. The rest of us are rightfully incensed that this could possibly happen to us. There
best be a solid paper trail behind every confidential informant used by all the various cops. And these paper trails need to be
examined by IGs or others outside these users of confidential informants.
To those of us in the intelligence field rather than the LE field, the use of US Persons to inform on other US Persons is anathema.
We are specifically prohibited from targeting US Persons without informing them of our USI affiliation except possibly under rare
and specific circumstances. In those circumstances we have to call in the FBI. The NSA once found the targeting of US Persons
to be beyond anathema. It was a mortal sin condemning one's soul to eternal damnation. That certainly changed after 9/11.
As far as the sharing of information with the FBI, CIA and even NSA goes, I had a very different experience than Colonel Lang
when I was in DIA. In digital operations, we shared information on a daily basis. Our operations were often intertwined and interdependent.
However, I doubt this extended beyond digital operations.
https://trevoraaronson.com/... the war on terror, for the FBI has been one giant entrapment free for all, fueled
entirely on informants of dubious trustworthiness at best.
There is no question that Trump of over his head and folded early on, adopting the deep state
foreign policy in even more militant incarnation the under Obama.
All those moves about "Russiagate" now is an empty sound or a cat fight of the faction of the
US elite for contracts and sinecures in government.
Notable quotes:
"... Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal, immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc. ..."
"... From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the "deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like Mister Rogers? ..."
"... Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial "foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military adventurism for example? As far as I know, no. ..."
"... Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion. These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their screen. ..."
"... How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the first place. ..."
"... So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation" but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters, investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he loves the vacations, etc.? ..."
"... The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political theater. ..."
"... Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper. ..."
"... Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/ BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years, a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal. ..."
"... Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or challenge the establishment. ..."
"... If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them. ..."
"... In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level. ..."
"... Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very definition of a spy. ..."
"... The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them. ..."
"... Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began. ..."
"... That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition. ..."
So, help me out here – the only reason the NYT is even reporting on this is because
Congress was closing in on this turd's identity, right?
"F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they
received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the
campaign.
"Suspicious contacts" = Russians who talked to Trump's employees.
So the FISA surveillance, the national-security letters, the FBI informants and 18
months of relentless probing-harassment have all been justified on the basis of allegations
about Russia hacking that may or may not have happened at all??
The one silver lining to all of this is that the GOP can to absolutely DRAG the Democrats
about this in the next election. If the GOP is smart, they will not listen to a goddamn word
coming out of the mouths of the Democrats or their (((Big Media))) mouthpieces during the
2020 election. They will not respond to a single point they have to make, except to call them
hopelessly corrupt authoritarians who are unfit to govern until they come clean about their
malfeasance and cut the rot from their ranks, and then spout their other talking points and
drop the mic.
"According to people familiar with (General Michael) Flynn's visit to the intelligence
seminar, the source was alarmed by the general's apparent closeness with a Russian woman
who was also in attendance. The concern was strong enough that it prompted another person
to pass on a warning to the American authorities that Mr. Flynn could be compromised by
Russian intelligence, according to two people familiar with the matter."
*Facepalm*
These fucks are beyond parody now. We're literally ruled by corrupt morons, stooges, and
degenerates.
"The cockblocking/penis-envy concern was enough for Stasi agents to follow up "
I would be shocked if both political party's didn't have a myriad of spies in each other's
campaigns dating back to Lincoln! Grow up people, there's a ton of money here.
Rod Rosenstein is a traitorous weasel POS who never should've been appointed. Christopher
Wray worked as a deputy to James Comey and is highly likely dirty and another deep state
puppet. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, McConnell, Pompeo, John Kelly, Kirstjen Nielsen, Gina Haspel,
John Bolton, Nikki Haley, all are deep state puppets. Why does Trump keep appointing more
deep state puppets to take over from the other deep state puppets?
I cannot for the life of me understand why Jeff Sessions continues to stick up for
Rosenstein the weasel. My only explanation is that this whole thing is a coup set up by Deep
State and Mike Pence from the get go so Pence can be president, and Sessions is in on the
coup to keep his job.
I did not know it was Rosenstein's memo that prompted Trump to fire James Comey. Trump
needs to bring that out in the open and let everyone know Rosenstein set him up. This POS
weasel needs to go to jail. As long as he's still in the DOJ no real investigation of deep
state will ever take place. We've got the fox guarding the hen house.
It notes that all the corporate media knows it was Halper, but they obey the Deep State
and refuse to report this, pretending that evil Republicans are trying to out an innocent FBI
spy. Even today, their coverage is "alleged" informant. For some reason, NBC News was the
only "mainstream" team to ignore this absurd BS and report his name as part of the biggest
news story of the decade. Note that Halper is not a Democratic Party mole, but a Bush family
mole.
Doesn't Mueller have the self-respect to end his witch hunt and crawl back under a
rock?
A very strong move by President Trump. It is a fact that the FBI sent an informant, Mr.
Halper, to gather information on the Trump campaign. The FBI can plead it was to gather info
on alarming Russians, but the informant my gather other info just as easily. If the FBI can
send one, Halper, they can just as easily send another, or more unknown informants. This
RussiaGate nonsense has always been a matter to be tried in the court of public opinion, by
innuendo. Therefore President Trump's investigation can use the "have you stopped beating
your wife?" method. Every time the FBI says no to a question it looks like they are lying to
cover something bigger. Informants have Control Officers, who write reports to superiors, the
reports make reference to code words, places and dates. Reports generate memos and orders.
Everything becomes fuel for innuendo and the only out the FBI will have is "We honestly
thought .but no, we found nothing".
A point well made in qualification of the merits of the article. Surely the author knows
on reflection that no political party or campaign is going to forgo the chance of getting
inside information on what their opponents are up to, including crimes – and
spying.
Since Trump could do some shuffling so as to appoint an Attorney-General who wouldn't
recuse himself or get rid of Rosenstein by appointing him a judge, or ambassador just for
example maybe it is best to assume that the President doesn't feel immediately threatened and
is reasonably confident that he can find and time his countermeasures satisfactorily. It is
hardly beyond belief that there are Trump moles in Mueller's army who are assuring him that
his instinct is right: apparent witch hunting persecution by Mueller is actually a harmless
distraction and so good for him until the time is right to blow it up.
Considered in its entirety, this Trump/Russia business is indeed turning into the political
crime (& shame) of the century. Were someone who had died in the 50′s to suddenly
resurrect, they would suffer the equivalent of a psychotic episode or a bad LSD trip.
Its mind boggling to anyone even vaguely conscious .
Mr Trump needs to clean house: politiclly difficult, yes, but Trump needs to visit a Lehman
Bros' moment on the DOJ, CIA & FBI.
No doubt the above toxic agencies will (again) spew forth the magic word:
"Russia-Russia-Russia" to render all opposition impotent.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice the
stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and –
finally – act .
Trump has surrounded himself with lifer Deep Staters who no doubt tell him that
investigations and prosecutions will do grave harm to national security and, at the same
time, would appear to be his own politically motivated witch hunt, the kind one sees only in
third-world basket case countries, and that would reflect more poorly on him than on the
actual cabal attempting to overthrow him and overturn his election.
But the actual collusion has become so obvious that he has to pull the trigger, because
nobody else is going to. Sessions should have been all over this a year ago, but he too is a
long-serving government employee, which suggests he is also of the swamp. As for Congress, a
few brave souls, e.g. Nunes, have tried and have been exposed to withering fire from all
sides.
The purpose of the informant/spy was to "dirty" Page and Papadopoulos; to make them plausible
suspects so that full use of the NSA database could be used on the Trump team both pre- and
post-election and as far back in the past as they wanted to go. The warrants used on Page and
Papadopoulos were counterintelligence warrants that allow using NSA resources on anyone "two
hops" (two people) away from Page and Papadopoulos. "Two-hops" would easily include everyone
near Trump even if Page and Papadopoulos had only minimal contact with the campaign. This is
the heart of the crime. Page and Papadopoulos were used as place-holders to gather
information on everyone near Trump. The informer was used to set those two up.
Trump posting something on Twitter isn't "fighting back"–it's venting steam. As the
article correctly states, letting the DOJ investigate itself is a joke. So Trump needed a
Special Counsel of his own, and he needed him right after his inauguration. It may be that
Trump likes a dose of Russia Scare to push overpriced American weapons and LNG to clueless
Europeans. It may be that he's found out (or at least his people have) that he needs
Deep-State sleaze for his anti-Iran campaign. It may be that Trump well knows he's vulnerable
on nepotism, old NY Mob ties, and oh yeah some sexual peccadilloes, so he better play along
and color within the lines. Or it may simply be that Trump is a moron without the attention
span for anything beyond venting on Twitter.
It doesn't really matter now, the ship has sailed, he's gone too far in with "Putin-Assad
baby killers" to return to sanity now.
"After 18 months of withering attacks and accusations, Donald Trump has decided to get up off
the canvas and fight back."
If "they" are really out to "get" orange clown, why don't "they" go after him for his
impeachable war crimes in Syria, for example? Why don't "they" at least bring a lawsuit
against him for his illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation of Syria?
Generally speaking, when one party ostensibly dislikes another party, and apparently seeks
to "get" that party, isn't there usually some kind of plausible, identifiable reason for the
enmity?
Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations
and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with
Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of
pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal,
immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal
war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already
slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded
himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in
Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more
military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the
reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc.
From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the
"deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like
Mister Rogers?
"In any event, Trump has decided to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. He's
decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing them out
into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny."
Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being
impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial
"foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of
significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military
adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.
3D chess, 4D chess or what is it up to now, 14D chess? Trumpistas have too much faith in
their man. Trump is a businessman not a politician. He's in over his head. Just look at how
easily he was goaded into canning James Comey that set off this whole sorry affair.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice
the stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and
– finally – act.
Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion.
These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their
screen. Most Americans are brain dead sheeple.
"Has the "deep state" deployed a 'lone nut' against him? Apparently not. Is he being
impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial
'foreign policy'? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of
significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military
adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.
So how is anybody actually '[on] his back'?"
Answer: the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him
into a foreign policy that he did not want. He wanted an America First policy, but because of
political blackmail and dishonest allegations about collusion with Russia, Trump has felt
compelled to do what Zionists want in the Middle East. At home, massive legal immigration
continues, there will be no mass deportations, and the border wall will not be built. The
Democrats will be firmly entrenched after Trump is gone from the scene.
"the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him into a
foreign policy that he did not want. "
Or so goes the Trump apologists' claim. But that's pure unfounded speculation.
How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How
can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for
no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the
first place.
So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation"
but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters,
investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a
mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he
loves the vacations, etc.?
I think not. The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole
campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get
Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political
theater.
"In an earlier version of this article I stated that the FBI planted a spy INSIDE the Trump
campaign. This is not correct, which is why I asked editor Ron Unz to remove the article. The
informant was not part of the Campaign but sought information from members of the Campaign."
Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's approaches
were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits would have been
spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper.
Trump is head of the Executive Branch. The DoJ and FBI are part of the executive branch and
subordinate to Trump. He can send 30-40 US Marshals to FBI headquarters, and to DoJ
headquarters, and have them extract by force the necessary documents, and no one can say
"boo!"
I wish he would.
The downside of course is that everyone in the media and in Congress would scream
"tyrant!" So Trump currently is leaving them alone to continue digging their own grave with
the Mueller/Russia witchunt, as the country moves towards the midterm elections.
Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/
BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years,
a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal.
Stefan Halper is one of the creepy-crawly things that have been living under the rock
Donald Trump kicked over.
As Steve Sailer points out, Halper is the son-in-law of CIA man Ray. S. Cline, who was
instrumental in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real
power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All
the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they
step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your
anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and
never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or
challenge the establishment.
9/11 and silence from both sides with regard to a real investigation into the biggest
"terrorist" attack in US History, and the murder of 3000 Americans, this tells you who is in
power, the people that pulled it off. Neither party supports a real investigation into this
attack, they both work for the same people. The fact that the MSM still lies about it means
they are also controlled by the goons. The FBI, CIA lies about it, and Muellers coverup of
the crime tells you all of the "Intelligence" and "Law" enforcement agencies are also
controlled by the same cabal.
Until they start telling the truth about 9/11, you can bet the same goons are still in
charge, no matter who the president is, no matter which Democrat or Republican you elect, the
shadow government, deep state are still calling the shots. If you do vote, vote 3rd party.
The whole election system is rigged to keep out most anyone who might dare to challenge the
establishment, thats why we only get lowlifes like Mitt Romney or the Cintons running for
office year after year, out of millions of people the same dirtbags just won't go away.
Everything else is just noise, distractions from this reality. If Trump really wanted to
change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11
investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from
Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.
If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions
start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors,
all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.
In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real
political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems
quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a
petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It
really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level.
Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's
approaches were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits
would have been spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter,
someone other than Halper.
Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very
definition of a spy.
Hatunggal Muda Siregar, a spokesman for MNC, said the theme park and the Trump
properties are separate projects within the Lido development. The agreement with the
Chinese company to build the theme park does not include any financing for the project, he
said.
Mr. Trump's business dealings in Indonesia prompted scrutiny even before his
inauguration, and he pledged not to embark on any new deals while in office. But the Trump
Organization held onto the projects in Indonesia, saying the contracts with Mr. Hary were
signed in 2015 and were binding.
Yet another nothing burger. This an old deal made before he even ran for president. The
Chinese loan does not extend to building of the Trump properties.
As the article repeatedly pointed out:
There isn't any evidence that the agreement with the construction company was intended
to sway the Trump administration on any matters.
If there's no evidence, why report it at all? To give more ammo to people who are always
for looking for any reason to disparage Trump, and only bother to read headlines.
"It's worth noting, that the current Russia investigation is based on the dubious claim that
Russia hacked DNC computers."
Imran Awan is not Russian, he's a Paki. And he didn't need to hack the DNC, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz let him in and gave him the password. There, huge mystery solved.
"Anyone who refers to Trump as 'orange clown' is obviously partisan to the point of not
worth listening to."
You may be right about that; now that I think about it, it does seem too generous.
How about "teflon-don-the-con-man"; or, "the ignorant orange savage in the White House"?
Of course there's always the Biblical description to fall back on: "the beast from the earth"
(i.e. the second beast of Rev 13); will that work?
Meanwhile, at the same time we also learn that there is evidence that there really was
collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign powers that wanted to see it elected in
return for favorable policies. But, the problem that the Deep State has is that the foreign
powers were not the cartoon-pinup-all-purpose villan of the Russians. No, it was Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
The point of all of this is that the United States is supposed to be a democracy which
means that the government does what the people want it to do. The one thing that we are
seeing is that nobody in Washington wants that. The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of
democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've
instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to
try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them.
But, it turns out Trump was off cutting deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia that now seem
to have the USA headed straight into a disasterous war that was the last thing that voters
wanted. The voters keep electing candidates who claim to be against these wars. The problem
is that they whole bunch of them are a lot of liars, and the one and only thing they are
truly against is democracy and letting the people have a say.
America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all
of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties.
"He's decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing
them out into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny. It's a risky
strategy "
It's the only strategy he can pursue. If he doesn't take the fight out into the open,
where his enemies are vulnerable, they will bury him.
Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and
rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began.
It was a bit before the conventions when those emails leaked. Hillary certainly knew that
they could be the death of her lifelong quest to see how much she could steal as President.
If the Bernie voters were upset that the whole fake primary and caucus process had been
rigged all along and refused to support Hillary, then she was done as a Presidential
contender.
That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and
thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition.
You know it's funny, all those 'conservatives' screaming that Edward Snowden is a traitor,
that we should trust the US government to spy on us in secret because national security
demands it, etc. Because only bad people have something to hide, right?
And now we begin to see exactly what it means when the central government can essentially
spy on anyone for any reason not so wonderful after all, is it?
There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal
is a conservative who's been arrested. I guess a civil libertarian is a national security hawk that's been spied on.
I see your point, bread and circus for the people. I'm more worried about is Israel attacking
Lebanon, tbh, dragging the entire ME in to the conflict ending up with trump/bibi and Erdogan
stumbling us into a ww and/or financial breakdown.
America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all
of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties
Yes indeed we do. The Dems are using the corruption theme, but of course they are
hypocrites also and don't live up to ethical standards either.
Still, maybe an election platform based on ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID ..will open the eyes of
some of our more mentally challenged voters.
Hate always works – Tump pretended he was going to drain the hateful deep state swamp to
save his little people -- -so I guess the Dems can pretend they are going to kill the corrupt
to save the little people.
Democrats Roll Out Anti-Corruption Message for 2018
1 day ago – Instead, Democrats are returning to an anti-corruption message that A
decade later, Trump seized on a similar theme, directing voter ire at
Mueller is the only admirable man in this mess. Trump's problem is he is for once up against
an honest man, someone he cant threaten or bribe or bully.
Trump, as we say in the south, is white trash he is way out of his class with Mueller.
Mueller's investigation isn't going to 'wrap up' soon -- and Trump is still in peril
Anyone paying attention over the last year knows Mueller will not yield to political
pressure. His investigators haven't leaked; they have ignored vicious personal attacks; they
haven't veered in the slightest from prosecutorial professionalism.
So to "wrap it up," Trump would have to make a move, but will he?
The president and his lawyers are strategizing about whether he will agree to be
interviewed by Mueller, either voluntarily or under subpoena. If he were to refuse, as the
current swing of the pendulum suggests, and then try to end the probe, he would only seem
more guilty and undermine his support even among Republicans. If his refusal were to lead, as
expected, to a court battle, we would expect the Supreme Court to settle the issue. Any move
by Trump to preempt it would again only undermine his credibility.
In addition, the president and his circle are well aware of how fast the midterm election
is approaching and what effect an attempt to fire Mueller could have on the outcome. They
want to avoid any action that would help the Democrats flip the House. Such a shift would
change every calculation, not least because a Democratic majority could move to impeach the
president early next year.
Of course, Trump may calculate that he could get away with firing Mueller now, if he moved
quickly and the Republican leadership rallied to his side. But it is equally possible that
Congress would respond with legislation to reinstate Mueller. Again, the field of battle
would shift to the courts.
Most importantly, even a successful ouster of Mueller would not derail the investigation
at this point. Too much evidence has been gathered, and too many prosecutors, who have surely
considered and planned for the contingency, stand ready to carry on. Should Trump try to
shutter the entire special counsel's office, a much graver and politically and legally
riskier act than firing Mueller or Rosenstein, other divisions in the Department of Justice,
in particular the Southern District of New York, would also be ready to take up the
charge.
The strength of all that evidence, the careful work done thus far, and the indictments
already filed are the special counsel's protection against "witch hunt" tweets and
protestations that the investigation is already over with nothing to show for it.
In the course of the past year, we've learned not to underestimate what Mueller knows and
what bombshell he may have prepared. It may involve the Russians and the campaign, it may
involve obstruction of justice, but there are other relevant threads as well: the true motive
behind the Seychelles meeting between Trump associate Erik Prince and the head of a Russian
wealth fund, the hacking of Democratic Party emails and its links to Trump political advisor
Roger Stone, the recent sale of Russia's state owned oil company to Qatar.
Last week we discovered that Mueller was way ahead of us on the huge payments made to
Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen for access to the president. We don't yet know what
he's found out from cooperating witnesses, including Michael Flynn and Rick Gates, that might
point directly at the president. And there is still the possibility that Paul Manafort or
Cohen could decide to cooperate with the investigation.
None of these threads signals Trump's removal from office. A conviction in the Senate, no
matter what happens in the midterm, would require a good number of Republicans to turn
against the president, which seems remote absent a smoking gun that proves grave criminal
conduct. But it is more than plausible that the probe and associated investigations will
result in additional indictments of Trump associates -- including Jared Kushner and Donald
Trump Jr. -- and will leave Trump seriously wounded, an untenable candidate in 2020. Once he
leaves office, his legal exposure, both civil and criminal, would skyrocket.
The "wrap it up" crowd is indulging in wishful thinking. The first anniversary of the
Mueller investigation is unlikely to be the last.
Harry Litman teaches constitutional law at UC San Diego. He is a former U.S. attorney
and deputy assistant attorney general.
There's no real Left in the UK anymore, either. The Blairites are still a force with the
Labour party and that party is known as The Red Tories - especially in Scotland - for the
obvious reason!
Even the old Left newspapers - The Guardian, The Observer - are no longer such, as has been
evidenced of late. I no longer read the UK press - Private Eye is my 'paper' reading - and
would not trust one word broadcast by the BBC and, I am sorry to say, Channel
4.
The Guardian and The Observer have never been socialist papers. They were liberal, just like
the democrats in the United States were liberal. And liberals, who are the advance guard of
capitalism, can hardly be called 'of the left'.
The only opponents of capitalism and imperialism are socialists or nationalists, of a kind
rarely seen outside the third world periphery of the system since 1917.
Anyone who sees the fascists and crooks surrounding Trump as being opponents of anything
except the human race is almost as daft as someone who sees the Democrats as part of the
left.
But the real prize for idiocy goes to those sad souls who see the FBI, CIA, MI6 and their
clones as anything but- deepest apologies here to the Mafia and their ilk- criminal gangs, of
the worst kind.
I am starting wondering what was the role of intelligence agencies, especially CIA is creation of the neoliberal myths and
spreading of the ideology... What connections to CIA has such figured and Milton Friedman and Hayek? Harvard
mafia definitely has such connections.
Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a
camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does
at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer.
Notable quotes:
"... It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always denying that the mafia was an actual thing. ..."
"... Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out of their book and adopted the same tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while actively pushing it at every opportunity? ..."
"... To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers who benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those benefits can flow up to that few. ..."
"... Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition. ..."
Hey, I just remembered something. When I was a kid growing up everybody knew all about the
mafia but all those in the know denied that there was any such thing when questioned in a
court of law. It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always
denying that the mafia was an actual thing.
Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out of their book and adopted the same
tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while actively pushing it at every
opportunity?
And like the line from 'fight club', the first rule of neoliberalism is that you don't
talk about it.
To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers
who benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those
benefits can flow up to that few.
this is why I keep Mario Puzo next to Adam and Karl on the econ shelf in my library. It's
not so much Omerta, as gobbdeygook and wafer thin platitudes.
Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell
Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition.
I am inclined to believe that the Libertarian Party was a vehicle for this
counterrevolution, too. And finally, with the DLC, they were able to buy the "opposition
party" outright and here we are.
"... Now, it is hard to know what to make of all this, other than to point out that he was speaking to fellow security chiefs. Maybe, among themselves, they find it more morale-boosting to demonise an old enemy than to take on adversaries that have emerged more recently, are more complicated and against which they have so far perhaps had less success. ..."
"... the conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a "safe", useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be. Some of us may hope for something better, but it seems a long way away. ..."
The UK's obsession with the Russian bogeyman doesn't stack up Mary Dejevsky The head of MI5 has joined the security
establishment's anti-Putin onslaught. But his organization agrees that Moscow is not the greatest threat
Today's
speech by the head of MI5 , Andrew Parker, has been presented as a first – the first time the head of the UK's domestic intelligence
service has delivered a speech abroad, specifically at a conference of security heads in Berlin. But this is the only respect in
which it is a first. It might as accurately be described as the latest in a series of public utterances by UK intelligence chiefs
and top brass, which began last autumn and continued with the
head of GCHQ
addressing a cybersecurity conference in Manchester last month.
"MI5 chief: Kremlin is 'chief protagonist' in campaign to undermine west" Read more
In part, this reflects a deliberate decision by the intelligence services and the government that they should be more open about
what they do, with a view to gaining greater public understanding – and expanding recruitment at a time when they face competition
for tech-savvy graduates from richer and less restrictive employers. But this season of intelligence and military speeches has also
facilitated the communication of an apparently co-ordinated message. As a country, the UK now sees
Russia as its prime adversary.
The poisoning of
Sergei Skripal , the former Russian spy, and his daughter in Salisbury took the UK's official anti-Russia stance to new heights.
And its diplomatic success in persuading so many other countries to
expel Russian diplomats in protest – the biggest ever "collective expulsion of security agents", we were told – seems to have
emboldened London to view itself as the potential leader of an international anti-Russia front, as the Guardian
recently
reported .
The invective produced by Parker today – and heavily sold to the media – was, in its way, extraordinary. In tone, it was quite
different from the cold war register, which was formal and, well, cold. This attack was populist, direct, and far outside the diplomatic
register. Here is just a sample.
The Kremlin was engaging in "deliberate, targeted, malign activity intended to undermine our free, open and democratic societies".
The west had to "shine a light through the fog of lies, half-truths and obfuscation that pours out of their propaganda machine".
Russia, he said caustically, had as one of its "central and entirely admirable aims to build Russian greatness on the world stage".
But it had repeatedly chosen "to pursue that aim through aggressive and pernicious actions by its military and intelligence services".
In so doing, it risked becoming "a more isolated pariah".
So long as the UK refuses consular access to Yulia Skripal, Russia can – with some justification – ask just who has a monopoly
on a fog of lies.'
Now, it is hard to know what to make of all this, other than to point out that he was speaking to fellow security chiefs. Maybe,
among themselves, they find it more morale-boosting to demonise an old enemy than to take on adversaries that have emerged more recently,
are more complicated and against which they have so far perhaps had less success. There is a sense too, for the UK at least, that
relations with Russia have been so bad for so long that magnifying the supposed Russia threat is a cost-free enterprise in diplomatic
terms.
It might also be worth considering whether there are budgetary and Brexit angles. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
US and the UK, in particular, scaled back their government-backed research on Russia and lost a great deal of expertise, which they
are now trying to rebuild. That means they have to make a case for more taxpayers' money, and scare tactics are one way to do that.
For the UK, there may also be the fear that it will find the European Union less inclined to keep London in the intelligence loop,
and – at a time when the US is looking a far less reliable ally – it might make sense to play up the Russian bogeyman, not least
as Vladimir Putin begins his fourth term in office. Nothing like starting as you intend to go on.
Yet it is still difficult to see the sense in this. Russia has become inured to UK scolding of this kind, and treats it with contempt
– as its social media response to Parker's speech shows. What is more, so long as the UK maintains its silence on the Skripals' fate
and refuses consular access to Yulia Skripal, Russia can – with some justification, I would argue – ask just who has a monopoly on
a "fog of lies".
Nor will the tone necessarily chime well with official views of Russia in Germany and France, which are not necessarily less tough
in practice, but certainly more nuanced, and better informed. The UK seems intent – despite recent legislation about dubious money
in London – in keeping its diplomatic and business relations with Russia in separate boxes. Germany, for one, does not have that
luxury.
The conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a 'safe', useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be
The UK's rhetorical onslaught on Russia is even more puzzling when you examine the security services' own priorities. "Is terrorism
the biggest threat facing the UK?" visitors to the MI5 website are asked in
a pop-up called "fact or fiction". Click no, and this is the response: "The biggest threat we currently face comes from international
terrorist groups and individuals inspired by them. Terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland also continue to pose a serious threat."
Now it is true that the threat from terrorism and Islamic State was also broached by Parker in his speech, but this was not the
section spun in advance to the media; it was not the aspect MI5
wanted above all to be noticed. So the conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a "safe", useful, and almost eternal enemy
by the UK's powers-that-be. Some of us may hope for something better, but it seems a long way away.
• Mary Dejevsky is a former foreign correspondent in Moscow
Fake news, trying to create false connections between police psychological issues and a rather dubious UK poisoning false flag.
Via The Guardian
Almost 100 Wiltshire police officers and staff have sought psychological support after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury,
the Guardian can reveal.
Among those who have asked for help were officers who initially responded to the collapse of the former Russian spy Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, and those who were at or close to the various investigation sites in subsequent days and weeks.
Some reported feeling disorientated and anxious while others were concerned about the possible long-term health effects on
the public.
While the Skripal poisoning story has faded from much of the mainstream media news cycle, as it was increasingly exposed as a
complete hoax and embarrassment for the May government, the Guardian appears to be trying to resurrect "the Russians did"
Novichok narrative.
It is about time your stupid leader and her clown were put on the stage to explain to all the world why they chose to defame
the integrity of Russia in such an unbelievable set of circumstances that only children under the age of ten would not understand
!! How can any Nation since this demonic happening , ever trust this self - centred Bozo from ever making a sensible judgement
for the future of mankind !
UK has lost it completely and the Guardian has fallen prey to the CIA Mockingbird Operation (infiltration and manipulation
of media). Used to be a good paper under Alan Rushbridger and protection of Snowden, Assange etc. Now it has lost it altogether
with useless editorial board. The woman in charge must have something in common with Nikki Haley: incapable of nuance and irrationally
convinced of her being right (without research lots of claims about Assad, Putin etc.).
It is unclear to what extent Israel is given unfairly favorable treatment and to what extent it is the most useful
allies (along with KSA) of f the USA in the middle East securing energy supplies to the according to Carter doctrine,
Notable quotes:
"... The latest outrage against the First Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new hate speech law was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget. ..."
"... The legislation borrows from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as anti-Semitic. ..."
"... While the State Department definition is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the states universities and educational institutions. ..."
"... The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons, a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature." ..."
"... Normally foreign governments have what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the U.S. with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs, suing in American courts. ..."
"... Indeed, it is far more plausible that Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior knowledge. ..."
"... But, of course, no one would be allowed to sue Israel in an American court. The 9/11 Commission failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports stamped. ..."
"... Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system. ..."
"... As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven. ..."
"... This is partly the explanation of "military capitalism" deployed rather recently in insider circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth. ..."
"... American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". ..."
"... There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited. ..."
"... Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity. ..."
Time to question the loyalty of some legislators and judges
I have a number of times
discussed
how the U.S. and other governments have legislated and otherwise promoted Jewish and
Israeli interests in ways that most people would find unacceptable if they were aware of what exactly has
been going on. Here in the United States, special Medicare coverage and immigration status have been
granted, often concealed in other legislation, to benefit holocaust survivors and Russian Jews seeking to
emigrate. State legislatures and the U.S. Congress have meanwhile been working hard to pass legislation
that blocks and even criminalizes the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) protests
against Israeli behavior while universities have been banning anti-Israel demonstrators and groups on
campus because they apparently are offensive to the sensitivities of some Jewish students.
The latest outrage against the First
Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations
Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new
hate speech law
was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget.
The legislation borrows
from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or
applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other
democratic nation" as anti-Semitic.
While the State Department definition
is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that
criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the
states universities and educational institutions.
The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons,
a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's
biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature."
Supporters of the Bill of Rights have
been universally opposed to the bill, but pro-Israel groups have praised the initiative and are expecting
a "new wave" of legislation all across the United States blocking any criticism of the self-described
Jewish State. The Brandeis Center has
enthused
"This bill gives South Carolina the
tools to protect Jewish students' and all South Carolina students' right to a learning environment free
of unlawful discrimination. We are hoping this momentous step will result in another national wave to,
once and for all, begin defeating rising anti-Semitism."
Other states will undoubtedly follow
the South Carolina lead, so it would appear that any criticism of Israel will become illegal in the
public square if the many friends of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have their way. And they generally
do get what they want from the federal level all the way down to the states and local communities, so be
prepared.
Israel also is regularly exploiting
the American legal system to punish countries that it has defined as its enemies. Its government
sponsored lawfare organization called Shurat Hadin has initiated a number of lawsuits in U.S. courts to
punish Palestinians and Iranians. Ironically, it is currently seeking to demonstrate that Hamas is
committing
war crimes in Gaza
, where Israel has been using army snipers to kill unarmed demonstrators.
Other lawsuits filed on behalf of
mostly Jewish Americans in U.S. courts seeking compensation from Iranians and Palestinians are also
pending, with the tribunals in Manhattan particularly prone to being sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Last
week, at the Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan, Judge George Daniels
issued a default judgment
relating to his 2011 determination that Iran and Hezbollah materially and
directly supported al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to the hundreds
of family members of victims who are named in the case. The judge ordered Iran to pay $6 billion in
compensation – "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child, and $4,250,000 per
sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased. A 4.96 annual interest rate will also be applied to
the amount, starting from September 11, 2001 to the date of the judgement."
Normally foreign governments have
what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the
U.S.
with the passage of
the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted
individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in
international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against
Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs,
suing in American courts.
Though the lawsuit claimed, and Judge
Daniels agreed, that Tehran had supported the 9/11 hijackers with training and other assistance, most
authorities would question that judgement. Many would consider it to be ludicrous as Iranian Shi'ites
were considered to be kill-on-sight heretics by al-Qaeda. The idea that Iran was somehow involved in 9/11
is in reality a ridiculous Israel Lobby contrivance that
was first floated
in 2015 by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, a renowned Zionist stooge and conspiracy
theorist who is viewed by many as not completely in possession of all his marbles.
Indeed, it is far more plausible that
Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against
Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming
themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior
knowledge.
But, of course, no one would be
allowed to sue Israel in an American court.
The 9/11 Commission
failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to
compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did
investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of
certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports
stamped.
In his Farewell Address President
George Washington
warned that
" a passionate attachment of one
nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the
illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of
the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions;
by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and
a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to
ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to
betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity;
gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public
opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption,
or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly
alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot."
If one believes that deference to
the special foreign interest of one powerful and wealthy segment of the population is appropriate in a
democracy then I suppose the Jewish/Israeli pander has to be considered acceptable. I happen to believe
that, as our first president so clearly articulated, it is not, particularly as much of the concession
that Jews are somehow to be treated differently than the rest of the community due to their alleged
victimhood contributes to a criticism-free ride for an Israel which is eagerly seeking a new war in the
Middle East. It would be a war that the United States would inevitably get pulled into by Israel's
friends in Congress and the media. It would also be catastrophic for all parties involved and it all
starts with the belief that Israel should somehow be protected and its enemies punished while also being
exempt from being made accountable for its actions.
It's more than time to question, it's time to prosecute. If Alan Clemmons, or any other legislator, has
gone to Israel, with any assistance from Israel financial or otherwise, then Clemmons (and others) have
taken a bribe. Failure to prosecute, just as failure to enforce current immigration laws, is the road to
anarchy.
As for Judge Daniels, I guess I could cut him some slack, given it's a default judgment, but that goes
out the door if he was the judge that certified the case going forward in the first place. There is no
prima facie evidence of Iran's involvement in 9/11, and therefore, false statements made in the statement
of claim are a perversion of justice. A judge is supposed to rule on facts, not conjecture.
75 years ago, people hid Jews to protect them from imprisonment and possible death by European-led
jailers. Now in 2018, people are hiding Europeans to protect them from imprisonment and possible death
by Jewish-led jailers
89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel is right now being hunted by German police at the behest of Jewish
groups, because she did not show up at prison a few days ago, to serve a two-year-jail sentence for
questioning the official narrative of the Jewish killings in World War II It is recognised by Jews and
others that at her age, the long jailing may kill her
The 'International Auschwitz Committee' says German police should use 'high pressure' to find this
elderly woman and imprison her, even though it may kill her
And yet Jews who speak like this claim they do not understand why people develop antipathy to Jews
It is in fact the International Auschwitz Committee which is 'inciting anti-semitism', as they inspire
Germans to hide elderly people from Jews 'like Anne Frank was hidden from Germans'
However much Ursula Haverbeck might be in error in her historical opinions, this is appalling and
shocking treatment of a grandmotherly woman soon to be 90 years of age sending her very possibly to
death for her ideas regarding an era to which she is a living personal witness (Haverbeck was born in
1928, and will turn age 90 this 8 November)
This reminds of the case of a World War II Jewish witness, a rabbi's son, who was with the Russian
advance troops who liberated places like Auschwitz,
Joseph Ginzburg – Joseph G Burg, direct interrogator of Auschwitz and other camp survivors
The
fiercely anti-Nazi and very Jewish Burg, said the Holocaust was an exaggeration, a fraud fabricated by
Zionists, he wrote books on this, & had many of those books burned by the modern West German government
tho the old Bonn regime never had the stomach to jail rabbi's son Joseph Ginzburg (1908-90), despite his
holocaust denial
OT but since it seems Israel first stooge Insane McCain is finally going to meet Satan.
What I want to know is, has anybody announced how they intend to handle all the people who want to
piss on his grave? Will there be a lottery, will there be those "take a number" machines, will it be
first come first served or will there be some kind of contest, like writing an essay?
On the day of Sept 11, when I still, of course, believed the Muslim terror attack story, I said to my
wife 'just Israel benefits'.
I simply could not see how these Muslim attacks benefitted Muslims.
No idea, at the time, as Anatol Lieven also did not have at the end of the month, his article 'New Cold
War' in the then still independent Guardian, that these attacks would be used to justify wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq.
It was 2004 when Hollings made his famous speech, promising war to AIPAC for the jewish vote, 'that is
politics'.
I'm convinced the neocons will not pull this off
this time
. After many years of war a passive
public may be catching on. I expect the price of oil to jolt upwards this afternoon. When people begin
asking why the answers need to be that our "ally" Israel keeps threatening war if they don't get their
way and Trump doesn't tear up the P5+1 treaty.
A 90 year old woman must "serve a two-year-jail sentence for questioning the official narrative of the
Jewish killings in World War II "
This is surreal. Liberal democracy (what's left of it) down the rabbit hole. Imprisonment as a
consequence of
questioning
history ? Yes, I know, Germany has its sensitivities, but should
historical guilt excuse a vicious assault on core values & a vulnerable individual ?
No context to the article that matters. Lost in deviations.
The real issue: any transaction to and from Israel makes some Jewish and elite non Jewish Americans
accessory. Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a
physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system.
As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven.
One must realize that when the dollar, as is happening looses part of it's reserve status(currently
under way, partly global transactions start escaping the dollar accountability, thus leaving a smaller
margin of cooking the books), there need to be a trustworthy insertion point into the Yuan, any digital
currency, international financial markets, currency speculation for the elites of the West, evasion of
embargos for the exeptionals.
This is partly
the explanation of "military capitalism"
deployed rather recently in insider
circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe
using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this
contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth.
Israel is a Swiss knife for corporate international billionaires, no billionaires no Israel.
Would the JASTA act open the way for litigation against Israel's involvement in 9/11? Of course, there
would have to be a change in venue because the southern district of Manhattan is kind of evil's
homecourt.
Might be just the right crack in the absurdity, to investigate, prosecute and sentence the
perpetrators. I mean if they can go after a ninety year old woman, why not a geriatric Jerome Hauser, Dov
Zakheim, etc?
Just spit-balling here, I'll go back to my observational pessimism
American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines
regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority
of American "foreign aid".
This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents
of a foreign government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American
Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S
government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split
loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited.
Those holding
dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in
immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship
should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.
The American Presidents Johnson and Nixon were satisfied with the Israeli explanation that they would not
be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the mid east. Successive administrations accept this
declaration and are not interested in forcing them to join the IAEA.
Fair enough too given the history of their persecution and the massive contributions of Jewish
brainpower to America's bomb project and many prior and subsequent, scientific, medical, legal and
industrial efforts.
I hope not. There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
Thanks to Giraldi and all
the commenters here who want to see our government function on our behalf. Right now it's riddled with
treason. Despite large majorities of both parties consistently identifying money as corrupting our
politics, bribery became normalized in part so that Jewish politics could prosper. Now we no longer even
expect our representative to pretend.
He says he "didn't think it was going to become, you know, the 7-year devastating conflict that it became."
That is apparent. Libya was already descending into the F-UK-US "Mission Accomplished" with NATO bombers warming
up to finish the job. Perhaps Max's dad had assured him that Syria would follow the same pattern his emails with
Hillary Clinton show he had helped plan and define in Libya.
BTW: Has he ever addressed his father's role in the destruction of the once most prosperous country on the
African continent? I haven't read or heard anything from Max on Syd Blumenthal's pre-Qaddafi "removal"
explanation that Libya had to be destroyed to:
Steal their nationalized oil.
Confiscate the hundreds of tons of gold and silver Libya held.
Prevent Libya from establishing a gold-backed currency and pan-African development bank to compete with the
US petro-dollar and IMF, and lift Africa out of neo-colonial subservience.
Yeah. Max was "pretty quiet on Libya and not really - didn't really make any coherent statements on that
either."
That newspaper that Max publicly maligned and quit ("grandstanding" as he now says) "had taken an
anti-imperialist agenda." Did that paper ever reject any articles Max wrote defending "the Syrian revolution"? I
didn't think so. Who had "an agenda"? Because it sure sounds like it was Max who was so focused on his new book
release and two upcoming book tours that at the least he abandoned journalistic values. Or did he fear that
"being associated" with a paper that also published articles critical of "the revolution" could hurt book sales?
After all, he thought it was all going to be over soon anyway.
It would also be nice for Max to explain why, once he changed his position on Syria after Russia had helped
turn the tide, he, Ben and Rania scrubbed all their anti-Syrian/pro-"rebel" posts from the internet without
explanation. How Orwellian.
Syria isn't the only topic Blumenthal wrote lies about. Him, his cohort mentioned here, and many other
presstitutes destroyed their credibility to the point where no deed no matter how valorous can regain it for
them--By their actions, they committed journalistic suicide.
It appears greed yet again trumped integrity.
It's always for
A Few Dollars More.
My only concern is that if this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind and talking about it
does that discourage anyone else from doing the same?
They should apologise to those they maligned. But is a vilificatory focus on the insufficiency of their
repentance really helping the anti-imperialist cause?
Blumenthal, and his vocal support for the Palestinian people deserves kudos. If he has
changed his stance on the Syrian debacle, good. I don't know too many people who are always
prescient enough to get everything right from the get-go, so, even without an apology, he deserves credit for
finally getting it right.
I became familiar with Max Blumenthal through Democracy Now. His position on Syria was inexplicably appalling,
but at least he had the decency to eventually call them out:
b. I'm genuinely honored that you chose to post a comment of mine. Thank you. And thank you for correcting my
errors in spelling Al Akhbar and Ben Norton's actual surname.
Once I catch up on the "news," I'll be back to check comments.
I was a follower of Max before the 2011 turmoil. I thought he was OK. He knew what was going around in
Palestine and I was pretty sure he was an advocate for the better. I dont know what to think anymore. What is
right and what is wrong. Can someone enlighten me :-(
Thank you for putting down what most of us who have been following The Arab spring since Tunisia
know about those 3 turncoats aka Triumvirate.
@ Anon #5
Speak for yourself. Those who do follow the ME knew and realised what was the goal back in Dara'a in
February 2011. It has started since 1980's and Assad didn't want to be another b---h of the US. Colin Powell
thought he could sway him with threats back in 2003 and then Robert Ford - so called Ambassador went on with
his task when he got the job in Damascus together with Eric Chevallier who was MAN enough to realise what was
happening.
Posted by: Daniel | May 9, 2018 5:10:21 PM | 9
(Thanks to b for the recognition)
I agree with b. Your comment was thorough, well-articulated and verifiable.
...and flushed out some Moral Equivalence ideologues of the Thomas L Friedman variety.
Black Agenda Report of course has got it right since day one since Blacks more than any other group know not to
trust Western establishment narratives and discourses on human rights and humanitarian intervention. Their
articles on Libya from 2011 are but one proof of this.
Margaret Kimberley's latest on Trump and Israel is
excellent as always:
here.
Oh please! The first attack on Max Blumenthal was embarrassing enough. Moon of Alabama is very fortunate to
have gained as much respect as it has; it's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive
tripe. By the way I'm also offended by the fact that someone presumed to edit my Nom de Comment
"nationofbloodthirstysheep" when I made what I think was a useful comment on the Gulf of Scripal Incident. If I
had wanted to post under the name" nation of sheep" I would have done so.
Max Blumenthal's support for the Palestians, especially those in Gaza, has been solid. As we all know Gaza is
led by the Muslim Brotherhood. As we all should know is that it was the MB in Syria that began war against the
Syrian government. It took about a year for Islamists mercenaries to arrive and begin to dominate the
opposition to Assad's government. Of course, the Saudis and Qatar were financing the MB forces from the
beginning.
I noticed that many westerners who were involved in Palestinian's struggle for their rights
immediately backed the MB in Syria in the first year of the Syrian war. Recall how they came out and supported
the MB when they seized the Yarmouk refugee camp in opposition to the Syrian government. Many good hearted, but
absurdly naive, youthful people who supported the Palestians, came out and attacked Assad.
Max is one of those people. He is young and hopefully is capable of reform. We should accept his apology.
I wasn't aware of Max Blumenthal saying "Alternet Grayzone is the only progressive outlet questioning the main
line". I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect how these writers have changed their
minds and are sticking to it, but this statement leaves a bad taste in the mouth, considering the outlets that
have been questioning it since the beginning. Perhaps he meant "mainstream-alternative progressive outlets", or
"foundation-funded independent outlets". Thanks b and Daniel for the background of which I was not aware.
it is one thing for them to be wrong and another for them to never acknowledge
it.. it is kinda like bush 2 and his war on iraq... no acknowledgement and as obama used to say, instead of
accountability we just have to move on.. bullshit.. these folks would do well to acknowledge when they are
wrong.. i don't know that any of them have..
This all sounds childish to me. Fixation on the degree of sincerity of an apology is for the playground.
They had a view they changed their view from new evidence or by reflection or both. They may have done some
harm by simply being human as we all can and do regularly, we humans being human and all.
These people fully acknowledged their error and were suitably contrite. One should bear in mind the fog of
propaganda surrounding the so-called Arab spring; CIA Isis recruiters were very active in the pro-Palestinian
movements. I actually knew some young people on the streets of Oakland and Berkeley who had been convinced that
the Wahhabi Takfiris were a persecuted minority and were nearly swept away.
Let's be quite clear about this, even if it means going off-message. The Ba'thist regime is not very nice, but
it's a million times better than a jihadi regime in Damascus. It's why Asad has retained the support of
Syrians.
The Syrian students I know have been asked to repay their scholarships. Up to 300k euros. They can't
and so are forced to remain refugees. Even the Alawites. It's not improbable that Asad will forgive them in the
end, but suicides are in prospect. They could cope if it weren't for the war.
The war is going well, but hard on those conscripted. I wonder whether it isn't really a volunteer army now,
after all the deaths. The hardened army is very small, but enough to knock off Ghouta, and enough to put a big
hole in Idlib, some time ago. my opinion is that Idlib won't resist and will collapse, but we'll have to see.
While these three did get it wrong about Syria and may not have given the best explanations of what changed
their minds, they actually come off as pretty contrite, more than I thought they would be capable of. The
podcast is useful for exposing how the Syria issue has crippled the bds movement in North America and the role
of gulf state money in that process. I look forward to what they have to say about the particularly insidious
role of IS Trotskyism in destroying the anti-war movement in the anglophone world. Its fine to score points
against these people for their very real past mistakes, but from an organizing point of view, what matters more
is to understand the situation we're in now, and they are contributing. With formerly reliable outlets like
Counterpunch getting worse on this issue with every passing day, it seems odd to be attacking those who have
rectified their mistakes.
@24
"it seems odd to be attacking those who have rectified their mistakes. "
I certainly hope that it is just "odd". I would hate to have to think that the attacks were due to their
relative effectiveness and the expanded reach of what they have to say. It's sad to consider that in the best
case envy might be a motivation. The worst case is unthinkable.
Been a student of US History and its Empire since 1960s--50+ years--and I'm being told integrity no longer
matters. Can someone tell me when the USA lost its integrity regarding its own basic law and the UN Charter it
helped create, how hard it is to discover that fact, and why it matters? In our Orwellian Age, just how
important is one's credibility, and why should we trust someone who sold hers/his for
A Few Dollars More
?
Perhaps their heretofore "expanded reach" was dependent on their message of the moment's
usefulness to the existing power structure and their willingness to sing on cue? It wouldn't be the first time
political capital earned for good cause has been spent in favor of the enemy. Liberal "performative contrition"
is meaningless. If those three have done it once, they'll do it again. They are now of no service to the people
except as examples, and absolutely replaceable.
It's obvious you're trolling or shilling. Move on to your next assignment please.
Thanks Daniel for your comment and to B who elevated it to a full post. Daniel's comment should serve as an
inspiration to the rest of us!
While attacking Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Rania Khalek for their failure
to apologise to people they had previously slandered on their podcast show may seem poor form, I think that
what Daniel says and B adds is relevant information to consider "going forward", as the cliche goes, when next
the trio cover another or a new Middle Eastern issue, or even revisit the situation in Syria if that should
change. Will Blumenthal et al stand steadfast in their opinion or will they revert to supporting the forces
trying to topple Assad if they sniff that the tide is turning against the SAA and its allies?
@29 jen.. i agree... it is worth reading daniels comment @163 in 'trump ends the nuclear deal' thread as well
as @156 george lanes initial comments to this post of daniels too..
i usually try not to judge people by their family connections but blumenthal's dad is such a noxious neoliberal
asshole it's hard to believe the apple could have fallen
that
far from the tree.
a lot of the so
called "left" is also infected with the "every revolution is good cuz leaders are teh suck amirite?!?!?"
disease. whether it's - as a great article i recently saw suggests - the residue of marxism or just teen angst
writ large, they just assume any leader that isn't a 100% pinkwashed socialist-feminist-____ist should be
overthrown by the "wisdom of the masses". too bad they fail to see the hands of the "elite" behind every
protest and youtube meme.
this also explains the reflexive stupidity that oozes from western mouths every time putin is mentioned
(because high approval ratings and legit election wins don't count if it's backwards gay-hating slavs).
while he and the others do write about israel, that falls into the "so you want a damn cookie?" category.
opposing israel is opposing every foul part of human nature (especially historical european tendencies)
distilled in one arid shithole of a colony pretending to be a country. his hissy fits about gilad atzmon aren't
exactly profiles in courage either and offer a glimpse of the "third way" mentality he seems to have inherited
from his father.
@14
BAR is indeed great. they have morals and convictions and they actually stick to them consistently. freedom
rider is especially good and her recent piece on israel is as good or better than anything on mondoweiss or EI.
extra fun historical context:
the inhabitants of what is now called the GCC or gulf states or whatever were one of the heaviest users of
african slaves during the slave trade. this included the barbary pirates that the US marines were basically
created to destroy when they committed the dreadful sin of kidnapping
white
people from the southern
beaches of europe. that's where the marine song comes from and the "shores of tripoli" and etc. so the marines
have basically been killing muslims for hundreds of years.
as for why the arabian peninsula has so few black folks compared to the west: they castrated all the males.
oddly, one slave helped the moors conquer spain (the term "moors" being that time's "muzzies").
UserFriendly @2:
. . . If this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind . . .
Journos, pols, and other public figures that take
strategic positions
as it is convenient to them are
deplorable.
Anyone that was honestly wrong would be contrite.
= = = =
Richard C @3:
. . . Is a vilification focus . . . Really helping
Yes it is, especially for those taking
strategic positions
.
= = = =
Anon @5:
All have been wrong some time . . .
Morons, trolls, and opportunists are right as often as a broken clock.
= = = =
NOBTS @14:
. . . It's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive tripe
I guess you have no family or friends among the millions dead injured and displaced.
= = = =
Babyl-on @20:
They had a view they changed their view . . . being human and all
Not good enough Babyl-on. As a long time patron of the bar I think you should see that more clearly than
others.
= = = =
Peter Gose @24:
. . . They actually come off as pretty contrite . . . And they are contributing
I always feel that it is best to explain your mistakes and not simply apologize. Very instructive and
restores confidence. And if they were "burned" by being misinformed, they should be / would be vindictive
toward those that misled them.
@27
So... it suits the existing power structure that these people should be speaking relatively truthfully at this
point? If that's the case then I suppose the majority of Moon of Alabama's followers ( I contributed €50 by the
way) would be in the same boat. The only way I can see this working out for the ruling elite is if being on the
right side i.e. the left side, is totally marginal and pathetic, so thoroughly divided and conquered as to be
irrelevant.
I read Max's book Goliath recently. It's very damning of the rightward turn of the Israeli govt AND the Israeli
people. People in the US are nowhere near as xenophobic as a majority of Israelis are now. I admit I had not
paid much attention to support he would have had for the "Syrian rebels." But the point is to be made and it
would be interesting to know of his thoughts on his father's actions with respect to Libya. Maybe Max realizes
he's late to the party and is having a me too moment.
somebody 34
The Team Obama love affair with MB was obvious. I thought it interesting that the Egypt military put a stop to
their plans once they achieved power there. They were useful for the initial protest violence in Syria until
more support could arrive.
In a future piece, I will address what Trotsky stood for and
use that criteria to differentiate among the various groups that call themselves Trotskyist today.
Bruce @37, this is true. The proud Trotskyists at the WSWS are consistently anti-war and have called out
several socialist organizations for being pro-NATO intervention in Libya and Syria. I find their philosophical
positions woefully reductive and uninteresting (one of them told me once that both "analytic" and "continental"
philosophy are "non-sense" and that the only true philosophy is Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism, and also that the
Frankfurt school is the root of the perversion of Marxist philosophy), but nonetheless they do extremely
admirable and important work in reporting on the ground in places like Amazon distribution centers or
interviewing immigrant families terrorized by ICE. They have been speaking out loudly on Google censorship as
well, which is laudable.
On this topic of pro-intervention leftists, see Whitney Webb's response to the open
letter signed by Chomsky, Judith Butler, and others, calling for the humanitarian US military to save Rojava
and "increase support for the SDF":
here.
It now appears as though a war may have broken out between Syria and Israel. Israel claims that
"Iran" attacked it at the Syria/Israel border at the Golan Heights. See NOW (Syrian) News :
Notwithstanding Israel's attack on Syria, minutes ago, it should be noted, IMHO, that Max Blumenthal is simply
a "Limited Hangout". And in it for a "Few Dollars More". h/t Karlof1
So the Likudniks, who most resemble the Israelites from the first eight or nine books of the Torah, violent,
deceitful, putting the Philistines to the sword, taking their land and cattle and enslaving their women and
children, always falling away from the Commandments but always forgiven by YHWH, are building another brick BS
box to add to the structure that will, if the dual-citizens that stand atop our Imperial government have their
way, lead to some kind of "war on Iran."
I wonder what it feels like to get vaporized in a nuclear explosion... Expect it won't hurt for long -- less
painful than having to watch as the Fokkers who own us slow-walk all of us into economic and environmental
collapse, maybe quick-stepping now toward an answer to that neocon-naive question, "What good are all these
wonderful weapons for if we never USE them?" C;mon, all you Revelation Believers and Armageddonists, GET IT
OVER ALREADY, WILL YOU? THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING US!
I long ago rejected the notion that there will be some kind of retribution in some kind of "afterlife" where
the people who are bast@rds and sh!ts in this life have to atone, somehow. Anyone who might be a candidate for
eternity in the fiery lake obviously shares that disbelief. Fork 'em, if only we could reach them and stop them
somehow...
oh and let me aim a quote from pat lang - "Any sort of incident or provocation will be accepted by the US as
causus belli." that is indeed how low the usa has sunk to...
Sigh. You'd think that the left, whose only real power comes from solidarity, would be natural coalition
builders, but they aren't. I feel like all I ever see is ideological purity tests and an eagerness to shun and
expel people over differences rather than try and reach people where they are and work to change their views to
match your own. It just gets me so depressed because the right does not have this problem at all; the bible
thumpers showed up en mass for the pussy grabber. I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to procreate and
to commit suicide before the climate change shit hits the fan.
am i the only idiot here who thinks the idea of iran lobbing some missiles into israel from the golan heights
is like an oversized pack of lies? maybe i should take out a regular subscription to the times of israel to get
the '''real'''news..
This makes no sense at all. I can't even tell what we are supposed to be getting so angry about. Is it that
these three people sound insufficiently repentant? Is it their tone of voice we are judging? Or is it that they
took too long to reach their current positions? Personally I couldn't care less, as long as today they're
pushing the conversation in a positive direction. And I don't think there are many people out there
communicating more effectively than Blumenthal and Norton.
For JTMcPhee @44 regarding those "Revelation Believers and Armageddonists" who tipped the Electoral College
scales in the U.S., giving the world
All-About-Him
instead of
You-Know-Her
: sort of like a choice
between Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun (or Hen).
Left Behind by Jesus
Jesus loves the rich, you know
Ask them, they will tell you so
Help the poor? Why that's a crime!
Best to work them overtime
Off the books, though, lest they say
That you owe them extra pay
Jesus loves those tax cuts, too
Just for some, though, not for you
See a poor kid that's a clerk?
Send him to Iraq to work
Jesus loves the army, see?
Just the place for you and me
Not the rich, though, they don't serve
What a thought! What perfect nerve!
If you think this life's a pain
Wait till Jesus comes again
Then on Armageddon Day
He will take the rich away
Sure, you thought that you'd go, too,
Not that you'd get one last screw
Just like your retirement
That the rich already spent
Jesus with the winners goes
Losers, though, just get the hose
What on earth would make you think
That your lord's shit doesn't stink?
After all he left you here
With the rich, so never fear
They'll upon your poor life piss
In the next life and in this
Jesus loves the rich, so there!
Don't complain it isn't fair
Jesus said to help themselves
Then he'd help them stock their shelves
So they did and he did, too
What has this to do with you?
Jesus loves the rich just fine
Why'd you think he pours their wine?
Jesus votes Republican
Ask them: they'll say "He's the One!"
Still a few loose coins around
That the rich have not yet found
Gotta go now, never mind
If you end up left behind
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2006
This "solidarity" concept is stupid. There are people who call
themselves "leftists" who demand loyalty to Hillary. Um, no, we cannot have "solidarity" with Soros' minions.
We never needed "solidarity" to begin with. No significant social movement ever really depended on
"solidarity". We must think for ourselves, not just follow the party line.
@38 Wow, even the WSWS Trotskyists buy into that right wing shit about the Frankfurt School now? Man, that
'cultural marxism' conspiracy theory is so virulent even some Marxists believe it...
The only surprising thing here is how many pro trolls jumped in the defense of the spent trio. The three have
been used up, sacrificed by their owners and there is no going back. Most of the usual good commenters here
understand this well - credibility is a bit like virginity - one can go onto an operating table to regain it,
but it is never the same.
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many
regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some
important moment. Internet is full of such.
@38, Massinissa, yes they got a bit angry when I made that connection with right-wing libertarians and their
Cultural Marxism argument about the Frankfurt school being the source of the downfall of Western civilization.
To be fair, they would reject that whole argument as well, but they nonetheless hold the Frankfurt school to be
a perversion of Marxist thinking to be rejected entirely, with no usefulness or value whatsoever.
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
>>> blues
, May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 52
Clinton? left? LOL Thats the best laugh I've had in awhile. I meant the actual left.
/~~~~~~~~~~
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many regime agents pose as
anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment. Internet is
full of such.
Then ask: Is it really the case that "....many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists,
to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment"? Is that the case, or is it not? Because if it is,
in fact, the case, then we must address it. I mean, it would be kind of stupid to just ignore that, right?
Well I have seen it several times with my own eyes. So as one of "we the consumers" I cannot just go and
dismiss it as a "cat fight".
I remember the first time Trump attacked Syrian forces was over a chocolate cake with chines president. Could
this be the same treatment or a reply by Putin if he gave a green light to Syria they can reply in kind inside
Israel, while Nuty is the guest of honor in Moscow?
@kooshy
The ayrian government is not controlled by putin. They can choose to respond any way thry want to for the
ongoing aggression and zionist invasion they dont need a "green light" from mosow you only need tosee how rt is
covering the news to understand that russia has nothing to do with thi a
I don't assume a commenter is controlled opposition "until they
prove otherwise". But for anyone named "Hal Turner" (the FBI's honeypot blogger), I have severe doubts to begin
with.
What you say is true, sorry to say. One reason why it is true is that there has not been
a viable American political left for at least a half century now and probably longer. There were some stirrings
of legitimate left politics in a few of the civil rights groups (certainly not all) in the early 1960s, and for
a long time the Black Panthers represented by far the healthiest left movement in the US since the 1920s-30s.
But the mass potential for a real socialist politics came to an end, I think, with the assassination of King,
and the local pockets of black nationalist resistance were bombed or shot or disappeared by FBI and police
forces over the next decade. The remaining Vietnam anti-war movement was largely useless. Many of them are
today the aging equestrians of the professional liberal #Resistance.
Occupy had some promise but was easily dissipated. The Democratic primaries demonstrated that a moderate
social democrat could outearn corporate PAC financed tools via aattracting a huge number of small donations
from people earning between 35K-100K (which is a *relatively* piss poor class of people, politically speaking).
Some of this momentum carried over into socialist party gains and electoral victories in 2018, and in some
states motivated a younger social democratic ("progressive" I suppose they call themselves) insurgency against
Democratic Party empty suits. How lasting and successfull this development will prove to be is uncertain. My
hope is that the 2020 Democratic primary season is much more destructive for internal party structure than that
of 2016 was; ideally the party itself would implode, ceasing to exist altogether or remade entirely on an
explicitly socialist, or at least social democratic platform, the #Resistance crew jumping over to the
Republicans.
Just go away. You are not going to fool anybody round here into taking you seriously with such
comically C-grade troll phrases as "return to relevance" and "such a divisive post."
From Ben Norton via the link given by b above ("this episode"):
"We have been criticized, mostly by people who I think have been somewhat unfair, but I think there are
valid criticisms, in that early on in the conflict we were kind of knee jerk response supportive of the
opposition out of the idea that this is like some progressive revolution against an evil authoritarian regime
etc., you know believing a lot of those talking points which we now know are significantly more complex, if not
just flat out false."
First, thanks to many MoA barflies for the kind words. I am far more often than not impressed with the
knowledge and analytical abilities of those Bernhard has attracted to this site no doubt attracted by those
same qualities in b. I have learned, and continue to learn much from y'all. So getting props from people I
admire is really quite touching.
Most of the criticisms seem to be along the lines of 'we should not
criticize people who change their minds lest we scare off others."
Of course we should encourage everyone to cut through the propaganda in every way we can. We are all
swimming 24/7 in a 360 degree ocean of PR/Propaganda of a sort that Bernays and Goebbels could have only
dreamt. I have no doubt that right this moment I hold some disinformation that was deliberately fed to me, and
I hope that I am appreciative when someone else helps to lift a veil for me.
In fact, I have no doubt that some propaganda is designed for people like myself (and others here at MoA and
elsewhere), whom the propagandists know are aware of their work, and so we are on the lookout for it. I'll
return to that thought.
And when one has a breakthrough as profound as making a 180 degree turn on an issue so great as a war, I
absolutely agree that we should welcome that person with warmth and love.
But I also believe we should be skeptical of EVERY journalist/opinion maker who has a substantial platform.
For in all but the rarest of cases, the fact of having a substantial platform means having a substantial
financial backing. Not all financial backing is dubious of course, but I think we all agree that critical
thinking should always be engaged.
So, how should a journalist with a large following who is also a significant opinion maker handle reversing
directions on a war? Should that person scrub all previous work from the internet, and just start writing the
opposite?
Or should that person help others to have a similar epiphany (most especially those readers who had bought
the product this journalist had been selling for the previous 5 years)? In teaching there is a method termed
"guided discovery," whereby the teacher lays out a path for the students to use their own minds to come to the
correct conclusion. I can think of no better time to use this method than when one is actually having that very
same "discovery" process, or had just had it.
Max could have written articles revealing one piece of false propaganda after the other as he now says he
and his cohorts did privately amongst themselves. Today, they complain that "leftists/progressives" attack them
as "Assad apologists" and such. We all know that the first response to a new viewpoint that is opposite of one
already deeply held is almost always rejection. And when the person presenting this new information had for
years actually helped instill in the audience the opposite view, it's only normal for people to become suspect
of the journalist's motives.
But that's not the path Max, (and Ben and Rania) chose. Was this a case of being a poor teacher, or
something else possibly something a bit more sinister?
Let's consider other things in Max's record. ,
In an earlier comment, I described the disinformation in Max's book, "The 51 Day War" and in his
characterization of fellow Jewish writer, Gilad Atzmon. At the least, as a journalist, Max should know better
than to spread such incorrect and dangerous ideas.
And we cannot ignore that Max was amongst the first to blame a youtube video for the attack at the US
Embassy Mission that killed Ambassador Stevens, his aid and later, two former Navy Seals (read: mercenaries).
He wrote this even before the Obama Administration officially made that claim. How'd he know? And when his
daddy sent Hillary Max's OpEd (and again Max's daddy had worked with Hillary Clinton in understanding why Libya
had to be destroyed, and how to do that), Hillary wrote back,
Another author Max vociferously and wrongly labels an "anti-Semite" and liar is Allison Weir. Everyone
should read her in depth study of the origins of the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant, "Against Their
Better Judgement" and frequent her website, ifamericansknew.org.
BTW: It was Max who coined the JSIL term for Israel which I frequently use. We can be critical of a source
and still appreciative of useful and true information from that source. Even Controlled Opposition must reveal
some true information not found in MSM in order to build the trust that allows them to then feed disinformation
into our minds.
Check out this
4 minute video
to
see clearly how Max duplicitously slanders this good woman:
So, back to my earlier question, "what would a propaganda designed for people who already know the MSM is
propaganda look like?" I think I may have provided at least one answer.
¿When the Kent State Cambodian War protesters were shot in the back by the Natiinal Guard?
¿When Billy Graham exorted 'Bomb the Gooks for Jesus!' at the Lincoln Memorial during those protests, and
Time Magazine called him 'America's Preacher' while recently released tapes show Graham telling Nixon to nuke
Hanoi??
¿When thr Hells Angels beat that guy to death at Altamont while the Stones were pleased to introduce
themselves?
I actually earned a degree in journalism, even though I went to an undistinguished university and was
persecuted by the head of the department. I could never support myself as a journalist because unlike Max
Blumenthal, I didn't have the resources to travel to other countries and just do journalism. I had to do
something else to support myself. Nevertheless, I knew what was up in Syria the minute I saw that al Jazeera
had started churning out anti-Assad propaganda: this was early in 2011, while Libya was still in turmoil. There
is no excuse for anyone not to have paid attention to Libya--Thierry Meyssan barely escaped with his life after
NATO put out an order to kill him! And there is no excuse for anyone to have seen Syria as anything else than
an aggression by the U.S., NATO, the GCC and Israel. This is not about some naive kid (and Max Blumenthal is
neither young nor naive) falling for romantic propaganda: it is about the son of a highly placed CIA employee
who himself claims to be a journalist, and who was the closest advisor to Secretary of State Clinton on the
Middle East. As Sidney Blumenthal's son, Max had the best education, a hell of a lot of exposure to the deep
state, and is independently wealthy. With these privileges, why wasn't it him who was in Turkey reporting on
the U.S., NATO and the World Health Organization sending weapons and terrorists into Syria? Why was it Serena
Shim, someone that Turkey, with the nod of the CIA, could murder with impunity? And what is Blumenthal
reporting on right now? Nothing that will risk his neck or his reputation, God forbid. Taking risks is for
people like Shim, who lost her life, like Wassim Issa, who just lost both legs, like Vanessa Beeley, who has
had her name dragged through the mud by FBI agent Sibel Edmonds and the entire British media establishment.
The really funny thing here is you folks are ripping Blumenberg a new a**hole for "changing his mind" when you
guys are so wrong about Syria. Blumenstock and his friends were closer to the truth
before
their
conversion. That's right, the story you guys believe about Assad being a bit of a hard a** but a relatively
benign dictator is pure fantasy.
The Syrian Ba'athist regime is renowned for its savage brutality against even suspected dissenters. How you
people can explain away the well documented record of this violence says something about your echo chamber
state of mind. And yes the Syrian government and its Russian patron target civilian areas and hospitals. Again,
this is credibly documented. You are buying into a propaganda narrative. Vanessa Beeley, for example, is a
Ba'athist stenographer who is not telling the whole story. Before you all start hollering, and throwing
furniture let me ask how many Syrians post here? Right.
Nothing I can say will convince anyone to change their mind and that's okay because who am I and, besides,
everyone here has the internet and knows how to use search. If you are brave or not completely brainwashed yet
start with this article (you don't have to agree with everything in it) to get a sense of where your chosen
narrative is at its weakest.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-debate-over-syria-has-reached-a-dead-end/
Have fun!
I wonder if Syria were to regain the Golan Heights of Syria and then blitzkreig beyond in a New 7 Day War,
all the way to Haifa and beyond, whether the same Rabbinicals and Evangelicals who worship Zionism would defend
Syria's right to 'the spoils of war' and then turn a blind eye as Syria blockades Haifa into a concentration
camp the way Isreal has turned Gaza into one? Would they talk about Syrians being the New Chosen of Jaweh?
Would they throw away their yarmulkels, and wear black and white Hezbullah scarves, just to be among the
victors? Would Netanyahu be treated in the press like Arafat was treated, as a loser?
I tend to give thanks for small miracles, given the dire straights the world of journalism is in. Blessed are
those who repent and at least max, Rhania and Ben appear to have sincerely repented the error of their early
days, and max, in particular, has done some truly great work, exposing the Chemical false Flags and the White
helmets for what they were and are. Sure, he and others stood on the shoulders of some braver and more
perceptive souls such as Sharmine Narwani, Vanessa Beely and Eva Bartlett, among the very - so very - few who
dared question the dominant narrative starting in 2011.
I also think that perhaps people don't realize just
how difficult it was to be a western journalist/reporter and have any kind of career back in 2011/2012 while
questioning the dominant narrative. Very very few did in the west, if truth be said. yes, there were Syrian
connected reporters and opinionators like the Syrian perspective, MOA and a few, all too few, others. But one
could count the English reporters of truth on one finger. Not just Syria, but also Libya and probably even
Egypt. So, not everyone is super-brave from the get-go. not everyone has the analytic skills and integrity of
"b", but then b is not stuck with writing for the Guardian, is he? And he and Ziad fadel hand Sharwani and
those few others we heard from, many times did not earn their living from writing geopolitic (I think I need to
add The Saker to the list. I believe I discovered him only in 2013 or so).
So, if some who first wandered in the desert got some kahunas later, it's definitely better than never. IMO,
it's kind of small minded to excoriate those who failed to see the full picture back as it was happening. Me, I
see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and as I sit here i can only wish for more converts to the
truth. Say Monbiot of The Guardian? now, that would be nice, wouldn't it?
I also would like to remind people just how caught up so many western liberals were in the spectacle of the
Arab Spring (that wasn't much in the end, and we should think long and hard about why that was so). We - as in
many of us - projected our wishes upon the Arab millennials and students, but little did we do - as in any of
us - to research the sad, tragic realities in their own countries. The dependence of Egypt on tourism for
example all but doomed their spring to another long Winter. We, who have jobs and/or comfortable positions
somewhere and/or comfortable enough retirement that allows some to post here (and post well and thoughtfully
for many, which takes time and is definitely a luxury), how could we even imagine what it means to have so
little that to lose that meager income from tourists is a catastrophe? In the end the majority of the Egyptians
went for bread and butter or Sisi would not have prevailed (please don't read this as defense of the Sisi
regime. It's just me trying to understand why the revolution in Egypt did not succeed). But all this happened
back in 2011 to 2013, and Syria seemed like one more exclamation mark on some elusive "Arab Spring". Of course,
it was no such thing but I only knew that from reading far more widely than most people do, and I wasn't a
journalist trying to eke out a living either. As commenters we have the luxury of writing as we see fit,
without fear of being fired. Anonymously too, most of us. But for reporters out in the open, I reckon it must
have been a little harder.
Actually, I am trying to work up a little piece on the mysterious - and not so mysterious - reasons Syria
became such a red line for writers of all kinds, that to cross it back in 2012-2015 meant vitriol in the
mailbox and who knows what else. Sure it became easier in 2015 once the Russians stepped in, but I am trying to
figure out why that was the case. What was so special about 2016, other than that was the year the russians
really helped turn things around? and it was election season in the US too. Still, I am struglgling to wrap
arms around this strange conundrum of why Syria?
Finally, speaking about red lines and daniel's comment. Gilad Atzmon is the most obvious case of a red line
those who write in the open cannot cross. No matter how pro-palestinians and/or anti-zionists they are. Gilad
is a lithmus test and has been for quite a while now. Just another somewhat strange phenomenon, and snother
occasion for yet another piece (which I will write under still another name - for good reason. After all, the
mere mention of the name Atzmon could be enough to get one kicked out of "polite' society....and I do like the
free food and drinks served in those societies - now and then....).
This is not only suspiciously vindictive, it's a bore. Isn't there something more pernicious to explore than
Max Blumenthal's lack of perfection? 1) The implication that he changes his positions for financial gain is
laughable. If Max is trying to sell out, he's going about it all wrong. 2) He's under no obligation to explain
his father's actions. 3) You seem to be implying that he was quiet about Libya because of his father's
involvement. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a conflict of interest? 4) You don't like the
name "Moderate Rebels?" Dude your writing for a website called "Moon Over Alabama" Let's just agree to judge on
content rather than title.
Assad's opposition has turned him into a hero, not us. He is a veritable paladin next to the Jihadi
headchoppers that would take over if he fell.
And how has regime-change ever helped anyway? Toppling Saddam was a disaster for USA in terms of
international standing, financial cost, and the end result (increased Iranian influence). Libya after Qaddafi
is a nightmare where ISIS conducts slave auctions. Afghanistan's 18-year war is a quagmire of dumbfuckery so
profound that it is only talked about in hushed terms when reauthorizations are needed. In Ukraine, the West
'won' a money pit.
@73 daniel. your question "what would a propaganda designed for
people who already know the MSM is propaganda look like?" - the intercept?
@76 diana.. good post.. thanks..
@80 merlin.. thanks for your post.. i am still conflicted on the arab spring.. on the one hand it seemed
like a natural occurrence.. on the other hand it seems like the powers that be were waiting to take advantage
of it too, especially in the case of syria...i suppose we could give max, ben and rania a pass based on the
general view that the arab spring was upon the middle east and everyone knew what a brutal dictator assad was..
i think a few folks woke up during the ukraine shakedown 2014, and they might have got to thinking that indeed
the yinon plan was still on track or that general clarks comments which i quote here were indeed relevant.. "As
I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a
chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed
as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq,
then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
that arab spring thing seemed like good cover for any number of tricks, not to mention regime change.. i
have a hard time buying into the thought that someone who is supposed to cultivate critical thinking would
overlook this myself.. maybe investigative reporters are supposed to skip the critical thinking class? i don't
buy that myself.. i relate more to diana's comment @76 and think that it is fair to criticize max and any other
number of public journalists, or bloggers.. i do it with other posters here and i get it when folks do it with
b, as a few have here on this thread, even if i don't agree with them in this instance..
thanks to the many commentators here that continue to give me greater insight to overcome the blind spots
that i carry around without being fully or even partly aware of them.. it's ongoing..
I agree with your assertions about the paid shills of our
world....they are paid to get out in front of trains not of their creation and start a parade.
Your posting has brought a new "class" of trolls to MoA. Maybe we can open some of their minds and they will
quit their day jobs.
Although par for the course for most people, your short sightedness, your disregard for factual evidence and
your sheer inability for critical evaluation is exasperating.
It is because of people like you that offer sustenance to a predatory and exploitative elite that we find
ourselves in the bind we are in.
People like you have completely bought into the narrative of the ostensible benevolence of presumably
democratic governments. People like you have completely been sold on the desirability of the centralization of
power. People like you have gladly waded into the self defeating fable of the righteousness of centralized
education.
It is people like you that happily cheer-on our elites as they gradually divest society of their labor and
their wealth by lowering interest rates artificially.
It is people like you that merrily support our elites as they progressively reveal themselves to be mere
enforcers for predatory financial interests
It is people like you that rejoice in the orgy of government profligacy that gradually weighs down the
creativity, the productivity and the mere right to existence of individuals the world over.
It is people like you that revel in the self declared virtue of transnational political entities that, time
and again, are caught abetting and often, colluding with retrograde, sanguinary individuals the world over.
You are a deluded soul. Either that, or you have an agenda.
I know how hard it is for people to change their views, my self included. Sure you could say Max and Co. should
have known better but what does that say about 99% of journalists on this planet who still firmly sticks with
and probably believes the official NATO propaganda narrative?
I think having an article and debating this is
both helpful and informative. However resorting to name calling like "turncoats" implies playing for a team.
Tribalism and partisan hackery is something we should avoid at all costs. I've been accused of being a Putin
lover and Assad lover by those who cling to the NATO narrative. The truth is I think both as assholes but I
also understand the position they are in.
Is the Baath regime ideal? Fuck no. Would a Muslim brotherhood Regime be better? Highly doubtful. Would
Al-Nusra or and ISIS Regime bet better? WTF? are you kidding me?? There is no black and white here, but some
are much more gray that others. Same goes for journalists and people, none of us are without flaws. But the
ability to change your mind and correct course is a good property especially in a journalist. This "no true
Scotsman" mentality is a luxury we can't really afford in the fight against the onslaught of corporate pro WAR
media.
Serious tribalism here, quite ugly to see, no criticism is allowed.
People that are wrong must apologize lol,
I mean get off your high horse.
Also attacking Blumenthal, Khalek, Norton, its like a teenager trying to pick a fight with a bodybuilder,
and those who play with fire is going to be burnt himself by the same smearing.
Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are.
Democracy Now, pleeeeease the white wash agency for USA exceptionalism and other crimes against
humanity. Next you'll be quoting the Guardian. Reposting content from either of these two is like passing round
used toilet paper for another try.
I can understand the alround eagerness to condemn. It's a standard pattern of putting the bar very high for
others. It's as people have to demonstrate how good they are themselves by condemning others. Julian Assange is
far from perfect as well but he has done a huge service.
I think it was perfectly normal for a progressives to support the demonstrations and rebellion against Assad.
This fit in with the Arab Spring and there was a legitimate aspiration for more democracy. There was also a
violent component from the start , and there were strong exhortations to avoid all negotiations and avoid all
compromise because Assad certainly was going to fall. It's to Max Blumenthal's credit that he caught on to the
component which was there from the start and which quickly started to dominate: the intent , mostly from
outside, to destroy or degrade the state. I think Blumenthal has done very good work on many fronts and I
respect him.
I do not appreciate how he bashes people who have not caught on. It does not necessarily get
easier over time to change your mind. The amount of propaganda on the issue has also increased. Once you're on
the outside it's easy, but it is also easy to underestimate how hard it is to change your mind from the inside.
I understood the nature of the conflict from the start. Therefore I'm much smarter than Blumenthal. He
should listen to me.
I can believe that Blumenthal is obfuscating his change of mind. But I've known about his change of mind for
a long time from interviews so I never even noticed the obfuscation.
It's not pretty. Ok. So it's not pretty.
Fantastic piece by Daniel, it's nice to see that some people have some standards. Both Norton and Blumenthal
have lied about various issues, not just Syria, though the way Max, Ben and Rania all changed positions at the
same time on Syria is highly shady. Same with the deletion without explanation of their past work on Syria,
Libya etc. Max has helped his war profiteer, Clinton employee father sell lies on various issues, we should't
be grateful that he(or they) rebranded on Syria after he already did so much damage. We should be skeptical as
to why.
@ Anon who wrote: "Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are."
Unless you want to replace global private finance with totally sovereign finance you are not on my side. Are
you on my side Anon? Do you think Max B is on my side ?
Take your obfuscating BS to some other blog you come in and say is misguided.
As C @ 91 says, the fact that Max Blumenthal et al experienced their Damascene moment (cough, cough) at about
the same time is suspicious in itself. The timing of that moment too, with the Russian entry into the Syrian
war in September 2015 and the turnabout in Syria's fortunes that started soon after, must also be considered.
One might almost have guessed that Blumenthal, Norton and Khalek were planning and co-ordinating their move
together, and looking for the right moment.
They must surely know that they are playing the role of gatekeepers in demarcating how far dissent from the
official narrative about Syria is allowed to go. The fact that some commenters here have taken their contrition
at face value and question or criticise others who have reservations about the depth of the trio's actions
demonstrates the power of that role, and why some of us might be justified in doubting their motives for acting
the way they have.
Until Max Blumenthal does something that truly threatens the powers that be, like Thierry Meyssan and Serena
Shim, I will regard him as another Sibel Edmonds--a government infiltrator posing as a dissident. By the way,
if anyone wants to know what really happened at the beginning of the invasion of Syria, read Thierry Meyssan's
writings from Libya and Damascus at the time: "John McCain, conductor of the Arab Spring" is amazing. So is
another one Thierry published on Voltaire, The rebirth of the Syrian Arab Army
https://www.voltairenet.org/article190703.html
This pissing contest comes off very much like the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" in which members of
the People's Front of Judea badmouth the Judean People's Front. The ultimate insult was to call anyone with a
different opinion a "SPLITTER!" From my point of view, Max, Ben and Rania have their hearts in the right place.
(Has no one heard their saber-like takes on Ukraine?) They are not the enemy. In "Brian's" time, it was Rome,
and in our time it is the Western Empire. Let's all keep that in mind.
I agree with many posters here that the criticism of "prodigal children" of anti-imperialism should be
measured. This is a political cause, and we are not assembling an elite force that can smash most entrenched
enemies. Instead, we should strive to analyze the reality, spread the word and convert.
And we have to accept
that we differ on many issues, and very often we differ with our own past position. Back when the issue was
Kosovo intervention, I though that this is good idea. Now I know that "Beware the Greeks when they bring gifts
[Trojan Horse, for those deficient in classics]" should get another corollary "beware imperialists when they
care about human rights".
And it is not just vicarious imperialists or people who maintain civil relationship with members of Hamas
who may wrongly generalize. Assuming that Muslim Brotherhood is always and everywhere a force of evil violates
the good principle "location, location, location". Like Marxism, MB ideology has gamut of different trends, and
it is a bit to its credit that in Syria it did such a miserable job, being outplayed by Salafist -- they do not
do a good job as a warrior cult, they are actually too normal for that.
If moonofalabama has searchable archive, I was posting that it is immensely
speculative that Trump is a lesser evil than Clinton, in particular, his consistent praise of Bolton puts under
question mark all reasonable fragments of sentences that one could collect from his tweets and speeches.
Domestically, the guy is a wrecking ball, internationally -- it is still a bit open issue, I hope for malignity
mellowed by ineptitude, I mean, the outcome leave a chance for recovery. Then again, Clinton is much less smart
than some think her to be, so the grounds for opposing her more than Trump were illusionary.
I meant to add to my previous post (92) that requiring absolute ideological purity has been deadly to the left
ever since the left began. It is one of the main reasons why a broad-based leftwing movement has never taken
hold and lasted. A pox on these sectarian ideological squabbles. If the left wants to win, it must put them
aside once and for all.
Those who argue for leniency for Blumenthal and the others would have us overlook the MANY betrayals of other
so-called progressives. Such betrayals are too frequent to be just a matter of 'bad apples' or 'bad judgement'.
These "turncoats" take
strategic positions
on issues to advance their career. Hillary, the "progressive
that gets things done", and Obama, the "community organizer", are two notable examples. Another would be
Bernie's 'sheepdog' betrayal of his Movement - even after it was clear that Hillary and the DNC had conspired
against him. Such people slyly conflate progressive ideals with divisive identity politics. By throwing off the
moral core of progressivism they advance the interests of TPTB. Their many loyal sycophants and apologists rush
to defend the indefensible and try their best to muddy waters BUT WE KNOW THE GAME by now so fuck off! You
can't piss down our backs and tell us it raining anymore.
'Progressive' pundits and journalists that become useful idiots instead of watchdogs are even worse because
they claim to be truth-tellers. You don't get to lead the next parade after you've led people over a cliff.
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
Notable quotes:
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President
Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences
in April.
According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.
The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network,
is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict
within the American ruling class and its state.
The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences
as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones
and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs
to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.
US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.
Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client
privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens
all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."
Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president
is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality
TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.
There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings
to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president --
or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control
of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.
That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic.
The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and
collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.
This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate
media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle
East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating
foreign-inspired "fake news."
These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result
of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.
The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past
several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal
response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation
of John Dowd in March.
This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward
Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred,
but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.
This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before
a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served
as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.
Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal
fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.
In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom
Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani
called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller
probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.
He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators
and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey,
a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times ,
along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.
On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."
Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000
in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own
funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.
It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on
this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually
nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp
out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax
cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing
subsidies for the poor.
This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming
midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.
There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate
policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions
and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.
This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling
class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over
Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's
ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.
The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis
of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist
two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding
war abroad and austerity and repression at home.
Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen
it?
Is there corruption in DC?
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation
was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..
Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton
Foundation were declared.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine,
Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just
a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton
Foundation Investigation.
Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.
Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's
best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it??
Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir
Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.
Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself
to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943)..
while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..
Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than,
Rod Rosenstein.
Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order
on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most
strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information
to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!
Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation
from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?
No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward
to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department,
Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary
ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State
which was required by law.
He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State
Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State
Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey.
Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with
the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me
how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!
Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course
his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes
there. Nothing here to report --
Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the
DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.
The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself,
like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and
exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of
the American Justice System ..
Can you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey
leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide
cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the
Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud
in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
"... In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725 million. ..."
Rupert Murdoch's the Times attempted a witch-hunt of UK academics who have
questioned the government's narrative on Syria. This scurrilous campaign, targeting Professor
Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh), Professor Piers Robinson (University of Sheffield) and
Lecturer Tara McCormack (Leicester University) as "Apologists for Assad," is a sharp expression
of how universities have become battlegrounds in the global drive to war.
As the ruling class work to militarise society in accordance with the recently outlined
Fusion Doctrine, higher education and research institutions are being transformed into
appendages of British imperialism.
The process is well underway. Contrary to the Times ' ravings about
universities being hotbeds of left-wing and anti-war sentiment, the institutions and their
leaderships are already deeply integrated with the armed forces and private military
contractors.
In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a
series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects
conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725
million.
The UK Government's military research establishment -- the Ministry of Defence (MoD),
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and Atomics
Weapons Establishment (AWE) -- were involved in a quarter of these projects. Arms
manufacturers, led by Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ, sponsored the remainder.
Between 2008 and 2011, according to research by the Huffington Post , the Russell
Group of 24 elite British universities received £83 million from the same sources listed
above. Imperial College London topped the list with £15.2 million, mainly from the AWE.
Imperial is joined by Bristol, Cambridge, Cranfield, and Heriot-Watt in a "strategic alliance"
with the AWE: The five universities received £15 million in the years 2010-12.
More recently, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, in
the past three years, 15 universities with prestigious engineering departments have received
£40 million in grants from military contractors. These grants have funded projects
including collaboration on military submarine technology between Rolls Royce and the University
of Leeds, a drone project worked on by Boeing and Bristol University, and a stealth drone
project at Manchester run by BAE.
While the money involved is relatively small when compared to total university research
funding, the military projects have a weight of influence beyond their size. Military funding
is concentrated in institutions and departments -- mainly engineering -- where the armed forces
and arms dealers have a special authority. Such funding is considered a prestigious source of
investment, from which other grants and opportunities will flow. Military contracts are
fiercely competed for and proudly advertised.
On the back of this commercial turn to the military-industrial complex, moreover,
universities are working closely with the armed forces to provide education and recruitment
opportunities. Fourteen institutions (including Aston, Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial College,
Loughborough, Newcastle, Northumbria, Portsmouth, Southampton and Strathclyde) are in a
partnership with the MoD to provide the Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS). This is
a university sponsorship programme for students who want to join the Royal Navy, British Army,
Royal Air Force or Engineering and Science branch of the MoD Civil Service as technical
officers after they graduate.
There are roughly 800 of these students (who formally hold the ranks of Officer Cadet or
Midshipman in their respective reserve forces) in any one year, grouped into four regional
units: Taurus Squadron, Thunderer Squadron, Trojan Squadron and Typhoon Squadron. The
commanding officer of each unit has visiting lecturer status at the associated universities.
Graduates are required to serve in the armed forces or MoD for a minimum of three years after
graduating and completing Initial Officer Training.
University resources are thus put at the service of the military to train its key technical
staff. They return the favour by lending the armed forces' support to the running of student
life on campus, doubtless with the associated military ethos. Loughborough University describes
how its DTUS students "regularly support Open Days, Freshers' Fairs and other student
activities."
In addition to the DTUS programme, the Army, Navy and RAF provide a range of other
scholarships for prospective soldiers.
The Army offers 150 standard bursaries a year, worth £6,000, as well as Technical and
Enhanced Army undergraduate bursaries, worth up to £14,000 and £24,000
respectively. Students can also receive £5,000-10,000 a year through the Army Medical
Service Professionally Qualified Officer bursary. The Royal Navy also offers a standard
bursary, worth £1,500 a year and a Technical Bursary worth £4,000 a year. Future
RAF Medical Officers can get a grant to cover all their tuition fees.
All sponsorship requires three years of service in the armed forces after completing
education.
While at university, these and other students can participate in one of the University
Service Units -- the University Officer Training Corps, University Air Squadrons, or University
Royal Navy Units -- who maintain a permanent presence on numerous university campuses.
In 2015, there were 6,580 members of these organisations in Britain, spread across 19
Officer Training Corps units and 14 Air and Navy units. The fundamental purpose of these
groups, besides providing a path into the officer ranks, is to train propagandists for the
military within higher education and wider society. The University Royal Navy Unit at Cambridge
describes its role as being to "educate and inform society's future potential opinion formers
and leaders of the need for and role of the Royal Navy."
So great is the influence of the armed forces on campus that several universities have
established specific military-focused degree courses.
In 2011, the University of Wolverhampton created a BSc in Armed Forces, Armed Forces and
Combat Medicine, and Armed Forces and Combat Engineering. The list of universities currently
offering War Studies or related courses includes Queens Belfast, Glasgow, Kent, Coventry,
Swansea, Buckingham, Bradford, King's College London (KCL) and others. KCL is home to "the only
academic department in the world to focus solely on the complexities of conflict and security,"
comprising 95 academic staff and over 2,000 students.
Cranfield University offers courses in subjects like Military Economic Systems Engineering,
Military Aerospace and Airworthiness, Communication Electronic Warfare, and Explosives Ordnance
Engineering.
As well as providing training for the military, universities across the country are happy to
play host to recruiting sergeants at Freshers' Fairs and Welcome Weeks. In 2013, FOI requests
found that the armed forces had made 341 visits to universities in the previous two years.
None of these developments has gone unopposed. Demilitarisation campaigning groups are
active at many universities, with some institutions having banned visits from the armed forces
in response to student protests. Organisations like the Campaign Against the Arms and Trade and
Scientists for Global Responsibility have consistently exposed and opposed the involvement of
military forces in universities. All of this is testimony to the immense anti-war sentiment
which exists among the student body and academics.
To wage a successful struggle against the encroachment of the military on campus, however,
requires that this sentiment be consciously organised behind a socialist, anti-war perspective.
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) is dedicated to the formation
of such a movement on campuses across the country. Eric Sommer • 2 days
ago
Getting financial support and training for science and for university students sounds nice,
and being part of the 'royal' navy or 'royal' airforce seems appealing for some - until we
remember the purpose: To induct students into research and other support work for criminal
wars and war crimes involving the UK governments participation in military aggression against
helpless nations and which slaughters people who have never attacked or endangered Britain or
its people.
The Carla Ortiz and Jimmy Dore exchange is fascinating. Each in her/his own way is superb.
The Guardian has become boulevard press = tabloid. Nearly every day before and even after the
US election Mrs. Clinton gloated on the front page. Bernie Sanders was no where to be seen
nearly until the election. Now the Guardian is priming its readers for the stomach-churning
royal wedding coming up. No, no more Guardian for me. And they have the gall to ask for money
to turn out articles praising the White Helemts. No! Curtis , Apr 22, 2018 12:32:23 PM |
8
Anonymous 4
BBC took on Vannessa Beeley recently, too. Will NYT and WaPo be next? The anti-Russia agenda
continues along with the anti-truth-in-Syria agenda.
AriusAmerican 5
During the Bush II fiasco, there were anti-war protests. The protests disappeared after Obama
took office. And he was given a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about peace. But everyone went
along with Obama's wars. No protests. And that's how they like it. They want support and tend
to get it from the MSM and party lackeys. And if they don't get support, the one thing they
don't want are massive protests, calls to congress, etc. As long as there's little to no
resistance their war agenda continues.
PS
The HuffPoUK article tears into Beeley but at the bottom has a Russian submission to the
Security Council of a report she did of the White Helmets. That report negates the
article/story! HuffPoUK claims this is part two of a series and that part three will "look at
evidence presented against the White Helmets." That should be interesting.
Anonymous2 | Apr 22, 2018 1:50:23 PM | 12
Curtis
"The anti-Russia agenda continues along with the anti-truth-in-Syria agenda."
I dont get it why these journalists are against finding out what happend (since we dont know that yet)? Most of
these morons have no idea about the conflict at all, and all of a sudden start writing like they are veteran journalists and
have profound knowledge about Syria.
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States. ..."
How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today "The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an
incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag"
-- take it from Philip Giraldi, a veteran of the CIA of 20 years
Philip Giraldi Sat, Apr
28, 2018 | 4,379
146
MORE: Politics False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries.
It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close
to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack. In
the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse
the opponent was considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one reverted to one's own
flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist
groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable
about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity
lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to
mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been
the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been
considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in
the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out
against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly
false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent
reported attack on April 7 th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually
in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one
might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting
until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that,
preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns
up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England
on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The
allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been
debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed
a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be
just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and
the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage.
Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually
a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it,
there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative
would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
The USA and other transgender members of the "international community" no longer require proof or evidence. They are conditioned
to believe whatever dogshit lies the Jew media's queer coiffed henchmen say. No matter how ridiculous.So as long as they re-enforce
the post-modern soullessness narrative of homosexual auto-eroticism.
There is a reason why TV shows like 'Dancing With The Stars' and 'reality' TV dominate the collective self-absorbed psyche
of meathead robots: one hundred years of Jungian and Freudian conditioning bullshit feed their need for fantasy - anything to
escape their reality of bad hair, 44" waist, drunkenness, base greed, and self-hatred. The Need for Greed.
Just cater to the uneducated swine's basest desires and they'll happily tongue their master's rectums.
The west is into scat porn, gay pride parades, "feeling good about yourself", self-help, getting pissed off at the Walmart
crackheads because they don't stock dildos with the correct curvature you desire, etc.
Tell me how a defunct species of automatic self-loathing shit-eaters with a victim-complex can do anything But believe the
sexy blonde bimbo with an Adam's Apple reciting today's talking points?
The craven papal Jew-worshiping west are quietly self-medicating into non-existence in their prophylactic hygienic masturbatory
GMO ass-perfumed bubbles. Occasionally one of them goes apeshit and shoots-up a school or something.
"...mind controlled automatons controlled through drugs and remote EM voices directing their behavior..."
That sounds like the job description of CIANN.
Dildos with the correct curvature .
Rothflmao
Been reading ya for years illya.
That was by far the most memorable line you've penned this year .
Great rant .
Everything you said Illyak, resonates with me. Your words intelligently crafted. It is a reflection of Western Society, where
virtual signalling has replaced honest discussion.
The Western media creates a vacuum and the masses get sucked into the void, they are in a vegetative state, they disengage
with reality. Even when basic common-sense hits you in the face, these people have the tenacity to accept as gospel the liars
and deceits of their Governments. If you hear BS repeatedly and you are of simple disposition, you will eventually eat the BS,
you will speak it and accept it as de-facto.
Much of the West live in a distorted reality field, these people have been embellished on tropes of 'Western Values' and failing
to operate within the parameters, will ultimately exclude you from the collective mainstream, thus rendering you a conspiracy
theorist or deranged person and further more you will be considered as a maverick person, who's unable to inflict upon thyself
'victim masturbation' or accept that there are other groups (Jews) more deserving than you.
anything that makes Anglosheeple disconnect more from reality, from their own instincts and biology, and from other people
is encouraged by the Empire of SLAVES
My only Flaw in your comment is the 44 inch waist as that is now about the size they Strive to Slim Down to now
A comment made on here about two year's ago has alway's stuck in my mind was "How come British Women's bottom's start behind Their
knee's"
as someone who spent more than a decade living in the US and as many years in the UK - I fully agree with your analysis. You
just forgot to mention religion - and sexual mutilation of baby boys (only in the US are boys routinely circumcised as far as
I know in all other places it's only Jews and Muslims who do it). Religion makes them slavish and fearful of their imaginary and
other masters from early childhood.
Love your Nabokovian Jeremiad by the way!
"Occasionally one of them goes apeshit and shoots-up a school or something."
That reminds me of Winston in Nineteen Eighty Four.
The net was there to catch the outliers. In fact, the state ran the
'resistance'
Not this American! I consider the tax extorting, mafia style Shameless Sam to be treasonous and should be on trial in an International
court and many of the serial lying neocons who have been pushing our tyrannous foreign policy executed. The past five POTUS including
Cheney and HRC should be held accountable.
No member of The Tribe will ever be held accountable for anything, ever....unless they try taking on Russia. Then they will
swing. And the world will rejoice.
This message is lacking viable alternative but still better than nothing.
"Falling" for Dr. Ron Paul would not be "dumb" at all.
It would have saved U.S. of coming collapse....But than why would I care?!
U.S. being aggressor Empire and all, they are doing me a favor really with their votes...
Trump
rimes
the swamp!
Yes, the same tricks keep being played by those in power, and they include more than just false flags.
Why should that be so? Because they still work.
Even the relative failures like the recent one in Syria (relative failure because millions know it was a fraud) give arrogant
leaders who want to do something a public excuse for doing it, even when the excuse is weak and subject to controversy. It is
their own people they are largely aiming at, people breathing the same atmosphere of misinformation and suspicion.
As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
the bigger problem is that most (or all ) Americans I know don't actually want to hear about what is really going on.
They have been brainwashed from very early to value UNREALITY much more than the actual reality. Once you convince sheeple to
think that way (and to actually fear reality) - they will happily lie to themselves - you don't even need to lie to them any more
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which
would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing
the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.
If Merkel refers to a total cessation of Iran's nuclear program, then she's technically
correct. Except, the deal wasn't made to attain that outcome as Iran was not going to
relinquish its rights under the NPT. And just what are "the problems with Iran" Merkel
alludes to? Iran's helping to defeat NATO's terrorists within Iraq and Syria? Insisting the
Outlaw US Empire obey International Law and abandon its illegal incursion into Syria? Trying
to awaken the real International Community to the massive crime being committed daily in
Yemen and the longstanding ongoing crime against Palestinian peoples by Zionists? Seems to me
those are Merkel's problems, not a problem with Iran.
Merkel is a symbol for Germany in this regard, a puppet to american interest, add to that
the sucking up o israel and the result
is a vassal neocon-zionist warbent regime.
Will Germany be part of another conflict of war, this time with Iran? Crazy state (no offense
to germans, this is the illogical behaviour by all of eu which of course not will follow
Germany and thus US in its new warmongering).
...President Barack Obama, who had run a quasi-antiwar liberal campaign for the White House, had embraced the assassination program
and had decreed, "the CIA gets what it wants." Intelligence budgets were maintaining the steep upward curve that had started in 2001,
and while all agencies were benefiting, none had done as well as the CIA At just under $15 billion, the agency's budget had climbed
by 56 percent just since 2004.
Decades earlier, Richard Helms, the CIA director for whom the event was named, would customarily
refer to the defense contractors who pressured him to spend his budget on their wares as "those bastards." Such disdain for commerce
in the world of spooks was now long gone, as demonstrated by the corporate sponsorship of the tables jammed into the Grand Ballroom
that evening. The executives, many of whom had passed through the revolving door from government service, were there to rub shoulders
with old friends and current partners. "It was totally garish," one attendee told me afterward. "It seemed like every arms manufacturer
in the country had taken a table. Everyone was doing business, right and left."
In the decade since 9/11, the CIA had been regularly blighted by scandal-revelations of torture, renditions, secret "black site"
prisons, bogus intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq, ignored signs of the impending 9/11 attacks-but such unwholesome realities
found no echo in this comradely gathering. Even George Tenet, the CIA director who had presided over all of the aforementioned scandals,
was greeted with heartfelt affection by erstwhile colleagues as he, along with almost every other living former CIA director, stood
to be introduced by Master of Ceremonies John McLaughlin, a former deputy director himself deeply complicit in the Iraq fiasco. Each,
with the exception of Stansfield Turner (still bitterly resented for downsizing the agency post-Vietnam), received ringing applause,
but none more than the night's honoree, former CIA director and then-current secretary of defense Robert M. Gates.
Although Gates had left the CIA eighteen years before, he was very much the father figure of the institution and a mentor to the
intelligence chieftains, active and retired, who cheered him so fervently that night at the Ritz-Carlton. He had climbed through
the ranks of the national security bureaucracy with a ruthless determination all too evident to those around him. Ray McGovern, his
supervisor in his first agency post, as an analyst with the intelligence directorate's soviet foreign policy branch, recalls writing
in an efficiency report that the young man's "evident and all-consuming ambition is a disruptive influence in the branch." There
had come a brief check on his rise to power when his involvement in the Iran-Contra imbroglio cratered an initial attempt to win
confirmation as CIA director, but success came a few years later, in 1991, despite vehement protests from former colleagues over
his persistent willingness to sacrifice analytic objectivity to the political convenience of his masters.
Gates's successful 1991 confirmation as CIA chief owed much, so colleagues assessed, to diligent work behind the scenes on the
part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff director, George Tenet. In 1993, Tenet moved on to be director for intelligence
programs on the Clinton White House national security staff, in which capacity he came to know and esteem John Brennan, a midlevel
and hitherto undistinguished CIA analyst assigned to brief White House staffers. Tenet liked Brennan so much that when he himself
moved to the CIA as deputy director in 1995, he had the briefer appointed station chief in Riyadh, an important position normally
reserved for someone with actual operational experience. In this sensitive post Brennan worked tirelessly to avoid irritating his
Saudi hosts, showing reluctance, for example, to press them for Osama bin Laden's biographical details when asked to do so by the
bin Laden unit back at headquarters.
Brennan returned to Washington in 1999 under Tenet's patronage, initially as his chief of staff and then as CIA executive director,
and by 2003 he had transitioned to the burgeoning field of intelligence fusion bureaucracy. The notion that the way to avert miscommunication
between intelligence bureaucracies was to create yet more layers of bureaucracy was popular in Washington in the aftermath of 9/11.
One concrete expression of this trend was the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, known as T-TIC and then renamed the National Counter
Terrorism Center a year later. Brennan was the first head of T-TIC, distinguishing himself in catering to the abiding paranoia of
the times. On one occasion, notorious within the community, he circulated an urgent report that al-Qaeda was encrypting targeting
information for terrorist attacks in the broadcasts of the al-Jazeera TV network, thereby generating an "orange" alert and the cancellation
of dozens of international flights. The initiative was greeted with malicious amusement over at the CIA's own Counterterrorism Center,
whose chief at the time, José Rodríguez, later opined that Brennan had been trying to build up his profile with higher authority.
"Brennan was a major factor in keeping [the al-Jazeera/al-Qaeda story] alive. We thought it was ridiculous," he told a reporter.
"My own view is he saw this, he took this, as a way to have relevance, to take something to the White House." Tellingly, an Obama
White House spokesman later excused Brennan's behavior on the grounds that though he had circulated the report, he hadn't believed
it himself.
Exiting government service in 2005, Brennan spent the next three years heading The Analysis Corporation, an obscure but profitable
intelligence contractor engaged in preparing terrorist watch lists for the government, work for which he was paid $763,000 in 2008.
Among the useful relationships he had cultivated over the years was well-connected Democrat Anthony Lake, a former national security
adviser to Bill Clinton, who recommended him to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Meeting for the first time shortly after Obama's
election victory, the pair bonded immediately, with Obama "finishing Brennan's sentences," by one account. Among their points of
wholehearted agreement was the merit of a surgical approach to terrorist threats, the "need to target the metastasizing disease without
destroying the surrounding tissue," as Brennan put it, for which drones and their Hellfire missiles seemed the ideal tools. Obama
was initially balked in his desire to make Brennan CIA director because of the latter's all-too-close association with the agency's
torture program, so instead the new president made him his assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security, with an office down
the hall from the Oval Office. Two years into the administration, everyone in the Ritz-Carlton ballroom knew that the bulky Irishman
was the most powerful man in U.S. intelligence as the custodian of the president's kill list, on which the chief executive and former
constitutional law professor insisted on reserving the last word, making his final selections for execution at regularly scheduled
Tuesday afternoon meetings. "You know, our president has his brutal side," a CIA source cognizant of Obama's involvement observed
to me at the time.
Now, along with the other six hundred diners at the Helms dinner, Brennan listened attentively as Gates rose to accept the coveted
award for "exemplary service to the nation and the Central Intelligence Agency." After paying due tribute to previous honorees as
well as his pride in being part of the CIA "family," Gates spoke movingly of a recent and particularly tragic instance of CIA sacrifice,
the seven men and women killed by a suicide bomber at an agency base, Forward Operating Base Chapman, in Khost, Afghanistan, in 2009.
All present bowed their heads in silent tribute.
Gates then moved on to a more upbeat topic. When first he arrived at the Pentagon in 2007, he said, he had found deep-rooted resistance
to "new technology" among "flyboys with silk scarves" still wedded to venerable traditions of fighter-plane combat. But all that,
he informed his rapt audience, had changed. Factories were working "day and night, day and night," to turn out the vital weapons
for the fight against terrorism. "So from now on," he concluded, his voice rising, "the watchword is: drones, baby, drones!"
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
The fact that 99.9% of neocons are chickenhawks and never experienced the level of sufferings
the wat inflicts on people is defining chanracteristic of all US neocons. Especially female
neocon -- a unique US breed.
Notable quotes:
"... At the core of the American philosophy is voluntarism, the justification of action based purely and simply on the will. ..."
"... The clearest and perhaps the best expression of American voluntarism come of age was expressed by Karl Rove during the George W. Bush administration, as reported by Ron Suskind in New York Times Magazine ..."
"... We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. ..."
"... The point of the voluntarist order is to act, to impose one's will on global reality by any means necessary. The truth is not something to be understood, or grasped, still less something that should condition one's own actions and limit them in any way. Truth is reducible to whatever is useful for imposing one's will. ..."
"... For America's voluntarist order, whether these events as described are true in the objective sense is of no more importance than whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You will recall that, just prior to the Iraq invasion, the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah some 83 times in order to oblige him to confess a nonexistent connection between Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weaponry. That is voluntarism in action right there. "We're an empire now and we create our own reality." It was not a one-off. It is now the norm to make sure the facts are fixed to match the desired policy. ..."
"... Voluntarism is the fruit of an anti-civilization, and of a technological way of knowing, as the great Canadian philosopher George Grant put it, that bears a striking resemblance to what C.S. Lewis described in his pre- Nineteen Eighty-Four ..."
At the core of the American philosophy is voluntarism, the justification of action based
purely and simply on the will. The distinguishing characteristic of voluntarism is that it
gives pride of place to the will as such, to the will as power, the will abstracted from
everything else, but especially abstracted from the good. The notion of the good is necessarily
inclusive of the whole, of all sides. Concern exclusively for oneself goes by a different
name.
The clearest and perhaps the best expression of American voluntarism come of age was
expressed by Karl Rove during the George W. Bush administration, as reported by Ron Suskind in
New York Times Magazine on October 17, 2004:
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities,
which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
This oft-quoted statement is naively assumed to have been the expression of a single moment
in American politics, rather than a summation of its ethos by one of its shrewder and more
self-aware practitioners. The point of the voluntarist order is to act, to impose one's will on
global reality by any means necessary. The truth is not something to be understood, or grasped,
still less something that should condition one's own actions and limit them in any way. Truth
is reducible to whatever is useful for imposing one's will.
We can see this voluntarism at work among our forebears. The Skripal affair in Britain led
to almost immediate action -- the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from the United States
alone -- well before the facts of this dubious incident, which has led to zero deaths, could be
established. Indeed, when the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, suggested first
establishing what had happened and only then acting, he was widely accused of weakness. When
one is "history's actor," action mustn't be delayed. That, after all, is the whole point.
The suffering of innocents should always concern us. But in Syria, the facts regarding who
is the guilty party, including in this latest case of a gas attack in Douma, are very far from
having been established. What's more, though reputable investigators such as Hans Blix and
MIT's Theodore Postol have cast serious
doubt on the reliability of the evidence linking such attacks to Assad's government,
official accounts in the U.S. proceed as if there is not the slightest controversy about the
matter.
For America's voluntarist order, whether these events as described are true in the objective
sense is of no more importance than whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You
will recall that, just prior to the Iraq invasion, the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah some 83
times in order to oblige him to
confess a nonexistent connection between Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weaponry.
That is voluntarism in action right there. "We're an empire now and we create our own reality."
It was not a one-off. It is now the norm to make sure the facts are fixed
to match the desired policy.
Voluntarism is the fruit of an anti-civilization, and of a technological way of knowing, as
the great Canadian philosopher George Grant put it, that bears a striking resemblance to what
C.S. Lewis described in his pre- Nineteen Eighty-Four anti-utopia That Hideous
Strength . In that novel, the institution called N.I.C.E., like the U.S. foreign policy
establishment today, is essentially a voluntarist bureaucracy run by men without culture,
trained in technical sciences and sociology-like "disciplines" and "law" understood in a purely
formalistic sense, who assume human affairs are understandable as aggregates of facts without
value. Such "men without chests" (Lewis's phrase) live in a world where the good and the true
have forever been severed of their mutually defining link. The resulting, essentially
irrational world they inhabit is one that has only one logic left: that of will and power.
It is an American empire where we create our own reality, the mirror image of ourselves, and
it is indeed precisely hideous. If the builders of empire continue to get their way, it may all
soon enough come to a violent and ignominious end. Historians, if they still exist, will marvel
at our folly.
Paul Grenier, an essayist and translator who writes regularly on
political-philosophical issues, is founder of the Simone Weil Center for Political
Philosophy.
For another outstanding account of 'a technological way of knowing', check out Jacques
Ellul's 'The Technological Society'.
Not only was this incident fabricated, it was known the preparations were known in
advance. I remember reading an article two weeks before Douma about the preparations for the
fabrication. Felix Somary was quite right in writing in July 1914 that "the information
available to insiders, and precisely the most highly placed among them, is all to often
misleading" (quoted in Jim Rickards "The Road to Ruin").
Volunteerism, voluntarism, the mysterious workings of the "will," we're famous for all of it,
but this is not so uniquely American, Rove's comment reminds me of something that Tolstoy
might put in Napoleon's mouth, actually. Pride, plus the tunnel-vision typical of
technocrats, academics, specialists
Karl Rove is a man without a chest–a "chickenhawk," a proud and willful man puffed
up on ignorance and willpower, wrecking the world–and nothing more than that, unless he
wills it to be.
Volunteerism is two things, Power to the Ladies Who Lunch, and we don't have to pay for a
social safety net because somebody else will provide it voluntarily for free.
It has no larger meaning, and no role in foreign policy.
The foreign policy described here is just Smedley Butler's "racket" using US foreign
policy and forces for private ends.
"... The common good "cannot be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't this something we can learn from in the West today? ..."
"... Russia's "[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ..."
"... Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity. ..."
"... The City of Man ..."
"... Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United States. ..."
"... The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr. Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft. ..."
"... Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues. ..."
A
staunchly traditional society grapples with modernity's disruptions, seeking conservatisms far
beyond Putinism.
It's a truism that America is a liberal place. Americans emphasize the importance of the
individual and tend to reject notions of hierarchy and authority. Russia by contrast is known
to be a more conservative society, one where the interests of the group come ahead of those of
the individual; and where, for centuries, respect for hierarchy and authority has usually been
the norm.
All the same, the "news" of Russia's return to conservatism has hit many observers in the
West like the proverbial ton of bricks. The typical response has been to
blame the Russian president for steering Russia away from the liberal path, the path of
becoming a "
normal country" with "Western values."
Others have sought to understand Russian political culture on its own terms. A recent
analysis ("The New Eurasians," Times Literary Supplement , May 13, 2015) stands out
from the crowd by making a serious effort to read present-day Russian conservatism in its
historical context. Lesley Chamberlain dismisses the glib reduction of Russia to its
present-day leader. Russia, she writes, is not ruled by Vladimir Putin: to the contrary, "the
power that rules Russia is tradition." Far from it being the case that a benighted Russian
public is being led to conservatism artificially by its government, the reverse is the case:
the vast majority of Russians, perhaps eighty percent "are intensely conservative."
Like most in the commentariat, Chamberlain finds cause for alarm in Russia's return to type.
She worries about a Russia seeking to create "an alternative version of the contemporary
Christian, or post-Christian, world, contiguous with but distinct from the West."
Chamberlain reduces today's incarnation of Russian conservatism to the more or less vague
bundle of geographic and neo-imperial notions that goes by the name Eurasianism, often linked
with the name of Alexander Dugin.
To be sure, anti-Western Eurasianism is part of contemporary Russian conservatism.
But it is only one part. Excessive focus on this angle has created the impression that
Dugin-esque Eurasianism is the only game in town when it comes to Russian conservatism. It
isn't. It's not even the only version of what might be called the 'Russian national greatness'
school of conservatism.
If we wish to understand Russia in something like its true complexity, we have to take the
trouble to listen to it, to let it speak in its own voice instead of constantly projecting onto
it all our own worst fears. Precisely because Eurasianism has already hogged all the attention,
I won't deal with it here.
... ... ...
Liberal Conservatism
Some participants straddled several categories of conservatism at once. In other cases, for
example that of the above-mentioned Makarenko, their thought fit neatly within a single
category -- in his case, that of liberal conservatism.
For Makarenko, modern Russian political practice has far too utilitarian an attitude toward
rule of law and democracy. If it can be demonstrated that the latter support state sovereignty,
then all is well and good; but whenever either are perceived as a threat to the state -- then
democracy and rule of law are always the ones that have to suffer. From his perspective, Russia
would do better to learn from Burke, who looked not so much to the sovereignty of the
state as to the sovereignty of the parliament .
Matveichev, no doubt the most eclectic thinker in the group, on certain subjects occupied
the liberal end of the spectrum. For example, in an essay on corruption and the state, he
approvingly cites the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto to make the point that rule
of law -- as it is practiced, nota bene , in the United States -- is the sine qua
non of economic prosperity. What I found fascinating about Matveichev's position is that
he then takes his argument in a Hegelian and Platonic direction.
It is the state -- not the market on its own -- that provides these all important
forms , and bad as the corruption of state institutions may be, a bad form is
nonetheless better than no form at all -- including for business. The common good "cannot
be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as
the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests
may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't
this something we can learn from in the West today?
Left Conservatism
The "left conservatives" at the conference -- represented most prominently by Dr. Alexander
Schipkov, an expert on Church-state relations -- are critical of liberal capitalism
and indeed are also critical of the current Russian state to the extent that its "conservatism"
is reducible merely to "family values" without including the all-important component of
economic fairness. His views are close to that of Catholic Distributists as well as to those of
"radical orthodox" theologians like William Cavanaugh and John Milbank.
According to Schipkov, Russians of various backgrounds (left and right, secular and
religious, red and white) need to forge a common ethic. But in truth, Russia already
has such an ethic, one that unifies all the disparate phases in its often tragic and
contradictory history. Consciously playing off of Weber, Schipkov refers to Russia's
"[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ." In a fascinating essay on
this same subject, Schipkov makes clear that his concept of solidarity owes much to the
writings of the early 20th century German philosopher Max Scheler, who likewise had such a big
impact on the thought of Pope John Paul II.
Though the Russian Church continues to play a defining role in the ethical formation of the
nation -- no other pre-1917 institution, after all, still exists -- over time it will be
replaced by other institutions, according to Schipkov. Like the Catholic Church, the
Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes
out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity.
Creative Conservatism
Because it tends to evoke the disastrous social and economic effects of "liberalisation"
during the 1990s, the term "liberal" has become something of a swear word in today's Russia.
But what, exactly, does this much reviled "liberalism" consist in? In my own presentation
(English translation forthcoming at SolidarityHall.org ) I suggested that Russians need to define
liberalism -- and conservatism -- more carefully, while distinguishing both from their
ideological perversions.
To his credit, Oleg Matveichev has taken the trouble to craft a precise definition of the
liberal doctrine of human nature in terms worthy of a Pierre Manent ( The City of Man
). According to Matveichev, liberalism reconceives the very essence of man as freedom,
self-sufficiency, and self-definition. Seen through this liberal prism, the goal of our
existence becomes self-emancipation from the chains of the past and the dead weight of
tradition.
Having redefined the meaning of history, Matveichev continues, the "liberals" then set about
condemning those who would thwart its "progress," dismissing them as "conservatives" and
"reactionaries." Is it not time, Matveichev asks, to throw off the chains of this label
invented for us by our adversaries? Why define ourselves as mere "conservatives"? Why not
creatively reimagine an alternative 'meaning of history" ourselves?
Can conservatism be "creative?" And if so, how? Mikhail Remizov, president of the National
Strategy Institute, answered, in effect, "how can it be anything else?" Critics on the left
sometimes attack conservatism by saying, that conservatives do not preserve tradition, they
invent it. Remizov dismisses the implied insult, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of
how traditions work: (re)invention " is the normal, creative approach to tradition." Remizov
agrees with Hans-Georg Gadamer that sharply contrasting tradition and modernity is a silly and
flat-footed way of looking at tradition, because the latter is always in any case a complex
creative task of making adjustments and dialectical zig-zags. Such an understanding of culture
and tradition as creativity fits, of course, quite nicely with the philosophy of
Nicholas Berdyaev. It is hard to think of another thinker for whom creativity plays a more
central role.
Alexei Kozyrev, associate dean of the philosophy department at Moscow State University,
illustrated the same creative conservative principle when he spoke of the Russian Orthodox
Church's Social Concept. The task of modern man, according to that document, is to find
creative ways to retrieve the thought of the Church Fathers, for example that of Gregory of
Nyssa, who counseled demonstrating our human dignity "not by domination of the natural world
but by caring for and preserving it." The Social Concept likewise calls for defending the
dignity of the unborn embryo and of the mentally ill. Here, in an unexpected twist, the Western
environmental movement meets the pro-Life movement, challenging perhaps our own ideological
boundaries.
... ...
Dialogue with Russia?
Lesley Chamberlain claimed that Russia is not a puzzle. In fact that is precisely what it
is. As should be clear even from the above very partial survey, Russian conservatism, like
Russia itself, embraces a contradictory collection of flaws and virtues. Both the flaws and the
virtues are large.
Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than
it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference
demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for
their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United
States.
For Western liberals, it is tempting to present Russian conservatism as always intrinsically
dangerous. But I believe the loss is ours. Russian conservatism -- or at any rate important
elements of it -- contains something potentially valuable to the West as it seeks to forge a
strategy for dealing with the growing disorder in the world. What justifies engagement with
Russia is before all else its ability to contribute to solving the problem that all of us face:
how to devise a softer version of western modernity, one which allows for the preservation of
tradition while simultaneously retaining what is most valuable in the liberal
tradition.
The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr.
Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft.
Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on
political-philosophical issues.
The presumption amongst Russian conservatives is not that Russia is perfect as it is but
that Russia's foundational values are good. This is something they have in common with
American conservatives, British Conservatives like Peter Hitchens, and probably most
conservatives in most societies. They would also lament their social ills.
I am not going to accuse you of not having read the article, but that comment of yours
could easily have been made by someone who simply read the title and jumped to the comments
section.
The author's point on free speech is an important one – there is a lot of very deep and
open discussion in Russia at the moment about the country's direction (including even
television debates with ten times the intellectual content of what we find in the States).
Putinism is not a clear ideological system, and for the most part there is no official
orthodoxy being pressed on scholars or the public, many currents exist. Most of the major
viable currents, as this article suggests, are variants of conservatism; Western-style
liberal democracy has (at the moment) lost nearly all it's appeal to the intelligentsia and
the average person alike.
Re: Jon F's comment – unfortunately, in my view he is right. We shouldn't believe
that Russia is a place of thriving family values simply because they say it more often and
louder. Statistics are not the best way to see this – I personally believe (from
experience in the capital and the provinces) that if Russians divorce less, they cheat more.
If they have fewer abortions, they have more children born into undesirable childhoods.
Russian conservatism does have its virtues and the country must to admire, but respect for
women and children are far from a given.
The tendency to see Russia in black/white only, with a pre-imposed bias is no different than
the tendency to see the US (and sometimes the west) and its values in similar manichean
perspectives. Adding depth and colour to the other takes work, and especially the willingness
to empathise, even for a little while, in order to gain more understanding, before employing
a critical eye. And from this perspective I think the article does a good job.
W. Burns: I don't recall that specific issue raised at the conference, but the Revolution and
subsequent experience is much debated, including in other writings by the participants, e.g.
by Shchipkov (his preferred spelling btw, not my Schipkov), whose take is much like that of
Berdyaev: the communist experience is in partial continuity with aspects of Russia's
tradition, e.g. of economic 'fairness' (equalizing plots on the peasant commune, etc.) and
privileging the group over the individual. I started with the analysis by L. Chamberlain in
part because her wide lens-perspective helps make sense of that experience.
David Naas and Cornel Lencar: I wish there were more who shared your perspective. Thanks.
Regarding Russian values vs. practice, aspirations vs. real-world problems. Who among us is
without sin? Is U.S. practice so pristine that we should disdain talking to the Russian side?
That is the material point.
Since the conference I have continued reading the work of these (and other conference)
attendees meant for a Russian audience. They are very, very far from smug about their
internal problems; quite the contrary.
Dave P.: As far as I know, the conference Proceedings so far are only in Russian, but there
are pretty detailed English-language abstracts. Try contacting ISEPR (their site, ISEPR.ru,
also has an English-language version).
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly
unstable, Donald Trump?
Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully,
the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.
Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your
facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.
It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as
much despicable behavior and murder as the next.
Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were
parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just
a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training
in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into
the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.
The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army
and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told
the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number)
into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.
Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.
It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative
forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.
A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform
and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise
it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through
the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.
The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing
god knows what and dropped from a great height.
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"
The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive
amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!
It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases,
it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though
a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and
founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over
$40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable
to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us
to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all
you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."
The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue
signalling where there is none.
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried
out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you
equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the
Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well
documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?
Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities
overrun...
Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one
of Bomber Harris?
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators
after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support
for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.
Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into
a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS
terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than
to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?
Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?
Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern
Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the
Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western
intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people...
blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the
ground.
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the
full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest
incidence of liver cancer on the planet.
Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce
Assad.
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war
for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.
So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw
of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is
being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.
But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction
on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.
"... I think the most amazing thing to come from this is that nobody believes politicians or the papers say, listen to any phone in radio show or read the comments below articles, nobody believes the government or msm. I wouldn't go to war for these fuckers. ..."
"... The media proclaimed the overthrow of the Mosadegh government in Iran as 'popular', the overthrow of Allende in Chile as legitimate, the Gulf of Tonkin affair as real, the WMDs of Iraq as existing, the evil of Qaddafi as intolerable, etc. ..."
"... Money, Oil, Carving Land Territory. ..."
"... Bombing a sovereign country without UN mandate is a war crime. It applies to UK and USA as well. But Brexit obsessed Brits think UK is above the International law. ..."
"... Has anyone asked.. why would Russia allow a chemical weapons attack in Syria only a few weeks after apparently launching a chemical weapons attack in Britain?.. something is not right here. ..."
"... The Putin regime may be nasty..but are they really that thick?? Remember remember 45 minutes to launch...(?) Tony Bliar is haunting me..and I suspect..the entire nation ..."
"... In the 1980s we sided with the jihadists and bin laden in Afghanistan. Which then was repaid with 9/11. Now we are siding with the jihadists in Syria. The blowback will be bigger than 9/11. ..."
"... I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It concludes that the patients on the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical symptoms. No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing difficulties can be observed ..."
Not a supporter of any of the criminal operations that masquerade as governments worldwide, but it's way past the time when
I can believe a word the Western powers utter in their quest to spread their vile economic doctrine.
For me the biggest question now is how best to avoid financing the evil they perpetrate
So the Russian military claimed a month ago that Syrian rebels were planning a chlorine chemical weapon attack somewhere in Syria,
three weeks later a chemical weapon chlorine attack happens in Douma... but the UK government along with all the UK mainstream
media do not question perhaps it's the Jihadi/rebels who staged this attack, they ALL automatically blame Assad? Stinks to high
heaven.
I think the most amazing thing to come from this is that nobody believes politicians or the papers say, listen to any phone
in radio show or read the comments below articles, nobody believes the government or msm. I wouldn't go to war for these
fuckers.
The media proclaimed the overthrow of the Mosadegh government in Iran as 'popular', the overthrow of Allende in Chile as
legitimate, the Gulf of Tonkin affair as real, the WMDs of Iraq as existing, the evil of Qaddafi as intolerable, etc.
So, why is the media surprised when people lack trust in them about Syria?
Everywhere on the web the vast majority are vehemently opposed to military involvement .
Yet we have a PM and at least 300 MPs
champing at the bit to get involved in military conflict that could obliterate these islands in a few minutes.
We are not under threat there might not have been a chemical attack and if there was we have no idea who the perpetrators were
but it almost certainly was not Assad he had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Trump announced he wanted the US out of Syria a couple of weeks ago not good news for the military industrial complex.
There is significant evidence that through the internet and social media the population are no longer fooled by the false flag
operations of the deep state.
We in the U.K. have a significant problem who is a threat to all of us and that is the PM she was exposed during the election
and over Brexit this must be the end it is totally unacceptable that we could get involved in an attack on another sovereign state
who are no threat to us on the say so of a small number of MPs in a minority Government.
The duty of the Government is to protect its citizens not put their lives at risk to engratatiate themselves to a Foreign Power
with a deranged egomaniac as it's President
Assad's not your puppy. Mohammed Bin Salman is. BAE re-arms his jets between crop-burning sorties in Yemen. When you've stopped
the Saudi starvation and brutalization of Yemen -which you can because your gavernment facilitates it - come back and we'll talk
about Syria. Until then we'll assume that your lachrimose offerings on gassed babies is propaganda. And that's because it is.
Tehran has churches and synagogues all over the city. Riyadh does not. Religious tolerance is better than religious intolerance,
IMO.
I don't have a problem with anyone talking to anyone about anything, as long as Britain hasn't declared war on the country they
are talking to.
If its down to believing Assad and common sense over Trust me Theresa and her unwillingness to refer the matter to Parliament
and democracy ... then its Assad and common sense every time ... he may be a dictator but he's no idiot
What makes chemical weapons so much worse than any others? If we go into military action over this we will kill people but we
won't use chemical weapons. Will that be alright then?
Some think this is about oil and a pipeline going through the Middle East states and if it goes through the heart of Syria then
Russia and Syria of control of the oil flow going into Europe.
Any involvement Iran has in the region good or bad is at least understandable , it's their neighborhood and they were invited
. It is more difficult to understand the presence or involvement of Britain or America or France or that other country we are
not allowed to talk about.
What many people do not fully realize is that no leader, no matter how harsh or strong would have been able to survive the destruction
that has overtaken Syria if he was considered responsible for it. His own people and armed forces would have thrown him out if
he did not have their support.
" And yet what was originally billed as a discrete military action to prevent an impending civilian slaughter in Benghazi escalated
into a bombardment that led to regime change and mayhem. '
No , Johnathan , it was planned .. see the PNAC etc ...
Why the obsession with Corbyn? He's the leader of the opposition. He's not the one clamorouring to send Britain to war on an extremely
dodgy pretext.
But if you're going with that line of argument, why not send all the hacks cheerleading for war to do some 'behind the front
lines' reportage with the Army of Islam? Always good to see things from different perspectives, though they might not survive
to tell the tale.
Bombing a sovereign country without UN mandate is a war crime. It applies to UK and USA as well. But Brexit obsessed Brits
think UK is above the International law.
She knows many of her own party won't back her and the DUP voted against bombing Syria last time. Where's the millions it's going
to cost coming from when we can't afford to give school kids a free dinner or pay for the NHS?
I really struggle to see to understand the argument for military action in Syria.
Firstly every time we intervene militarily we stuff it up and make matters ten times worse.
Gulf War 1 - left Sadam in power, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, pushed Sadam into being a major sponsor of anti Weatern
terrorism and then the Kurds were abandoned to Sadam at the end of the war and massacred.
Afghanistan - what the hell was that about? Trillions spent and it descended into Islamist anarchy within 5 minutes of
us keaving.
Gulf War 2 - set the Middle East on fire, total disintegration of Iraq, the death of millions of Iraqis and the rise of
ISIS.
Libya - failed state, massive refugee crisis.
But even if you assume that for once we can act militarily in a way that doesn't make the situation worse - what is it that
we are trying to achieve?
Assad has won. The opposition has been killed or expelled from the country and the resistance is down to a few villages which
are being mopped up.
The time for a military response was 7 years ago - it is an absolutely pointless waste of time now - unless the point is just
to make us feel better about ourselves by "doing something".
Has anyone asked.. why would Russia allow a chemical weapons attack in Syria only a few weeks after apparently launching
a chemical weapons attack in Britain?.. something is not right here.
The Putin regime may be nasty..but are they really that thick?? Remember remember 45 minutes to launch...(?) Tony Bliar
is haunting me..and I suspect..the entire nation
In the 1980s we sided with the jihadists and bin laden in Afghanistan. Which then was repaid with 9/11. Now we are siding
with the jihadists in Syria. The blowback will be bigger than 9/11.
You either don't get it Jonathan, or you bury your head in the sand. WHO do you want to get rid of first: the head chopping thugs
or someone else you can deal with later? This is not about who is the most desirable but who is for the time being the least worst?
For a start you are ASSUMING that the now completely unproven "evidence" about chemical attacks is a given. IT IS NOT.
Almost every single point you make is based upon speculation, mainstream media assumptions or downright lies. Wake up please.
For goodness sake why doesn't your newspaper have a single journalist who actually knows what is really going on in Syria?
It is hard to be pro interventionist after the epical f up in Iraq and Libya, but it seems to me that Assad should and must get
a hard punishment. Assad should not have WMDs since those weapons were handed over to be destroyed in Russia in 2014. Russia is
a guarantor of this deal. Yet, Assad has and continues to use WMDs in the presence and I believe advice from the Russian military.
As for the military intervention itself I think Israeli's deep incursions in Syria and the bombing of military bases also used
by Russian military have provided a lot of information about the capabilities and limitations of the Russian military technology
deployed in Syria.
I couldn't find the paragraph which directly blames Assad's forces.
I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It concludes that the patients on
the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical symptoms. No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing
difficulties can be observed ....
What Freedland and others are advocating is illegal. They have no moral or legal
authority.
For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion, attacking a foreign country without legal
basis under international law represents the "supreme international crime". The launching
of an "aggressive war" is the "supreme crime" because it is the overarching offense which
contains within itself "the accumulated evil of the whole" (e.g. rape, torture, murder,
mass murder, ethnic cleansing, etc).
People were tried, convicted and hung at Nuremberg for the crime of waging wars of
aggression (as well as crimes against humanity).
Regardless of how unpalatable we may find it, even the verified use of chemical weapons
-be they by state or non-state actors - is not a legal basis to attack a country, any
country.
As Phyllis Bennis, Fellow and Director of the New Internationalism Project at the
Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., clearly explained (following the last
alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, and subsequent military strike on
the Syrian air base ordered by President Trump):
"The UN Charter is very vague about a lot of things, but it's very clear about one
thing, and that is, when is it legal to go to war? When is it legal to use a military
strike? There's only two occasions according to the UN Charter The UN Charter says, "A
country can use military force under two circumstances: Number one, if the Security Council
authorizes it." Number two, Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is about self-defence. But
it's a very narrowly constrained version of self-defence It says very explicitly, "If a
country has been attacked." "until the Security Council can meet, immediate self-defence is
allowed." Neither of those two categories applied here. So, it was clearly an illegal
act."
It looks more and more that everything was staged and everything was controlled by Western
intelligence agencies with the specific goal.
Notable quotes:
"... That kind of reminds me of when Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress were explaining how to get rid of Saddam without plunging Iraq into mayhem and destabilising the wider region. ..."
"... If the price of selling arms to Saudi Arabia is having to stage nerve agent attacks in the UK and in Syria, one has to ask: Is it really worth it? ..."
Read Robert Fisk in the Independent. He, as always, has nailed it. The Brits and the US have
no authority to take action with their past record of use of Chemical and Atomic weapons.
The Syrian Negotiation Commission has called for action to deter Assad from killing
civilians. What they envisage is that each time Assad launches a deadly attack on
noncombatants, allied forces reply by taking out one of the strategic assets he uses to
kill civilians. It could be an airfield, it could be a command centre. If the target were
aircraft, that would simultaneously inflict a cost on the regime and deprive it of the
means of dropping its barrel bombs and toxic, yellow cylinders. The objective would be to
make Assad pay a price for killing his own people, a price he has not paid until now.
Eventually, or so runs the hope, he would be deterred.
That kind of reminds me of when Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress were
explaining how to get rid of Saddam without plunging Iraq into mayhem and destabilising the
wider region.
The UK andcFrance bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true poltical dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Sacrificing women and children to achieve nefarious goals such as preparing the ground for
invasion dictated by economic or geopolitical interests is a typical Western intelligence agencies
plot.
The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as Assad kills and kills and kills,
racking up a death toll in Syria of 500,000
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes
segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have
died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth
it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it."'
Sure, here's the UN OPCW investigation report which directly blames the Assad forces for
chemical attacks. Take as much time as you need.
https://undocs.org/S/2016/738
I couldn't find the paragraph which directly blames Assad's forces.
I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It
concludes that the patients on the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical
symptoms.
No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing difficulties can be
observed from the footage. The patients interviewed in the video show little or no signs of
having been exposed to a toxic chemical".
"Charities"? Lol. I'll bet money nearly all of those 'charities' are actually PR fronts for
thuggish Islamist rebels.
A bit like how all the Syrians the Guardian manages to reach for 'skype interviews' are
positively desperate for massive aeriel bombardment of their own country, chastising the west
for not supplying the bearded types with anti-aircraft missiles and even suggesting targets
for American bombs.
I have recently taught two Syrian professionals. Of course Assad is evil, but they tell me
that some of the rebel militias are much more brutal and intolerant than Assad and if they
win Syria will go the way of Libya.
They also told me (which shocked me somewhat) that the
White Helmets tend to be hard line Islamists and send out propaganda videos which Western
media fail to question thoroughly.
Angela Merkel is not stupid - things are way worth than that.
She's got a PhD in physical chemistry, and what's rather mind-boggling in that context is the
fact that her husband Joachim Sauer is a professor of chemistry and one of the worlds
foremost experts in surface chemistry.
In the 2000s this guy was in the top 30 list of the worlds most extinguished chemists - let
that sink in for a second.
The couple Merkel/Sauer knows exactly how to evaluate that so-called evidence, yet... - as I
said the situation is way worse as generally anticipated.
"... Sky News cuts of British General. https://southfront.org/sky-news-cuts-off-former-british-general-while-he-questiones-douma-chemical-attack / ..."
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
(@lloyd_rm)
It is worth noting that the British Government approved exports of dual use precursors for
chemical weapons including sarin to Syria between 2004 and 2012, after the civil war began
and after Assad was accused of using gas. CAEC report (2015): pic.twitter.com/TsvthAcZRR
April 13, 2018
Further down his thread is a tweet where someone has a screen-grab of a Mail Online story
from 2013. It talks about leaked information about clearance given by the US Government for a
British security company to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria in order to provide a
pretext for bombing.
I have no idea whether this is true or whether it was genuinely from Mail Online, perhaps
someone with more know-how than me could find out.
At first, I laughed at the Russian suggestion that the attack on Douma had been staged.
Now I'm not so sure.
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
Russia has transferred forty Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to Syria' Air Defence.
This is the latest air defence technology (the system is in service since 2012) - a combined
short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system
against aircrafts, helicopters, precision munitions, cruise missiles and UAVs.
You face the same the liars with the sexed up dossier who went on to murder hundreds of
thousands in Iraq and Libya. This is all too reminiscent of previous interventions
Consider WW1, Suez, Iran 1953, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen and every other western
militarily intervention in the ME - whether directly or by proxy - and identify one that hasn't
just caused more instability, death, violence and displacement than there was already?
e are caught between a rock, in the form of the recklessness of Donald Trump, and a hard
place, shaped by the cruelty of Bashar al-Assad. This is the choice that now confronts citizens
and their representatives in Britain, France and the US. The reasons to resist signing up for
any project led by Trump should be obvious, with the newly published testimony of James Comey,
the FBI director he fired, providing a fresh reminder.
Trump is a congenital liar who is devoid of empathy, a narcissist with a nihilist's view of
the world. These are not mere character defects; they have a bearing on the decisions the de
facto leader of any action in Syria would take. Among the reasons I opposed the 2003 invasion
of Iraq was my fundamental distrust of George W Bush and his circle, especially on the matter
of motive. Trump, with his tweeted mood swings – first, vowing to withdraw from Syria
altogether, then threatening an imminent missile bombardment, then signalling a delay –
makes Bush look like a statesman.
But even if a moral paragon were sitting in the Oval Office, there would be grounds for
restraint. The record of past western military interventions in the Middle East is bloody and
shaming, as the peoples of both Iraq and Libya can testify. Barack Obama, no gung-ho cowboy,
was the commander-in-chief in the latter case. And yet what was originally billed as a discrete
military action to prevent an impending civilian slaughter in Benghazi escalated into a
bombardment that led to regime change and mayhem. It stands as a textbook illustration of
western bombs' ability to make a bad situation worse.
It's clear now that although Assad has 'won' the war a status quo of him ruling a
predominately Sunni country can't be returned to. He seeks to terrorise and punish the
Syrian people under the protection of Russia and Iran.
Even though the army which has made such huge sacrifices for the Syrian state is about 70%
Sunni?
The US and her allies have to intervene, otherwise the rule of international law is
worthless.
Why? Even if your premise above were true, which it isn't, why is it our job to intervene
in every country with an imperfect system? Or are you proposing we bomb every Middle Eastern
country where people are privileged and granted citizenship merely on account of their
religion?
I love these guys who won't do their own research. Why not? Axe to grind? This is just one
example from 2013. There's more but I'm too busy to look up public shit for you.
Spot on look what happened to Sadaam after he switched to the Euro for Iraq oil sales.
Ghaddafi had similar plans.
Without reserve currency status and petrodollar with US economy will collapse under the $21T
dollar debt.
Russia and China have recently agreed a bilateral trade agreement which cuts out the
dollar.
The US cannot permit this ...as always follow the money.
Some people murder others for political and ideological reasons the military industrial
complex starts wars and conflicts ,murdering millions for profit....evil personified
Could this whole drama be because China and Russia are ditching the petrodollar?
I watched the video of the attack and it looks fake to me.. those children are not crying
because of chlorine.. they have their eyes wide open..first thing you do when you have
chlorine in your eyes is touch your face and close your eyes..whole thing looks dodge..just
my opinion. Those children are wide eyed and looking at the camera..something you wouldn't do
if you'd just been gassed.
"... The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument, particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power" argument, I do not know. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favor of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be coincidence. ..."
"... The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid, fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza. ..."
"... Hence the destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated "crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way. ..."
I'm going to post a comment by another user posted yesterday as he said it far more
eloquently than I could
R Reddington InterestedReader2 1d ago
Your just another armchair warrior.
So you think going to war is a good idea well you first then and don't forget your flack
jacket and rifle.
The media onslaught has moved past the attack in Salisbury by a "weapon of mass
destruction" (quoting Theresa May) which could only be Russian, except that was untrue, and
was extremely deadly, except that was untrue too. It now focuses on an attack by chemical
weapons in Douma which "could only be" by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is
no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is
non-existent. The combination of the two events is supposed to have the British population
revved up by jingoism, and indeed does have Tony Blair and assorted Tories revved up, to
attack Syria and potentially to enter conflict with Russia in Syria.
The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument,
particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to
negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power"
argument, I do not know.
Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their
attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favor of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom
Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by
extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London
this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be
coincidence.
I am not a fan of Assad any more than I was a fan of Saddam Hussein. But the public now
understand that wars for regime change in Muslim lands have disastrous effects in dead and
maimed adults and children and in destroyed infrastructure; our attacks unleash huge
refugee waves and directly cause terrorist attacks here at home. There is no purpose in a
military attack on Syria other than to attempt to help the jihadists overthrow Assad. There
is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more
the evidence is scrutinised, the dodgier it seems. Finally there is a massive difference
between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply sceptical public, as
shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.
The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither
investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security
Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the
many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid,
fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security
council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was
only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and
those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons,
they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to
give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the
destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the
massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated
"crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four
horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way.
Orwell certainly chose his words well when he called the UK 'Airstrip One' in his book 1984.
The UK government, the US neocons yapping little poodle. All cheered on by our always on
message main stream media.
We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels"
in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside
Syria
So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA
and MI6.
I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to
face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.
Syria is surrounded by wealthy gulf countries, many of whom frequently buy weapons from the
US and UK. They have the money, the firepower, and the space to not only house fleeing
refugees, but also bomb Assad back to the stone age. They haven't, because they lack
testicular fortitude and are always looking west for solutions.
The US, UK and France act like they own the world. Iran vs Iraq, the creation of Israel, and
Saudi Arabia, Sykes-Picot - western countries played a major part in all of this. In the
absence of evidence, it's about time we kept out of it.
Now listening to RT reminds me BBC and Voice of America listeing in the USSR ;-) You
definitly bacomes a dissident for doing that.
Notable quotes:
"... I watched RT for the first time last night and it was interesting. ..."
"... But right now its like we are being ruled by lunatics. It is absolutely sickening. Quite literally some moron in the White House is tweeting, 'My bombs are bigger than yours' and 'The missiles are coming.' ..."
I watched RT for the first time last night and it was interesting.
But right now its like we are being ruled by lunatics. It is absolutely sickening.
Quite literally some moron in the White House is tweeting, 'My bombs are bigger than yours'
and 'The missiles are coming.'
And they still let him in rule one of the most powerful countries on the Earth with a vast
mass of WMD and Theresa May is trying reason with a fucking moron. Hey Guardian if Trump is
talking like this my swearing is the least of our problems, so please don't moderate. We need
someone to Moderate the madmen.
As I've said , I consider the term 'putinbot' - infantile and indicative of a lack of logical
argumentation as it is - as a compliment, since it appears to be code for those who retain
the ability to think for themselves and not fall glumly for the latest official line.
since the OPCW proved it was Putin who tried to murder British civilians with nerve
agents.
Actually, they proved no such thing, but in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
I'd never really watched much RT news, but intersting to see their extensive coverage of
their diplomats who, despite not speaking English as native, can conduct hours of press
conference in a civil and diplomatic fashion.
May weeping for the innocents of Syria as she signs off on a conveyor belt of bombs to be
dropped on innocents in Yemen. She's being raised up by the British media alongside Blair and
Cameron as one of the greatest humanitarian of modern times.
"Remarkable how Saddam Hussein gassing Iranian troops by the thousand, while world powers
helped him do it and covered for him at the UN is treated as a minor exception to non-use of
chemical"
He also used poison gas to kill thousands of his own Kurdish civilians, the Reagan
administration was in many ways a moral cesspit. They knew exactly what he was doing. A
spokesman said the Iranians - who never used Chemical Weapons on principle - used the poison
gas, on Iraqi Kurds. I think Reagan never really understood this, that is my assessment of
his character, he saw what reality he wanted to see, but nothing else.
" Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than 400,000 have died
since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction, too, can be
deadly"
And how many died after the war was "won" in Iraq. And how many would have died trying to
remove assad. Toppling assad would almost certainly not have brought peace. Your analysis is
simplistic and blinkered and definately doesn't contain any proof of anything. Sometimes
there's just not a solution. The current proposed bombing campaign smacks of
somethingmustbedoneism. Those responsible for the gas attacks must face justice. But it might
have to be further down the line.
A classified U.S. State Department cable signed by Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton reported that Saudi donors
were a major support for Sunni militant
forces globally, and some American officials worried that rebels being supported had ties to
Al Qaeda.[14]
Notable quotes:
"... Read more at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore ..."
Timber Sycamore 20/04/2018 Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and
training program run by the United StatesCentral Intelligence Agency
(CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services, most notably that of Saudi Arabia . Launched in
2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian
President Bashar
al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War . According to U.S.
officials, the program has trained thousands of rebels. President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to
begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013. [3] However,
the CIA had been facilitating the flow of arms from Libya to Syria "for more than a year" beforehand in
collaboration with "the UK ( United Kingdom ), Saudi Arabia and
Qatar ."
The program's existence was suspected after the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website
publicly solicited contract bids to ship tons of weaponry from Eastern Europe to Taşucu , Turkey and
Aqaba , Jordan. One
unintended consequence of the program has been to flood the Middle East's black market with
weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The U.S. delivered
weapons via Ramstein – supposedly in breach
of German laws.
In July 2017, U.S. officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out, with funds
possibly redirected to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL), or to offering rebel forces defensive capabilities.
... ... ...
According to American officials, the program has been highly effective, training and equipping thousands of U.S.-backed
fighters to make substantial battlefield gains.[2][19]
American officials state that the program began to lose effectiveness after
Russia intervened militarily in the
Syrian Civil War.[19]David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post, remarked
that while the CIA program ultimately failed in its objective of removing Assad from power, it was hardly "bootless": "The
program pumped many hundreds of millions of dollars to many dozens of militia groups. One knowledgeable official estimates that
the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years."[8]
... ... ...
U.S.-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's
al-Nusra Front, and some of the U.S.
supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when
the program was first proposed.[10]
... ... ...
The program remains classified,[14][10]
and many details about the program remain unknown, including the total amount of support, the range of weapons transferred, the
depth of training provided, the types of U.S. trainers involved, and the exact rebel groups being supported.[18]
However, The Canberra Times
reported that two thousand tons of Soviet era weapons were delivered to Aqaba as recently as April 2016.
We're now in a strange position where the media is actually behind the government. May is
doubtful about bombing because she's a politician and so has to constantly monitor her
popularity, but the only people left still writing in 'newspapers' are still programmed to
want war and bombing because it always used to sell.
The UN duly investigated and in October concluded unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas.
You omitted to mention that the same report also concludes that ISIL deployed Sulphur
Mustard, isn't this the same gas that France claims to have evidence regarding the recent
incident?
Besides, how much evidence do we need? Even before Douma, Assad's use of chemical
weapons had been documented seven times this year alone.
The link you provided to back-up this claim contains no substantiative evidence to
attribute those incidents to Assad.
Clearly both sides in this conflict appear to have used chemical weapons, making
assumptions or false accusations of blame at this stage is incredibly dangerous. I'm in total
agreement with Jeremy Corbyn, we need a solid investigation on which the international
community can act. Any potential escalation of this awful conflict must be avoided at all
costs, particularly when it involves a nuclear armed superstate, considering the on-going
humaitarian crisis in Syria and how it has already affected the world. Furthermore we must
not allow a cabinet of a minority government to make any final decisions on the UK
involvement in further militrary action, our elected representatives MUST be allowed
to debate and decide a course of action, otherwise our democracy is in a far worse state than
I could have possibly imagined.
Theresa May leads a minority government propped up by an unlawful bung to a right wing
extremist group. May, her Cabinet of half wits and her self serving party have a mandate for
sweet FA, and that includes killing people in our name.
There is massive, overwhelming opposition in the UK to May's attempt to join Trump &
Macron in bombing Syria and to by-passing our democratic parliament, but who would have
thought it?
The media are generally presenting Theresa May with a free ride to cause death and
destruction on a massive scale. Claiming she's joining an international coalition (even
though it consists of only 2 other countries) and having the backing of the Cabinet and
therefore possessing the authority to go to war.
The reality is that she's virtually politically isolated and working in defiance of the
British people. Labour - and most other opposition parties, including the Lib Dems, SNP,
Plaid, and the Greens are totally against military intervention and calling for a full,
democratic debate in Parliament.
Then the Conservative Party itself is bitterly divided over the issue.
And only 22% of British people would support the war effort, according to a poll in the
Times.
The timing is being forced by Donald Trump and the US, so where's the substance in the
Conservative claim that they're 'taking back control'?
And then any intervention is likely to cost billions, so what about The Deficit? And what
about that magic money tree?
Moreover, the Government maintain we cannot allow such inhumanity in Syria to go
unchallenged. So where is the outcry at defenceless citizens being killed in Gaza? And in
Yemen? And in Saudi Arabia? What accounts for the blatant double standards? What are they not
telling us?
And why does the British Goverment justicfy selling all these lethal and inhumance weapons
to these countries in the first place?
Where is the media reminding the Government of what happened in Iraq, in Libya and in
Afghanistan?, whenever we intervened?
Where is the media remembering the findings of the Chilcott Report?
If this was Labour nationalising the railways or expropriating land in an emergency bill
to launch a massive house-building programme, the BBC and mass media would quote every
adversary and critic they could muster and express total outrage at any attempt to by-pass
Parliament.
The Syrian conflict is a hugely complex quagmire and we enter it at our peril. We need a
much more objective Press to scrutinise Government policy, before this lunacy unravels and
triggers a seriously calamitous hot war between the Superpowers, from which we'd all be
losers.
Jeremy Corbyn is often mocked and scorned by the media for his measured reactions, but his
call for the UK to use its influence to defuse tensions makes him one of the only responsible
and mature political leaders around right now!!
The government and the BBC have been using the words "suspected chemical attack" in Syria and
that Russia is "highly likely" to be responsible for the Salisbury affair.
Now if that isn't official doubt I don't know what is.
Still May happy to drop bombs on this basis without parliamentary approval (if Donald says
so that is)!
This is pathetic. The mouthpieces of the British government (Guardian and BBC) have spent the
last week on a steady pendulum of demanding war, shitting themselves, then when the rhetoric
calms down a bit, demanding war again. The U.K., its security agencies and its house-trained
media are destabilising the world.
"... How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know, might just be incredibly effective ..."
"... Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure, but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years? ..."
"... For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an end ..."
"... Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical reasons. ..."
Here's an idea Jonathan for another solution. How about some basic honesty about the role
the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled
by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know,
might just be incredibly effective
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why not? We're watching Israelis shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians, we're
watching our favourite Saudis bomb and kill Yemeni civilians, we're watching our
Nobel-winning inspirational Myanmar leader oversee the persecution, massacre and forced
displacement of an entire people, we're watching the North Korean leader oppress and starve
his people while stepping closer to a nuclear war against a currently volatile superpower,
we're watching the Philipino head of state launching a literal war against low-level drug
dealers and junkies, we're watching several central Asian dictators imprison and torture
dissidents and oppress their people while robbing them of their national wealth, we're
watching the Chinese and Russian leaders do pretty much the same, we're watching the Turkish
leader kidnap dissidents from EU countries, imprison thousands of alleged dissidents and
invade a neighbouring country to fight against part of said countries' inhabitants, we're
watching corrupt politicians, media and judges completing the final touches of a coup in the
fifth largest country in the world, and then there's Africa, which is a whole other chapter.
What specifically is it about Syria that made you decide that yeah, all these things are
pretty bad, but that's the one thing we really have to do something about?
Perhaps that was why, five years ago, the House of Commons voted to leave the Assad
regime untouched. Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than
400,000 have died since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction,
too, can be deadly.
Inaction? Really? Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided
financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure,
but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the
atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years?
For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an
end. Israel has to comply with UN resolutions and the US has to stop using its veto to block
those resolutions that seek to make Israel comply to international standards of acceptable
behaviour.
If we can't do that we can forget getting Assad or Putin or anyone else to respect
anything we have to say. As it stands the so called West has no moral authority in the Middle
East.
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why is this supposed slaughter such an imperative when we seem to approve of and even
profit from selling weapons to slaughters elsewhere in the region
Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda
of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical
reasons.
"... Conveniently missing from this short history of Syria: That the US was actually heavily involved using the CIA in getting rid of Assad. Had that not been the case, perhaps there would have been no prolonged civil war. ..."
"... Oh, I know challenging the holy West and its exceptional leading nation is verboten nowadays, but can we at least be honest about what is really going on today? Syria is being punished for not joining the coalition of the willing in 2003 by being subjected to the same illegal war by false claim as Iraq was then. ..."
Conveniently missing from this short history of Syria:
That the US was actually heavily involved using the CIA in getting rid of Assad. Had that
not been the case, perhaps there would have been no prolonged civil war.
It would be just another dictator, the likes of which can be found all over the world
without columnists noticing it.
Strangely though, all that is deplored is that the US didn't do even more. That they
didn't also do a full blown invasion.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in
America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a
Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
Pay for what? Be President of a country marked out for regime change by the West and
successfully managing to fight off the West's proxy armies of terrorists over seven years in
defence of that country?
Oh, I know challenging the holy West and its exceptional leading
nation is verboten nowadays, but can we at least be honest about what is really going on
today? Syria is being punished for not joining the coalition of the willing in 2003 by being
subjected to the same illegal war by false claim as Iraq was then.
Assad has always acted in this like any other authoritarian government anywhere in the Middle
East would, fighting a civil war. Israel is just as ruthless when facing a threat to its
authority.
This mess was financed, planned, egged on and armed by the U.S., it's junior partners and
its clients in Turkey and the Gulf. And it goes back years before the rebellion against
Assad. The Wahabbi rebels have been given billions in cash, arms and training, funneled
through Turkey and the Gulf states.
Now we have Washington, London and Paris shrieking outrage and promising revenge against a
strongman they unleashed as the result of yet another regime change adventure. And then
there's the incredible hypocrisy and cynicism of using Al-Qaeda affiliated actors to do
it.
Assad's wartime iteration, like ISIS, is the result of American greed, ambition, pride and
the old imperialist bent for aggression as a way of imposing its geopolitical will.
Watch the Unbearable video gain. The children are no foaming at the mouth, their colouration
is not cyanotic, they do not appear to be in respiratory distress. The premise of the
argument is not based on fact. These children are not the casualties of a gas attack. GROW UP
and recognize the propaganda.
The article takes a self-righteous moral high ground while calling for some vague affair of
violence. I can't help but notice that these articles by people who pretend to be moderates
and centrists have a habit of turning reality and morality on their head. It's dangerous and
very Orwellian stuff.
The question that I struggle to answer is, "Are journalists like this actually duped by
propaganda themselves, or are they knowingly part of the process of dissemination?"
What I do not struggle to see is that they are undoubtedly part of the prevailing
neolib/neocon philosophy which we rapidly need to dismantle.
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly
unstable, Donald Trump?
Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully,
the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.
Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your
facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.
It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as
much despicable behavior and murder as the next.
Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were
parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just
a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training
in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into
the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.
The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army
and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told
the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number)
into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.
Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.
It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative
forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.
A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform
and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise
it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through
the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.
The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing
god knows what and dropped from a great height.
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"
The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive
amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!
It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases,
it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though
a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and
founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over
$40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable
to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us
to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all
you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."
The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue
signalling where there is none.
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried
out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you
equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the
Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well
documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?
Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities
overrun...
Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one
of Bomber Harris?
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators
after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support
for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.
Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into
a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS
terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than
to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?
Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?
Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern
Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the
Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western
intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people...
blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the
ground.
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the
full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest
incidence of liver cancer on the planet.
Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce
Assad.
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war
for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.
So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw
of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is
being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.
But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction
on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.
In another development (probably to run with the Syria script) the UK announces it has a
dossier that proves Russia was experimenting with delivering nerve agents from door handles.
Not as hilarious as breathlessly closing a children's playground near the Skripal's days
after the event for "contamination checks" even though it had been raining in the days in
between (the narrative was presumably the dastardly Russian agents planned to kill a few
innocent kids for good measure).
As usual, our wise men are busy preparing the evidence dossier for this gas attack. Hacking
someone's phone is now evidence of you delivering chemical weapon. I wonder how many doses of
novichok NOTW managed to deliver to its phone hacking victims.
Hope everyone understands that telling lies is not good, and it is especially disgusting when
lies form the basic argument for launching a war or some prolonged military assaults.
Please, compare the articles, this one and those mentioned below, and judge for yourself
whether J. Freedland can be trusted.
1. J. Freedland, about the West: "The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as
Assad kills and kills and kills, And yet that's what we've done".
O. Jones: "The US has been bombing the country and supplying arms to rebels for some time.
Our client states ... have funnelled weapons and billions of dollars into the conflict,
backing extremist groups responsible for multiple atrocities".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/13/attack-syria-disastrous-warmongers-middle-east-unjust
2. J. Freedland: "The taboo on the use of such (chemical) weapons held, with exceptions, for
nearly a century. It meant there was a limit".
For the actual details of such "limit" see:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-syria-war-uk-chemical-weapons-attack-iran-iraq-thatcher-russia-a8300881.html
3. It looks like J. Freedland is sure only Assad "kills and kills and kills" in this civil
war. Does anyone believe this, i.e. that the opposing jihadists have never killed during the
war?
they're quite happy to gloss over the absolutely vile nature of Assad's regime.
Strawman. It's a nasty regime in all sorts of ways but no more so - probably less so -
than many regimes enthusiastically supported and armed by the British government.
If we're talking about culpability, it's worth noting that the rebel groups have become
radicalised over time -
That old fib! This was an Islamist uprising from day one. How does a liberal pro-democracy
type suddenly morph into a bearded Islamist overnight?
And yes, we gave aid to the rebels. Did it prolong the war? Possibly.
Possibly? It didn't prolong the war, it pretty much caused the war.
Should we have done nothing? Possibly yes, but hindsight is always a wonderful thing.
Hindsight eh? So you thought "Yup, let's join in with the Saudis and other Gulf
dictatorships in arming extremist Islamist rebels in a crucial Middle Eastern country.
Nothing could possibly go wrong! That sort of thing has been a roaring success everywhere
it's been tried."
Make Assad pay ?.......pay for what Johnny .... for defending his people from murderous
insurgents who are being constantly ferried into and supplied by hostile countries with the
intent of horrifically slaughtering anyone they can get their claws on in order to initiate a
reign of terror that they hope will weaken the moral of the people and the government?
......Jesus, I don't think I've read such a nastier piece of pure propaganda than this in the
Guardian ever before.
Remarkable how Saddam Hussein gassing Iranian troops by the thousand, while world powers
helped him do it and covered for him at the UN is treated as a minor exception to non-use of
chemical weapons, whereas Assad's is some unprecedented crime.
And let's not pretend that Saddam paid for his use of chemical weapons - the West punished
him for the transgression of threatening Saudi Arabia, nothing more.
In August 2012, as reported by the Times , William Hague writes that discussions are taking
place with the Free Syrian Army:
"This week, on my instructions, my ambassador-level representative to the Syrian
opposition has contacted and is meeting political elements of the Free Syria Army."
"We want to deter those committing war crimes by making it possible for them to be held to
account. We will provide urgent training and equipment to Syrian human rights activists,
including cameras, video recorders and forensic equipment.
The aim is to help them to document human rights violations, identify the military commanders
responsible and gather medical forensic evidence to be used in trials. Britain has already
trained more than 60 Syrian human rights activists to collect information to support criminal
investigations. This new assistance will enable others to do the same."
The Guardian headline on this subject reads: "Syria: UK to give £5m to rebels":
Why are the Guardian and its writers continuing to peddle the lie that the Syrian Government
has been proved to have used chemical munitions? For seven long years now the Syrian people
and their government have had to fight off a jihadi onslaught armed and financed by NATO and
the Gulf autocracies. With help from Russia and Iran, they are winning: they have no need to
use chemical weapons and they know that doing so is to invite intervention on the side of the
Islamist terrorists. The terrorists, by contrast, know that their only chance lies in such
intervention and that convincing the World that the Syrian Government has used chemical
weapons is the best way to bring it about.
It is also obscene for Mr Friedland to ascribe all of the casualties of the Civil War to
the Government while ignoring the terrorist tactic of occupying and defending populated
areas. The Syrian Arab Army is no more responsible for the resulting casualties than were the
pro Western forces for the destruction of Mosul during its liberation from ISIS. I am sick to
the teeth of formerly respectable media like the Guardian and the BBC functioning as
propagandists for jihadi murderers and terrorists, particularly now that doing so is pushing
us towards a very dangerous international conflict.
I watched that idiot Jo Johnson last night going on about how the international community had
banned chemical weapons in 1925 and no one pulled him up on it. Britain developed and
stockpiled chemical weapons all through the 20th Century- the 'greatest' Britain of all time
Churchill regularly argued for their use on 'lesser' races. The US (our allies in this) is
the same US that dumped unbelievable amounts of agent orange on Vietnam at the same time it
bombed a poor undeveloped country 'into the stone age'.
A woman in the audience pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of abhorring Asssad's actions
(quite rightly) but at the same time arming the Saudis to kill more civilians and supporting
the Israeli government (which whilst clearly not in the same league as Assad or the Saudis is
still a major human rights violater). Unsurprisingly she was cut off and the 'left-wing' BBC
moved on and ignored her points
We went into Iraq because Blair warned, in the sternest terms, British cities could be under
imminent attack from Iraqi WMD. How ridiculous do those grave statements, made to a hushed
HoC, look today?
Graun, genuinely bugger off with this drumbeat for war. Seriously, hasn't the current
murderous anarchy in Libya given you pause for thought?
There's no definitive evidence yet available that proves Assad's forces carried out a
chemical attack. Furthermore, whilst it's not inconceivable that he did, it does seem to defy
logic. Why invite Western intervention when you're winning the war? The Syrian opposition had
far more to gain from the deployment of chemical weapons than Assad did.
Assad is a loathsome individual, but he's probably the only thing standing in the way of a
Jihadist Theocracy being established in Syria. To put in bluntly, it's in our interests that
he wins this war. The alternative is worse.
I wish I could say I was shocked by the latest pro war tub thumping by this increasingly
unrecognisable paper. Sadly it's has become all too synonymous with its support for Theresa
May and its attempts to persuade an unwilling public to join the hysteria. Freedland says
that Assad's guilt is beyond doubt; no it isn't. He talks of the effectiveness of bombing in
the Balkan conflict, conveniently ignoring Iraq and Syria. He ignores the obvious incentive
for ISIS or perhaps he would prefer "rebels", to launch an attack in a a desperate attempt to
recover a war they are losing. He ignores the war in Yemen and the murderous regimes around
the world that we seem totally uninterested in putting right. No, Mr Freedland, I and I think
many others are not giving Mrs May her Falklands moment at your behest.
Most baffling is is French president Emmanuele Macron's fierce reaction. There's no other nation which has suffered so much
from terrorist attacks as France. And yet now its president is determined to use his fighter planes as the de facto airforce for
the the jihadi extremists. Macron went even as far as making his statements with the Saudi prince at his side, the leader of a
country which is known for funding the jihadis!
Weird times.
Jay_Q123 -> RudolphS 13 Apr 2018 16:25
Macron just got back from a few days hanging on out with the Saudi Arabian elite, who have
been the most destructive force in the Syrian war and spreads terrorism all over the world
guaranteed to spend tens of billions on French weapons.
Agreed Macron is so proud about the weapons Saudi Arabia bought of him. And strangely enough
Saudi Arabia supports the ISIS head choppers in Syria, I think of a coincidence. And I didn't
mention the gaz pipeline crossing Syria, that if Russia/Assad win, will be beyond the control
of Europeans, a real bummer, given that Russia controls the supply east of Germany. I guess
civilian death, is the only thing in the forefront of the France/UK/US preoccupations.
Surely, they wouldn't condone civilians dying for geo-political reasons?
Yes, I remember Rice, Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld telling the world that they had evidence
that Saddam was hoarding WMD. I'm still waiting to hear what it was. Now M. Macron spouts the
same ambiguous nonsense expecting us to take his word for it.
Trump publicly states that US troops are being withdrawn from Syria. The next thing you
know, Assad is allegedly gassing civilians. That makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it? If
there's a sure-fire way of making sure you're on the wrong end of a bit of American 'shock
and awe,' it's gassing innocents. Assad must have a death wish; or so they'd have us believe.
The more I read about this fiasco, the more I think David Icke is the most rational man on
the planet.
Western neoliberal governments lost the remnants of patina of legitimacy on international
scene and now look like bloodthirsty predators, they always were.
But where is the incontrovertible proof that the regime is in fact responsible for the attack
rather than 'rebel groups' now on the point of final defeat, who'd wish to draw in the major
NATO powers? Why would the regime afford the US, France and UK the pretext to do one thing
that'd undermine Assad's otherwise certain victory? The timing seems odd indeed while Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and Israel act with impunity against minority populations. Each of the latter
has form and interest the destruction of Syria in this proxy war.
The UK thinks it's "highly likely" Assad is to blame for the chemical attack. France says
it has evidence Assad is responsible but won't say what it is. US Secretary of Defence Mattis
believes a chemical attack took place but says there's no evidence. And depending on the day
of the week, Russia believes there was either no chemical attack or if there was then it was
staged by the UK.
And for good measure we appear to be going headlong into war on the basis of all this.
The UN investigations concluded that the chemicals had come from Syrian Army stocks which
there wasn't much doubt about to start with. Where they were less conclusive was the matter
of who had deployed them given the capture of large stocks of munitions by the terrorists
early in the war. On the basis of cui bono? it seems more likely that it was the
terrorist side who sought to provoke Western intervention by staging chemical incidents
rather than the Syrian Government who had little to gain and much to lose from the use of any
kind of WMD.
First Blair holding onto an idiot's shirt tails to attack a Middle Eastern country based
on hearsay and no coherent withdrawal policy. Now we have May and Macron holding the hands of
an even bigger idiot whose populist thoughts change by the minute so no hope of any
withdrawal plan.
Does May and her hawks (Gove, Johnson) really want to be compared with Trump, Kim, Putin,
Assad, W Bush, Blair et al in the history books?
The rebels in Syria have a history of using sarin, chlorine and mustard gas against troops
and civilians. But Washington, London and Paris are completely dummy on this. Not a whisper.
Rather straight to accusations and threats against the regime they have been trying to
overthrow for years.
I don't know who did it. But I know who lies every time they take a breath if they
consider it in their interests. Truth is the first casualty. I don't believe any of them.
Noticeable that the Guardian live coverage provides Western refutations of Russia's claims of
evidence regarding a staged false attack, but doesn't actually cover the evidence the
Russians have provided - testimony from medical staff who claim to be witnesses. Now I'm not
so stupid as to take these claims as gospel, the Russians are just as capable as anyone of
finding a couple of fake or pressured witnesses. However the failure of the Western press to
even elaborate on the evidence, even just to ridicule and debunk it, is suspicious.
It is getting very tiresome tying to read between the lines of what Britain, America, Russia,
etc, etc, etc spin to us in a constant barrage of disposable half truths. The worrying part
is that it is now harder then ever to gauge if these 'bastions of truth' really believe their
own bullshit or not and end up dropping us all into a war of no return.
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with
Eurasia."
The White Helmets were set up by a Briton (I can't remember exactly but I think he was ex
intelligence services). They've consistently been shown to have links with extremists. It
wouldn't surprise me at all if what the Russians are claiming is accurate.
Well the problem is that the vast majority of Syrians support Assad. This chemical attack, if
it is confirmed by the OPWC investigation, could have been staged by the ISIS head choppers,
or it was Assad. Nobody has a clue, so we need an investigation and see, whether, this is
just propaganda bullshit from the head choppers. One thing is sure, if you care about
civilian life, the best option is to accept that Assad and Russia won. Else, well you a
hypocrite, and you don't care about civilian lives at all, but care more about the UK/US and
France gaining the geo-political upper hand, without a care in the world about civilian life.
Hence, you just as big a sociopath than Assad.
Yes Millions of Gallons of Chemicals were rained down on Vietnam including Agent Orange and
Napalm during the war.
Plus White Phosphorous was used by the US in Iraq as an "anti-personnel" weapon.
Look, the Russians have a microscopic force in Syria, about 30 jets, very low army presence,
usually one soldier per SAA Unit. The West and especially that inadequate May can look good
by bombing some camels and then letting the Daily Mail and the BBC do the rest. Yes the
Russians have S400 missiles in Syria but only to protect important targets and they simply
don't have enough missiles to shoot down 100+ allied cruise missiles. The Russkies will just
have to take the hit (again) but it will change nothing in the long run, except relations
will deteriorate even further.
One has the impression poodles Macron and May, in their ridiculous eagerness to assist Trump
with his nice new smart shiny social media bombing of Syria, appear pathetic, even stupid,
for their precipitate grandstanding now that the USA has, for the time being, reigned back
from an immediate punishing strike on Syria.
The "slaughter his own people" phrase is western spin; even the anti-government SOHR quotes a
more or less even split between government forces, rebels and civilians, which means as civil
wars go, this one is comparatively humane.
Compare the death toll of hundreds on the final assault on Aleppo with that on Raqqa
(thousands) or Mosul (tens of thousands) or the civilian toll in Indo-China and Korea (>10
million) and you'll realise the identity of the greatest war criminal of them all
Ultimately Trump is a typical playground bully, he's a bullshitter, a blowhard. All talk.
Trump was the same with Kim, and is the same with Putin and Assad.
Like all bullies underneath he is a coward, he threatens Putin with ridiculous teenager
Tweet threats, but as soon as Putin but back Trump backpeddles.
I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:
"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S.
government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi
defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show
(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish
villages that killed 5000 civilians], and
(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a
fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its
diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."
"... How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline was a pre requisite for that recognition. ..."
"... And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid. ..."
How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into
Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't
believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline
was a pre requisite for that recognition.
Israel? which is not happy with Iran and Lebanon having a presence in Syria, worried that
America was withdrawing.
AlQaeda or the Syrian Rebels, many are both who are losing the war and this is a last
desperate attempt to drag in America and the west?
You've also got Turkey and the Kurds (the Kurds were abandoned by the West after they had
fulfilled their useful purpose), both also players in the region but I can't see a motive
here.
And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America
and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral
indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid.
Any or all of the above could be the true motivation. I am no fan of Assad, Putin, or
Trump or May (or the Blair clone Macron) but the question you have to ask yourself is who
gains from this? And is. this in the interests of a resolution to a conflict, to your safety
or is it something else?
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK andcFrance bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true poltical dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
"... The best solution being that he defeats all rebel forces as quickly as possible. The UN Chemical Weapons people can then go in ( or even before ) and try to collect some evidence. ..."
"... It is all about oil and supremacy in the region. Since when has our government or that of any western Country - cared about their people. Canon fodder - that is what we are. ..."
'.....Given Russia's presence, it would not be easy...... '
Understatement of the century. If you start bombing strategic military targets you are
quite, likely to hit Russian planes and troops.
As I said yesterday - What is the point ? Assad ( helped by his ally Russia ) has all but
won the war ( which makes his use of chemical weapons surprising / a big mistake ) - The best
solution being that he defeats all rebel forces as quickly as possible. The UN Chemical
Weapons people can then go in ( or even before ) and try to collect some evidence.
Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemeni children with UK manufactured bombs.
The Syrian situation was made far worse by the USA / France and the UK arming extremist
Islamic groups during the ' Arab Spring ' in an attempt to depose the legitimate ruler of a
sovereign nation.
We don't say much about China's interference in Tibet these days, do we ?
Or the effect of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War ?
"here are many, many notable historians who state the death toll as high as 135,000 "
The biggest single death toll in WWII was the low level firebombing of Tokyo, large areas
of Japans capital city were wiped out. With houses as flammable as you can ever imagine, an
unimaginably horror filled event. The Japanese death toll was around 100,000 dead. You are
saying more died in Dresden?
"On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping
2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16
square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and
130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded
history." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo
It is all about oil and supremacy in the region. Since when has our government or that of any
western Country - cared about their people. Canon fodder - that is what we are.
OK so let's attack Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen.
And Myanmar for their behaviour. Then there's Mexico, where the cartels keep murdering people. Really, let's apply the same standards everywhere.
How will this proposed action change anything? The Syrians have hidden everything that matters, the Russians will get 90 minutes warning
of the targets .... It's a PR exercise on the usual lines of "Something must be done .... this is something
..... "
Russia has transferred forty Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to Syria' Air Defence.
This is the latest air defence technology (the system is in service since 2012) - a combined
short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system
against aircrafts, helicopters, precision munitions, cruise missiles and UAVs.
Israeli's deep incursions in Syria and the bombing of military bases also used by Russian
military have provided a lot of information about the capabilities and limitations of the Russian
military technology deployed in Syria.
Sure, here's the UN OPCW investigation report which directly blames the Assad forces for
chemical attacks. Take as much time as you need. https://undocs.org/S/2016/738
I couldn't find the paragraph which directly blames Assad's forces.
I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It
concludes that the patients on the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical
symptoms. No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing difficulties can be
observed from the footage. The patients interviewed in the video show little or no signs of
having been exposed to a toxic chemical".
As I've said , I consider the term 'putinbot' - infantile and indicative of a lack of logical
argumentation as it is - as a compliment, since it appears to be code for those who retain
the ability to think for themselves and not fall glumly for the latest official line.
since the OPCW proved it was Putin who tried to murder British civilians with nerve
agents.
Actually, they proved no such thing, but in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as Assad kills and kills and kills,
racking up a death toll in Syria of 500,000
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes
segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have
died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth
it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it."'
From tomorrow the weather in some parts of the UK stops being an utter bastard and starts to
look like spring. The sun will get its hat on, hip, hip, hip, hooray!
Go out and listen to the birds, look at the blossom. Lots of good in the world.
Just in case anyone asks for an example of US diverging from Israeli objectives (I realise
that I did not elucidate on that in my post), US air strikes have focused entirely on ISIS
and have, up to now, left the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah alone. There's no
doubt that the Americans are very closely tied to Israeli objectives, but they certainly
aren't being controlled by a 'Zionist elite'.
America still fights for America. As I outlined
above, it's really only the British government that doesn't appear to have anything even
beginning to resemble an independent foreign policy.
Not a single terrorist attack on British soil has been inspired by Shiah Islam. And yet we arm the Wahhabis to dislodge the secular
Assad. Our government is crooked.
I watched RT for the first time last night and it was interesting.
But right now its like we are being ruled by lunatics. It is absolutely sickening. Quite
literally some moron in the White House is tweeting, 'My bombs are bigger than yours' and
'The missiles are coming.' And they still let him in rule one of the most powerful countries
on the Earth with a vast mass of WMD and Theresa May is trying reason with a fucking moron.
Hey Guardian if Trump is talking like this my swearing is the least of our problems, so
please don't moderate. We need someone to Moderate the madmen.
How do you compare a serial killer with twenty kills to one with one kills? Why, they're both serial killers. /That's/ how we compare the blood on our hands to those drenched to our shoulders.
We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels"
in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside
Syria
So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA
and MI6.
I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to
face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.
The Syrian Negotiation Commission has called for action to deter Assad from killing
civilians. What they envisage is that each time Assad launches a deadly attack on
noncombatants, allied forces reply by taking out one of the strategic assets he uses to
kill civilians. It could be an airfield, it could be a command centre. If the target were
aircraft, that would simultaneously inflict a cost on the regime and deprive it of the
means of dropping its barrel bombs and toxic, yellow cylinders. The objective would be to
make Assad pay a price for killing his own people, a price he has not paid until now.
Eventually, or so runs the hope, he would be deterred.
That kind of reminds me of when Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress were
explaining how to get rid of Saddam without plunging Iraq into mayhem and destabilising the
wider region.
I'm going to post a comment by another user posted yesterday as he said it far more
eloquently than I could
R Reddington InterestedReader2 1d ago
Your just another armchair warrior.
So you think going to war is a good idea well you first then and dont forget your flack
jacket and rifle.
The media onslaught has moved past the attack in Salisbury by a "weapon of mass
destruction" (quoting Theresa May) which could only be Russian, except that was untrue, and
was extremely deadly, except that was untrue too. It now focuses on an attack by chemical
weapons in Douma which "could only be" by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is
no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is
non-existent. The combination of the two events is supposed to have the British population
revved up by jingoism, and indeed does have Tony Blair and assorted Tories revved up, to
attack Syria and potentially to enter conflict with Russia in Syria.
The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument,
particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to
negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power"
argument, I do not know.
Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their
attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favour of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom
Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by
extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London
this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be
coincidence.
I am not a fan of Assad any more than I was a fan of Saddam Hussein. But the public now
understand that wars for regime change in Muslim lands have disastrous effects in dead and
maimed adults and children and in destroyed infrastructure; our attacks unleash huge
refugee waves and directly cause terrorist attacks here at home. There is no purpose in a
military attack on Syria other than to attempt to help the jihadists overthrow Assad. There
is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more
the evidence is scrutinised, the dodgier it seems. Finally there is a massive difference
between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply sceptical public, as
shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.
The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither
investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security
Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the
many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid,
fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security
council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was
only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and
those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons,
they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to
give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the
destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the
massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated
"crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four
horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
"Trump is a congenital liar who is devoid of empathy, a narcissist with a nihilist's view of
the world. These are not mere character defects; they have a bearing on the decisions the de
facto leader of any action in Syria would take. Among the reasons I opposed the 2003 invasion
of Iraq was my fundamental distrust of George W Bush and his circle, especially on the matter
of motive. "
That is why Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell fought so hard to oppose invasion of
Iraq. In the end they had to resort an academic paper to do it. I feel terrible for them.
Assad: So tell me, what is the military situation?
Generals: We are winning and winning decisively Mr President and the terrorists are
pulling out of East Ghoutta
Assad: Excellent news. I suggest we kill a few dozen innocent civilians in a gas attack to
celebrate.
Generals: Mr President, this would be utter folly. It would serve no possible military
purpose and would risk catastrophic air strikes against our military assets.
Assad: Do it anyway! ** strokes fluffy white cat with a Mwwahh, mwah, mwah. **
"... it's pretty obvious what the likes of Isis would have done to the non-extremists in Syria - the Christians and anyone not of their puritanical strain. ..."
"... Assad is no more a butcher than the countries that armed, trained and financed the rebels, the USA prominent among them ..."
"... The problem with Syria is from the start the West saw Assad as an easy domino that will fold like Saddam and Gadaffi ..."
"... Something I also notice not mentioned is the amount of billions that weapons manufacturers and their lackeys in the foreign office make out of these destabilized countries. ..."
"... When Hitler launched his V1 cruise missiles us killing 5,000 Londoners we called them a vengeance weapon... But somehow 70 years later cruise missiles are liberators when deployed by us. ..."
The situation in Syria is more nuanced than just calling out Assad as a butcher of his own
people. For one, he is a butcher of some of his own people, for many others he must
seem like a saviour as without his regime's resistance it's pretty obvious what the likes of
Isis would have done to the non-extremists in Syria - the Christians and anyone not of their
puritanical strain.
The real issue is that the established powers are struggling to cope with a multi-polar
world. It was only a few decades ago that the world's capitalists were looking forward to a
'new world order' without any serious opponents. But then things went wrong, and countries
refused to lay down for their new masters. Not only that, but Russia re-awoke and rejected
the funnelling of its wealth into the coffers of the West via a few carefully selected
oligarchs. Putin is undoubtedly not to liberal tastes, but he is the kind of leader Russians
are historically used to and who has put Russia back on the map as a world power.
Striking Syria now will not halt the suffering of the Syrian people, and it will place the
whole world in jeopardy. The potential price is too high. The best thing that could happen
now is that Trump is removed from office and replaced by a sane politician intelligent enough
to look after America's interests peacefully. Would the Syrian rebels have even started their
uprising if they hadn't thought that they would be backed-up by the liberal West? We should
withdraw from Syria and allow history and the Syrian people to make their own peace from the
rubble.
The two main points of this argument are so hypocritical that I want to start yelling at the
screen.
First, that Assad is a butcher because the war made half a million victims. No, Assad is
no more a butcher than the countries that armed, trained and financed the rebels, the USA
prominent among them. If they hadn't done that to advance their own strategic objectives and
to topple dictator they didn't like (because there's a lot of dictators that they like), the
war wouldn't have even started. The 500000 victims are on the US's conscience, not
Assad's.
Second, the idea that "It is indeed strange, but the extra revulsion at the use of
chemical weapons is not groundless. The taboo on the use of such weapons held, with
exceptions, for nearly a century."
Respectfully, it's bullshit. It emerged in 2013 that Saddam was helped by the USA gassing
50000 Iranians, both soldiers and civilians, in the 1980s- with chemical weapons developed
with the help of American, British and French companies, among others. Exactly those that
find unacceptable now the idea that 40 civilians *might* have been killed in a chemical
attack by the "butcher" Assad. So tell us, when are these countries going to bomb themselves,
as a just retribution for their heinous crimes?
But there is *no* evidence that Assad has even done this. On the contrary, Russia has even
accused the U.K government of being complicit in Douma.
Just apply logic to this: why would Assad do this? He has, buttressed by Russia, all but
'won' this wretched, heartbreaking civil war. So, on the cusp, he decides do use chemical
weapons which all but guarantees the U.S will stay in Syria funding the 'rebels' that he's
fighting. Sorry, it's just ludicrous to think he would do this.
The problem with Syria is from the start the West saw Assad as an easy domino that will fold
like Saddam and Gadaffi, but with one subtle difference Syria is a government that has the
backing of Iran, Russia and Hezbollah from the start. That they will not let Assad fall
easily to have a puppet regime installed in Damascus that will do the West's bidding. No way
that was going to happen. Iran saw it as a chance to consolidate itself as a hegemon in he
Middle East and Russia as chance for payback time for their humiliation in Iraq and Libya,
they were treated as an irrelevant country.
Assad is lucky and knows it, the West does not seem to learn that their interventions are
resented around the world and smacks of neo-colonialism. Syria is third time unlucky, Russia,
Iran and Syria are goading the West. It is your move and one false move they will be laughing
for a long time. Lesson in this is let countries resolve their problems by themselves, Syria
will not be the first or last country to see the use of Chemical weapons. It is vile &
disgusting way to attack civilians but remember we supplied Saddam the same weapons to attack
Iran in the 1980's and the world did nothing then. The West is not part of the solution in
Syria neither from the start or now. Read the history books on who put the Alwaites and
Assad's in power. It was France, the same France claiming they have evidence against Assad
now. Please!
Something I also notice not mentioned is the amount of billions that weapons manufacturers
and their lackeys in the foreign office make out of these destabilized countries.
When Hitler launched his V1 cruise missiles us killing 5,000 Londoners we called them a
vengeance weapon... But somehow 70 years later cruise missiles are liberators when deployed
by us. The war crime committed by Bommer Harris on the people of Dresden shows you cannot
bomb people into peace... So why are we still trying?
Not a supporter of any of the criminal operations that masquerade as governments worldwide,
but it's way past the time when I can believe a word the Western powers utter in their quest
to spread their vile economic doctrine.
For me the biggest question now is how best to avoid financing the evil they perpetrate
So the Russian military claimed a month ago that Syrian rebels were planning a chlorine
chemical weapon attack somewhere in Syria, three weeks later a chemical weapon chlorine
attack happens in Douma... but the UK government along with all the UK mainstream media do
not question perhaps it's the Jihadi/rebels who staged this attack, they ALL automatically
blame Assad? Stinks to high heaven.
President Assad and his wife, daughter of a UK BP man lived comfortably near my brother in
London's Chelsea for several years.
This all reminds me that the roles may have reversed nowadays but otherwise not much has
changed:
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration.
To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans.
The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial Theories,
1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
As much bad as Assad did, nothing is more worse than the killings on civilians done my the
"freedom fighters". Why is it for us Syria so important? How come other countries are not
getting involved in a Iraq 2.0 just the same warmongers who want to test their new toys...
USA, France and us... fighting a fight that costs us so much, plus the Brexit, plus the
eventual payment afterwards , I really do not understand. What the frick are we doing in
Middle East? Is there a English colony that we have forgotten? Or a France colony or even a
USA colony? This strikes me as a fight for either resources or for influence or for pleasing
the master Israel. I am clear of how this White Helmets operate , Eva Bartlett told us, and
do not forget that there are plenty of vids on the whole internet of how they operate "Lights
camera action" actors.
Labour calls for the attack on Douma to be "fully investigated". That sounds unarguable.
But then what? Jeremy Corbyn issued the same call after the chemical attack that killed at
least 74 at Khan Sheikhoun a year ago: demanding there be a "UN investigation and those
responsible be held to account". The UN duly investigated and in October concluded
unambiguously that the Assad regime had used sarin gas. But Corbyn greeted that verdict
with silence.
The report that Mr Freedland provides a link to, actually says:
"5. While the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic works to establish
the facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the
country, it is not mandated to reach conclusions about attributing responsibility for
chemical weapons use. 1 Following a determination by the FactFinding Mission that a specific
incident in the Syrian Arab Republic involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as
weapons, the Mechanism conducts an investigation to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors or those otherwise involved. In conducting
its investigation, the Mechanism relies on findings of the Fact-Finding Mission regarding the
use of chemicals as weapons in each incident and pursues a rigorous independent examination
of the available information surrounding such use so as to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, those responsible."
It doesn't appear to be claiming to be concluding "unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas." Am I missing something here?
Mr Freedland's allegation that "Corbyn greeted that verdict with silence" is highly
suspect:
"RT:Today, Moscow says it has evidence that rebels have used sarin gas. Earlier Britain
said that Assad forces were behind the chemical attack. But why didn't Britain and the US
come forward with the same sort of hard evidence that Russia has come forward with?
JC: That's an interesting question. I can't speak for the British or the US
governments, but they made these allegations about the use of chemical weapons – and
there are apparently stocks of chemical weapons being held in Syria, which may well have
fallen into opposition hands, or may still be in government hands, or maybe both – but
the assertion was made that they had been used. But no hard evidence came up, and indeed,
there was a great deal of skepticism surrounding the evidence that was never presented. And
the Russian evidence today appears much stronger, and they said they were going to put that
evidence in the hands of the United Nations - that has got to be a good thing. However,
proving or not proving this doesn't end the crisis, there has to be the rapid resumption of
talks by Geneva too, all parties must be involved – including Iran. If we're to bring
about a settlement, there's got to be involvement of Iran, as well as all the different
parties in Syria."
This post by Just in Thyme has just been mode rated:
"As the British government release shedloads of crocodile tears over their paid for White
Helmet video footage, and moan like spiteful children how they want to bomb more people, let
look at some other inconvenient facts.
The Yemeni Ministry of Human Rights announced on March 25 that the Saudi-led war had left
600,000 civilians dead and injured since March 2015. The United Nations says a record 22.2
million Yemenis are in need of food aid, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger.
Meanwhile the Saudis shovel their bits of silver into the empty coffers of the NATO
warmongers.
Who said money cannot buy influence, Its was the UK that backed Britain backed Saudi
Arabia's election to the United Nations top human right's body as part of a vote trading deal
– despite the Gulf State's appalling abuse record. Secret cables reportedly show that
Britain approached Saudi Arabia about the trade ahead of the 2013 election for membership of
the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Saudi regime has executed 135 people since January on
charges ranging from murder to witchcraft.
The lynch mob government, we all voted for, and this is what democracy is really all
about???"
Iran didn't instigate the Twin Towers or the London attacks, didn't instigate the invasion of
Iraq, didn't instigate the overthrowing of Libya, didn't instigate the war in Syria, didn't
instigate the war in Yemen and didn't fund and arm ISIS.
The gave support following US intervention. Mmm, I wonder why they have such an issue with
the US?
In an age of fake news and endless propaganda it's very difficult these days to see the woods
from the trees... The words butcher and thug are easily thrown around in the Syrian civil
war.
It appears some people have short memories as it wasn't that long ago when we were witnessing
the alternative world of Islamic State in Syria. Head choppers running amok and anyone
suspected of being gay being chucked off tall buildings. Women being flogged to death for
trumped up charges of adultery. Kids having their hands cut off for stealing apples.
To make matters worse these sadistic psychopaths were armed and driving around in vehicles
supplied by the West... It had developed into a living hell for many as the death cult of
Isis took hold.
I remember the so called thug Putin saying someone had to take on these terrorists...
The West were reluctant to do the dirty work required... So it came down to Russia to get
boots on the ground to help defeat Islamic State.
Why does the UK supply the terror supporters of the Arabian Peninsula with weapons while
fighting and vilifying Assad? This is real hypocrisy. Yemenis suffer horrendously from Saudi
attacks, the UK's close friends. Assad always guaranteed religious freedom and Syrians
enjoyed much more freedom than any of the Middle Eastern countries.
What's actually is disconcerting is the fact that mainline media have taken the alleged
chemical attack as a fact. They don't have their reporters on the ground or even Western
military personnel in the area. But a claim and some unauthenticated videos from headchoppers
are taken as a fact. A fact which is not allowed to be tested or critiqued. Does it mean they
just want more bombs and missiles to hammer Syria and any reason/justification would do?
"... British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called 'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. ..."
"... But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as " bloodthirsty ..."
"... British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty. ..."
"... Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. ..."
"... Islamic resistance ..."
"... We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed. ..."
"... Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed to return to the UK thereafter. ..."
"... This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has veered between the ludicrous and the reckless. ..."
"... As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS (whom it was later reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam. ..."
"... The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its allies with Russian support. ..."
Britain's strategic relationship with radical Islam goes back decades and continues to this
day. There is no more foul a stench than the stench of hypocrisy, and there is no more foul a
hypocrisy than the British government painting Bashar al-Assad as a monster when in truth he
and the Syrian people have been grappling with a twin-headed monster in the shape of
Salafi-jihadi terror and Western imperialism. Both are committed to destroying Syria as an
independent, non-sectarian state, and both are inextricably linked.
Author and journalist Mark Curtis charts in detail
the contours of this history in his book 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical
Islam':
" British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called
'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including
terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes
trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments
have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of
increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will
and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's
imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. "
As far back as the First World War, when the Middle East began to assume strategic
importance in the capitals of Western imperial and colonial powers, the British ruling class
went out of its way to identify and recruit loyal local proxies in pursuit of its regional
objectives. Britain's relationship with the Arab tribal chief, Ibn Saud, who would go on to
establish Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s, began in 1915 with the Darin Pact, demarcating the
territory then controlled by Saud as a British protectorate.
The following year, the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans erupted. Begun and inspired by
Saud's fierce rival, Sharif Hussein, head of the Hashemite Arab tribe, the revolt was heavily
bankrolled and supported by the British – a period immortalized in the exploits of
British military agent T E Lawrence, known to the world as Lawrence of Arabia.
But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the
radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as "
bloodthirsty " and " intolerant ." Regardless, when it came to its imperial
interests there was no tiger upon whose back the British ruling class was not willing to ride
during this period, and which, as events have proved, it has not been willing to ride
since.
The most egregious example of this policy, one that continues to have ramifications today,
was the support provided by the UK to the Afghan mujahideen in the late 1970s and 1980s. The
insurgency's objective was the overthrow of Kabul's secular and left-leaning government, whose
crime in the eyes of the Islamist insurgency's US and UK sponsors was that it had embraced the
social and economic model of Moscow rather than Washington during the first Cold War.
British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was
indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of
a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious
oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty.
Mark Curtis again:
" Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the
resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic
backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized
themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. "
While Washington's primary role in channeling military and financial support to the Afghan
mujahideen, known as
Operation Cyclone , may until have succeeded in overshadowing London's role in this dirty
war, declassified British government cabinet papers which were made public in 2010 and
reported in the UK media make grim reading.
They reveal that three weeks after Soviet forces arrived in Afghanistan at the request of
the Afghan government in Kabul, struggling to deal with an insurgency that had broken out in
the countryside, the Thatcher government was planning to supply military aid to the "
Islamic resistance ." A confidential government memo provides a chilling insight into
the insanity that passed for official policy: " We trust the Western leaders are prepared
for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan
rebellion were to succeed. "
It will be recalled that out of the ensuing collapse of Afghanistan emerged the Taliban,
under whose rule the country was turned into a vast militant jihadist school and training camp.
Many of the most notorious Islamist terrorists began their careers there, fighting the Soviets
and then later broadening out their activities to other parts of the region and wider world. In
this regard, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda loom large.
Other notorious names from the world of Salafi-jihadism for whom Afghanistan proved
indispensable include the Jordanian Abu al-Zarqawi, who founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during
the US-UK occupation, an organization that would over time morph into ISIS.
Abdelhakim Belhaj and other Libyan Islamists cut their jihadist teeth in Afghanistan in the
1980s. Returning to Libya, they formed the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group (LIFG) in the eastern city of Benghazi. Though the group may have been
disbanded in 2010, having failed to topple Gaddafi despite repeated attempts to assassinate the
Libyan leader with, it's been
claimed , the support of Britain's MI6, former members of the LIFG, including Belhaj, were
important actors in the 2011 Libyan uprising.
By way of a reminder, the uprising in Libya started in Benghazi and would not have succeeded
without the air support it received from NATO. Britain's then prime minister, David Cameron,
was key in pushing for that air support and the sanction of the UN under the auspices of
Security Council Resolution 1973. Though protecting civilians was central in wording of this
UNSC resolution, it was shamefully distorted to justify regime change, culminating in Gaddafi's
murder by the 'rebels.'
Staying with the LIFG, in the wake of the Manchester suicide-bomb attack in May 2017, which
left 23 people dead and 500 injured, the fact that the bomber, a young Libyan by the name of
Salman Abedi, was the son of a former member of the LIFG, did not receive anything like the
media attention it should have at the time.
Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong
evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of
Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was
Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed
to return to the UK thereafter.
This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so
many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part
in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has
veered between the ludicrous and the reckless.
Emblematic of the former was ex-prime minister David Cameron's
claim , which he made during a 2015 Commons debate over whether the Royal Air Force should
engage in air strikes against ISIS in Syria, that fighting as part of the Syrian were 70,000
moderates.
As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's
recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with
the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government
forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only
beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS
(whom it was later
reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra
and Jaysh al-Islam.
The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in
Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its
allies with Russian support.
Given the deep and longstanding ties between London and Riyadh; given the fact,
reported towards the end of 2017, that British military personnel were embedded in a
training role with Saudi forces in Yemen; given the news that a British special forces sergeant was
killed in northern Syria at the end of March this year while embedded with the Kurds, revealing
for the first time that British troops were operating in the country on the ground –
given all that, the question of who else British special forces and military personnel may be
embedded with in Syria is legitimate.
In the context of the British state's long and sordid history when it comes to riding the
back of radical Islam in pursuit of its strategic objectives, readers will doubtless draw their
own conclusions.
John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently
working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on
Twitter @JohnWight1
UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey
Sachs to truth-teller status. Spend a few minutes with The Saker -- William Engdah interview:
http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/
Sache is not trustworthy.
Sachs worked closely w/ Soros to plunder USSR/ FSU. His job now is to establish
Jews/Israel/banker class, Deep State of which he's a part, and think tankers as absolutely
innocent of any complicity in the destruction of Syria. He's most likely in it up to his
eyeballs.
Judging from German press, Germany really looks like a US colony, not even vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party. ..."
"... Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. ..."
"... Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon brainwashing. ..."
The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non
participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn.
Time is working against Imperial Washington.
Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and
her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party -- she herself lacked both
the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted
over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling
allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.
Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of
the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on
Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same
time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever
mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections -- funny
how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.
Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for
breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.
Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her
party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon
brainwashing.
There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a
distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French
patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.
Merkel's party has no majority – actually her party's share of the vote is at
historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that
formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the
competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced
to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal "grand coalition". In spite of infighting, the new
"right-wing" AfD came in third in the last elections.
But of course, as you say, the people's failure to get rid of her is due in large measure
to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is
subliminally suggested that it atones for the "holocaust" etc. I don't read a single German
newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.
Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is
keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its
deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to
Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it
would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve
of Merkel.
What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.
You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I
have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause
the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops
degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that –
can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go
along for the next war so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.
"... It turns out that news reports citing UOSSM tend *also* to cite or refer to "French intelligence," especially if the report has to do with local conditions or events within Syria. So perhaps the "partnership" between the UOSSM and the White Helmets in Syria represents, in large part, the coordination of British and French military propaganda/intelligence services ..."
"... I had already heard that French intelligence was using Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as cover in Syria, but was not aware that UOSSM in Syria is likely--at least in part--another French intelligence front. ..."
"... My own impression is that the NGO-ification of military and state intelligence of the degree and sophistication we see in Syria is a relatively recent phenomenon, predicated in part on the disseminating capacities of social media platforms. Is this right? ..."
"... My wife and I stopped donating to MSF a few months ago, based on their evident lack of neutrality in Syria. ..."
No, but you just sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole. From what I can tell, there is the already established link between
White Helmets and Mayday Rescue, which seems to be an extension of or front for the 77th.
It turns out that news reports citing UOSSM tend *also* to cite or refer to "French intelligence," especially if the report
has to do with local conditions or events within Syria. So perhaps the "partnership" between the UOSSM and the White Helmets in
Syria represents, in large part, the coordination of British and French military propaganda/intelligence services.
I had already heard that French intelligence was using Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as cover in Syria, but was not aware that
UOSSM in Syria is likely--at least in part--another French intelligence front. How common is this kind of multinational coordination
of intelligence/propaganda front groups, if that is what this is?
My own impression is that the NGO-ification of military and
state intelligence of the degree and sophistication we see in Syria is a relatively recent phenomenon, predicated in part on the
disseminating capacities of social media platforms. Is this right?
"How common is this kind of multinational coordination of intelligence/propaganda front groups, if that is what this is?"
The coordination and interoperability among these special operations units is intense and has grown rapidly over the last decade.
Even in the 80s this joint combined exchange training was the norm. Now it extends into live operations.
This 77th Brigade is an odd mashup linking civil affairs and PSYOP capabilities, but kept within the Tier 1 special operations
community. I never heard of it before, but it's a logical progression. We probably have a similar military capability, but i have
no idea what it is.
My wife and I stopped donating to MSF a few months ago, based on their evident lack of neutrality in Syria. The reply from their
Donor Relations office did nothing to dispel that impression. In it, MSF admitted that "extreme insecurity has forced us to remove
our medical teams from the front lines of the conflict. As a result, in order to do what we can to help alleviate the suffering
of Syrians, we have partnered with several hospitals and medical clinics to provide support, with medical supplies and expertise
from a distance...Though our teams may not be physically present on the front lines, we receive regular reports..."
I think we can guess who those "reports" are from.
In my opinion, the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality, that it's the
centre of the personality and in control. It's just the centre of the field of consciousness.
"The axiom of Maria. A precept in alchemy: "One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of
the third comes the one as the fourth."
Jung used the axiom of Maria as a metaphor for the whole process of individuation. One is the
original state of unconscious wholeness; two signifies the conflict between opposites; three
points to a potential resolution; the third is the transcendent function; and the one as the
fourth is a transformed state of consciousness, relatively whole and at peace."
"In my opinion, the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality, that it's
the centre of the personality and in control. It's just the centre of the field of
consciousness."
Stuart begins: Our ego is a vestigal organ, long since gone by the by, and all that
remains is a cell-wall-less gooey-plasma ready at the moment to luminesce and retire into
nothingness.
I take it as axiotmatic that our Whole Mind cannot lose it Self.
OK, Rob from Canada, now to your opinions:
One: "the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality".
Two: "(the ego is) the centre of the personality".
Three: "(the ego is) in control".
Four: "(the ego) is the centre of the field of consciousness".
Regarding Point One: Please explain how fracturing an entirely mistaken ideal can lead to
dualism and not chaos?
Two: "Who says?"
Three: "Of What?"
Four: An unconscious ideal cannot attain consciousness, except in illusions.
Hi Stuart! Here's my take on the issue of ego being mental, and from my own experience it is
correct. With very little practice one can observe his thoughts and internal dialogue. It
doesn't require meditation. It's simply a matter of paying attention to our internal
dialogue. We all talk to ourselves. That internal dialogue is the ego talking to itself. The
ego is a mental construction based on the brain's interpretation of it's experience since
birth. So what are we witnessing the ego's internal dialogue and thoughts with? That's where
our "spirituality" lies, regardless of religion or no religion. We all have immediate access
to the witness to our own ego but few use it. The "witness" is silent. It observes and knows,
but doesn't know how or why it knows. Call it "knowingness". That witnessing awareness is
silent. Zen Buddhists call it the practice of "no mind". In modern sports it's called being
in "The Zone". Though silent is is a very aware state of consciousness.
Instead of using our brain to think when we want to use it to think, we let the brain's ego
think us and think our lives for us. Our ego is our own worst enemy. The ego never sees the
"big picture" of all involved. The ego/mind is always insecure and spends it's life trying to
compensate is some way or another to overcome it's basic insecurity.
Humans for the most part, identify with their mental chatter (the ego). Any real spiritual
teaching, teaches us to identify, instead, with the observer of the ego, which is
transcending the ego.
All the problems we face on this planet are because of insecure individual egos, grouping to
form tribal egos, such as tribes of nationalism, tribes of religious beliefs, tribes of
political beliefs, tribes of sports team fans. Egos tend to be competitive and want to be
"one up" in some way. One can easily see that the party of Democrats has an ego identity as
does the party of Republicans. Egos are mental creations. Mental creations are not
necessarily true. They are beliefs about our perception, whether actually correct or not. The
witness or observer we all have and share knows the truth of the moment and the appropriate
action to take. Of all the books on Spiritual Practices I've read through the years (I'm 80),
I recommend Eckhart Tolle's "The Power Of Now". The best to you!
To Barry, thank you for your post. I have read Tolle's book too, about 8 years ago, and found
it really making good sense to me. Your explanation of our internal dialogue not being who we
really are, is very clear and well-said. These can be hard concepts to get one's head around.
You did an admirable job of it in your post.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts.
Barry, I pride myself in speaking to an octogenarian! "And from my own experience" .
"Here's my take on the issue of ego being mental, and from my own experience it is
correct. With very little practice one can observe his thoughts and internal dialogue. It
doesn't require meditation. It's simply a matter of paying attention to our internal
dialogue. We all talk to ourselves. That internal dialogue is the ego talking to itself. The
ego is a mental construction based on the brain's interpretation of it's experience since
birth."
Barry, the internal dialogue of what you speak, is to me, your conscience and your inner
self, not the ego talking to a hallucination of itself; for what can an illusion manifest but
more illusions of : it : self.
The ego is a misprojection from our higher mind; ergo, not mind, but misunderstanding,
illusion, maya, separate from reality, separate from us, not us, not anyone, just lost
awareness with no where to settle but nonexistence from which it came.
Cool. I´d take it a bit further, though. Putting the mind on emptiness, the place
without characteristics, in a deep meditative state. One sees the way things really exist,
the way consciousness creates our reality, the truth of emptiness and karma. Its called
entering the stream. The beginning of the transformation to the divine being. Its an
experience that changes you forever.
Beyond words. Meditation is essential.
"... What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could. ..."
"... And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. ..."
"... And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. ..."
"... They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control. ..."
"... Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. ..."
"... So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. ..."
"... In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable. ..."
Lars Schall: Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am now connected with F. William Engdahl, who has
written a new book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. Hi William.
F. William Engdahl: Hello, Lars. Good to be with you again.
LS: Great to have you with us. And first off, let me read something to you and our audience
that was written by the economist Dean Baker earlier this month.
As a long-term columnist at the NYT, Thomas Friedman apparently never feels the need to
know anything about the topics on which he writes. This explains his sarcastic speculation that
Putin could be a CIA agent since he has done so much to hurt Russia.
For all his
authoritarian tendencies, it is likely that most Russians think primarily about Putin's impact
on the economy, just as is typically the case among voters in the United States. On that front,
Putin has a very good record.
According to data from the IMF Russia's economy had plunged in the 1990s under the
Yeltsin presidency. When Putin took over in 1998, per capita income in the country had shrunk
by more than 40 percent from its 1990 level. This is a far sharper downturn than the United
States saw in the Great Depression. Since Putin took power its per capita income has risen by
more than 115 percent, an average annual growth rate of more than 3.9 percent.
While this growth has been very unequal, that was also the case even as Russia's economy
was collapsing under Yeltsin. The typical Russian has done hugely better in the last two
decades under Putin than they did in the period when Yeltsin was in power.
For this reason, there are probably few Russians who would have sympathy for Friedman's
speculation about Putin's ties to the CIA. The same would not be the case for Boris
Yeltsin.
Now, I think this is a good starting point for our discussion William because in your book,
you have a chapter entitled The Rape of Russia, the CIA's Yeltsin Coup d'état. Why do
you talk about rape related to Russia?
FWE: What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together
with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the
looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health
system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered
anything that they could.
And what you just read from Mr. Friedman is of course horse rubbish but the real CIA asset
of this whole collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was in fact Boris Yeltsin and the
so called Yeltsin Family, the Yeltsin Mafia. And in my book, the Manifest Destiny book I
document and detail at great lengths the relation of a handful of KGB very, very senior persons
who worked with the Bush Senior old boys CIA networks in the West and their banks to create a
group of oligarchs around Yeltsin, you know the famous Russian oligarchs, well, The New York
Times and other Western Media portrayed them as Russian Mafia. They were kind of mafia but the
real point was that they were a CIA-run mafia. They were run by the West. They betrayed their
own country, their own people and literally stole billions and billions and billions of dollars
of assets. And that's the reason for the title in that chapter.
LS: And Boris Yeltsin was very essential for this.
FWE: He was the key figure. He had been selected as a regional governor and brought into
Moscow and a certain point Gorbachev saw him as a rising star and someone that could help with
a little bit more liberal image as [unclear] was – the Russian economy was running into
serious trouble in the '80s, the Star Wars of Reagan, the Nicaragua and above all the war in
Afghanistan which is a CIA project with the Mujahideen, that took 10 years long that was
bleeding the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union's Vietnam, as Brzezinski used to call it.
And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who
literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. You
remember, I'm sure many people remember the picture of Boris Yeltsin standing there
courageously on top of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House or Soviet House, the
Supreme Soviet building and reading a speech defying Gorbachev and so forth. Well, that was a
KGB CIA-engineered coup d'état in June 1991. And through that the – this network,
this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip,
Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB
Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. And he later joined the [#inaudible 00:06:40-0#]
oil and to this day he's still a member of the State Duma giving him prosecution immunity.
So, some of these people are still around after some 23, 25 years and incredibly enough but
others of them have died off, have been killed, or murdered or whatever. But the operation that
was done with Yeltsin, this corrupt KGB network working with the CIA financed Yeltsin's the
silent seat of the presidency of the Russian Federation. And once they had their man in
controlling the Russian Federation which is the largest of the former Soviet Union, the
Socialist Republic, they were able to engineer through the international monetary fund that was
mandated to oversee the transformation of the Soviet economy.
They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called
today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such
that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the
other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were
within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the
nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of
assets that came into Yeltsin's control.
LS: But those assets were sold to a price that was rather ridiculous.
FWE: Someone estimated that that gets into the whole coupon privatisation that was set up
under Yeltsin in the '90s. The coupon privatisation issued one coupon to every single Russian
man, woman and child 140 million in total. And the value of those coupons was such someone
estimated that the totality of Russian Soviet's Fed assets or Russian Federation assets now was
equal to the value of the stock at that point of General Electric Company on the New York Stock
Exchange. I mean that's just laughable. Russia had financial bankruptcy because the shock
therapy, the Jeffrey Sachs and others from Harvard and elsewhere brought in, George Soros and
his pals. That created bankrupt companies that couldn't stand on their own and suddenly they
had no, no resources. But the assets, the assets on the ground, the nickel, the aluminium, the
uranium that Hillary Clinton knows more than a little bit about them, all of these were
estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. And this is what the Bush operation aimed at. And
they used NGOs, they used the National Endowment for Democracy, they used, George Soros' Open
Society Foundation and so forth to bring this about.
LS: You've mentioned already the coup d'etat attempt of August 1991. Highly important for
things to come was something that took place in early 1991 and that was the theft of the Soviet
gold. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The, under the Soviet Union, this is a very crucial point about the transition that
Washington forced on the Russian Federation because Yeltsin was, I think as long as he was
well-supplied with vodka he didn't protest very much. But under the Soviet system and the
Russian Federation took this over, there was a state bank, not a private central bank like the
Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank today but a state bank that was an entity of the
Russian State apparatus and that was called the Gosbank. And a man named Viktor Gerashchenko
was the chairman of Gosbank at the time of Yeltsin's early start in 1991.
And Gerashchenko made a speech around that time in November of '91 to the Russian Duma or
the parliament such as it was and said, "I have to report to you ladies and gentlemen that of
perhaps 3,000 tons of Gosbank state-owned gold reserves, we have an estimated less than 400
tons that we can account for." And then he had to go to tell, shock members of parliament that
he had no idea what happened to the missing gold, which of course was a lie. And Gerashchenko
had created right after 1989 to prepare this coup d'etat coup, which was the CIA and Bush's old
boys, he had created something called [unclear] on the Channel Islands in the Island of Jersey
to handle the Russian foreign currency reserves.
And the Jersey was exempt from European supervision, so this was a perfect place to hide
money, dirty money or stolen money and they managed something like $37 billion between 1993 and
1998. The Gerashchenko and the Gosbank even went to the lengths of hiring a New York Financial
Detective firm called the Financial CIA back then called Jules Kroll Associate. And they were
told to track the Soviet gold, find out what happened to it and something like $14 billion of
communist party assets that were missing as well. And the Cruel which was tied with the CIA
linked AIG Insurance Group Hank Greenberg whom you remember from the 2008 to the bail out of
Henry Paulson.
LS: Yes.
FEW: The Kroll Associates after a few months announced that they had no results in the
attempt to find the missing Soviet Gosbank gold. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF came in
and rewrote the constitution of the Russian Federation under Yeltsin and took the power of
money creation just like the Federal Reserve took the power of money creation from the congress
in 1913. They took the power of money creation from the state and created the Russian
Federation Central Bank, the Russian Central Bank and gave it a mandate for two things. One, to
control inflation and the other to create currency stability.
Now, in Russia that day that meant stability of the ruble against the US dollar. So it
effectively hammer-locked the Russian money creation into the US dollar. And unfortunately that
constitution amendment holds until the present day. It's one of the difficulties that Vladimir
Putin has been having to try to persuade the Independent Central Bank to lower interest rates
more rapidly as inflation is simply managed as a problem in Russia in the last two years.
So, they looted the gold so that there would be no stability to the ruble. If you don't have
any gold-backing, then western investors are going to lack confidence which is sort of what
happened. And then they began working with very select western bankers to get their money out
of Russia.
LS: And instrumental to get money out of Russia were Valmet and Riggs. Can you tell us
please about some crucial personnel that was employed there at Valmet and Riggs?
FWE: Valmet Riggs was kind of a fusion of a Swiss bank and Riggs Bank of Washington D. C.
And Riggs Bank, this is really quite a fascinating and very little discussed aspect of the
reign of Russia back in the '90s.
So you have something called Riggs Bank in Washington and they were set up decades earlier
since the 1960s CIA Bay of Pigs operation, they were known as the CIA tied bank. They invested
the assets of people like Marcos of the Philippines until when he was close to the CIA. And
there was a former NATO Ambassador named Alton Keel and in 1989 when the Soviet KGB generals
and they had a group of protégés called the 'Kids' by George Bush Senior. The
protégés were in their 30s and a couple of them were in their 40s but rather
young. And they were the ones who were nominated to become the oligarchs, the frontal men for
taking these state assets the aluminium, the oil assets and other things and looting the
Russian Federation.
And Alton Keel just as the Russians were setting up men at a bank for the oligarchs to
funnel their stolen assets, de facto stolen assets, Keel went from NATO and the National
Security Council to become a head of international banking of Riggs Bank in Washington and its
deputy chairman.
Now, it gets even more interesting because the international banking group of Riggs included
a new entity that had been created called Riggs Valmet SA in Switzerland, and Riggs Valmet was
set up by a man named Jonathan J. Bush, a private banker, who just happened to be the brother
of George Herbert Walker Bush. So, Bush brother and Alton Keel set up Riggs Valmet, there was a
money laundering apparatus in Geneva and Riggs then through their help bought the major share
in Geneva Valmet to create Riggs Valmet.
So, you have the brother of the president of the United States up to his eyeballs in this
whole Yeltsin CIA money laundering operation. And then Jonathan Bush was created CEO of
something called Riggs Investment in Connecticut where he lived and at that point the looting
and taking of the dollar assets out of Russia was just unstoppable. It was in the billions and
tens of billions of dollars.
LS: William, there is one guy who was working closely with those people and he was working
on Wall Street but later on he was personally recruited by George Tenet then the Director of
CIA to become the number three at the CIA, and this is Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard.
FWE: Yes. We meet "Buzzy" Krongard at Bankers Trust, which bought up Alex Brown, and
Krongard became vice chairman of Bankers Trust along with another charming character named
Carter Beese. And at the time of the 1998 collapse of the ruble, Krongard was formally made, as
you've pointed out, number three, the executive director at the CIA under George Tenet. So,
it's a CIA network from beginning to end, from the banking side to you know the direct CIA
side. You have Carter Beast, you have "Buzzy" Krongard, Jonathan Bush and Alton Keel and they
were the ones working with Valmet as the Riggs Valmet Bank in Geneva to pull this money out
through shell companies.
And the oligarchs, this is an interesting part of this whole thing that you know right now
Theresa May and the foreign secretary Boris Johnson in the UK are accusing Putin of murdering
almost everybody since the birth of Jesus Christ. And one of them was the person who had been
the trusted bodyguard of one of the oligarchs living in London Boris Berezovsky.
And Berezovsky was one of the dirtiest of these oligarchs. He'd financed the Ukrainian
Colour Revolution back in 2003, 2004 as a revenge against Putin because he at first thought
Putin could be bought like Yeltsin and suddenly he realized that he was up against the faction
of nationalists within of what had been the KGB but wanted to stabilise and preserve Russia as
a functioning nation today. And so Mikhail Khodorkovskyi, Roman Abramovich, who is listed on
the sanctions list yesterday, and Berezovsky were some of the leading oligarchs that were created
by this Bush operation.
LS: And to jumpstart all of this, we have to talk about something that is well, that is
stranger than fiction and that is something called for example "Yamashita's Gold". If our
audience is interested in this, they could for example look for an article written by Chalmers
Johnson, the famous Asian expert, The Looting of Asia, which was published at the London Review
of Books on the 20 th of November of 2003 because then they can find something on
this topic of Yamashita's gold on an instant basis in the internet ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia
). I think this is just fair
FWE: Yeah.
LS: because no one really is aware of this whole story. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The Yamashita Gold story is one of the, as you've said really incredible stories of
post-World War II. During the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial Family looted the gold of
occupied Arch of China, they looted the gold of all the parts of Asia that they had
conquered.
LS: Basically from 1895 to 1945.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And because they had no guarantee that Japan was going to win the war, the
emperor ordered the gold to be hidden away in, mostly in the Philippines as far as we know and
literally untold tons of gold were buried so deep underground in tunnels around the Philippines
and the people who dug the tunnels in many cases were later shot you know so that they couldn't
tell. But Marcos who was a CIA asset initially, the dictator of the Philippines through much of
the '70s and into the '80s, yeah through the '70, Ferdinand Marcos somehow came upon some of
this gold. So, the Japanese looted war body was buried in the early '40s before the end of the
war on orders of Emperor Hirohito should they lose the war.
And at some point in the 1970s, Marcos discovered some of the sites where Hirohito's
soldiers had buried the gold and the gold was stolen from China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia
and other countries occupied by the Japanese forces. And Marcos, and I think this is the major
reason the CIA dumped him, got a little bit greedy and took that gold and started selling it
under the market through selective secret Swiss banks. But he used the CIA asset, the Saudi
billionaire named Adnan Khashoggi to help them get the gold under the market. And what he
didn't realise was that Khashoggi would double cross him. He got a better deal from Bush Senior
and the old boys.
LS: We have to say Khashoggi is a figure who is involved for example in B.C.C.I. and in
Iran-Contra.
FWE: Back in the '70s he was involved in everything dirty that Bush and the CIA were
involved in. B.C.C.I. Bank, the money laundering bank of the CIA, the arms deals, Khashoggi was
a huge arms dealer during the Iran and Iraq war the CIA was feeding. He was involved in almost
every dirty thing the CIA was doing.
LS: He was aware of this gold.
FWE: Supposedly he was helping Marcos to sell the gold out of the market. So he was not only
aware of it, he was right in the middle of it. But then once Marcos was tackled by the CIA Bush
got rid of Marcos in 1986. Then someone named Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage and Khashoggi
began to work with someone in Canada to create something called – Peter Munk was his
name, a rather dubious businessman there – to found something called Barrick Gold of
Canada and later it went on to become the world's largest gold mining company.
But Barrick Gold, all available evidence is that buried gold was used to melt down the
– I don't want to get too much into the details of this but basically to melt down the
Emperor Hirohito's gold that had been discovered by Marcos in the Philippines, to melt it down
and use that as collateral for derivatives that would be the collateral used to take over the
Russian Federation assets.
LS: The money was basically transformed into bank loans into Russia so that the would-become
oligarch people could buy up those assets
FWE: Yes, exactly. So, Yegor Gaidar, the economic privatisation adviser of Yeltsin and his
sidekick Anatoly Chubais privatisation had kind of guided this whole process together with
Jeffrey Sachs and a group from Harvard University. #00:28:37-8#
LS: Yeah. Let us talk about this. This is known as Harvard Shock Therapy.
FEW: Well, the Jeffrey Sachs Shock Therapy, but the Harvard shock therapy is – well,
what happened, the next phase of this incredible story and it's important to keep all this in
mind, this is one reason that I wrote the book because of what was clear after the CIA coup
d'etat of 2014 in Ukraine and all the sanctions against Putin's Russia and so forth, that if
you don't understand what really happened in the '90s, the deep-seated hatred there is on these
neoconservatives around Washington and their think tanks as well as, the US political
establishment for Putin's Russia and the nationalism behind group Russia. You can't make much
sense out of what's going on today with all these incredible lies and accusations against
Russia for every crime under the book.
So, what happened is the, as I mentioned the IMF, the International Monetary Fund which had
done a beautiful job for Washington in terms of, and George Soros and others in terms of
looting the assets of the dead economies of Latin America, Yugoslavia, Poland and others during
the oil crisis in the 1970s. The IMF was used and a group of economists around Jeffrey Sachs, a
young professor at Harvard University then to impose what Sachs called shock therapy.
And the idea was that Sachs convinced Yeltsin, let prices rise through western market prices
and this will increase the supply of goods, you know the stores had a paucity of goods back in
the Soviet Times and get rid of trade barriers so foreign commodities could flow in to fill the
shelves of Russian stores. The problem was that was a lie. The shops had been full. Okay, you
could say it wasn't Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Fried Perdue Chickens or whatever, but they were
full of Russian food products until November of '91 when Yeltsin announced that the exact date
on December 31 st of 1991, that price controls would be suddenly lifted. So, shop
owners immediately hid their goods and waited for December 31 st . So, suddenly the
shops were empty and rationing was imposed and so forth. It's just unbelievable.
So, into this, this was Jeffrey Sachs on shock therapy and a group of Harvard University
under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, a group of, among
other things later documented CIA agents set up shop in Moscow and worked with Yeltsin's
economic team Gaidar and Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais and themselves got in on the thunder
the Russian East Harvard economist working. Now we have a transition in '93 through the Clinton
Administration and there former Harvard professor and former World Bank Chief Economist
Lawrence Summers became the deputy secretary of treasury responsible for the looting of Russia,
effective and responsible for the gold economic transition in the Russian Federation.
And all of the key actors were named by Summers and they were all involved in the
privatisation of Russia. They were all from this Harvard Mafia. For example of David Lipton, a
former consulting partner of the Jeffrey Sachs, became deputy assistant secretary of treasure
for former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Sachs himself was named Director of Harvard HIID
that oversaw the looting of Russia through the voucher privatisation and so forth. And they got
grants from the USAID, AID works very closely with the CIA in different parts of the world,
this is documented. And so it was really a tight-knit cabal around Lawrence Summers that
oversaw this complete theft through these pieces of paper called privatisation coupons.
And what you had was the economic situation under Yeltsin had become so severe I mean people
literally they had no jobs because of the freeing up of prices, they could afford to buy little
or nothing. So, most people, millions of Russians sold their privatisation vouchers on the
street corners to the highest bidder. And of course the would-be oligarchs were the ones with
hard currency dollars that they could buy these things up as you pointed out earlier when we
talked about them. So, they had credits from their friends in the West, the Riggs Valmet and so
forth to buy up these vouchers and therefore they were able when the cost came up, were able to
simply steal the property titles, the ownership titles of some of the most valuable investor
assets and mineral assets in the world.
LS: And we can talk about this as a classical case of leveraged buyout – even though
it was a covered leveraged buyout, if it was?
FEW: Well, you could call it a leveraged buyout. I know Anne Williamson has used that term,
the earlier descriptions of it. I think it was simply legalised theft, leveraged buyout gives
it too much dignity. That was a term that was quite popular in the financial world back in the
'80s and the early '90s. But whatever name you want to give it, it was certainly not a
conventional leveraged buyout, it was bizarre in every sense of the word.
LS: An influential figure in this was mentioned by you already, George Soros. And in 1994,
as you point out in your book, he was described with the following words from The Guardian in
London, "Soros extraordinary role not only as the world's most successful investor but now
possibly fantastically as the senior most powerful foreign influence in the whole of the former
Soviet Empire, it tricks more suspicion than curiosity." What was he doing back then in
Russia?
FWE: Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a
shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton.
And in 1993 already the opposition inside what was left of Russia when the old communist party
was in the Duma and so forth and the population generally was such that the opposition
threatened to get out of hand and Yeltsin was forced to agree to hold a national referendum on
the entire privatisation. So, this was in April of '93 and the referendum that was given to the
population had four questions, yes or no. Do you support Yeltsin? Yes or no? Do you support
Yeltsin's economic policy? Yes or no? Do you want early election for president? Yes or no? And
do you want early elections for parliament? Yes or no?
So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy
arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf
of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some
accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. And so the media
campaign and by this time most of the national media had been bought up by the oligarchs around
Yeltsin so they were able to exercise undue influence. So they barely squeak through and got a
yes to the privatisation scheme that Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros and others had
going on. And then of course Soros' company himself benefitted enormously from this
privatisation just a little bit later when the auctions took place.
LS: A figure that connects yesterday with today is Vladimir Putin who came to international
attention first in 1998, the same year when the ruble crisis took place.
FWE: This was 1999 and in August '98 you had the collapse of the ruble. This was part of the
Bush "Operation Hammer's" original design. You had a huge scam going on in the GKO Russian Bond
market where the interest rates were just unbelievably high. So, you had all sorts of hot money
coming in, making profits and pulling it up including Soros Fund, quantum fund and so
forth.
And finally, Yeltsin was getting near the end of his ability to hold this thing together. And he appointed in August '99, he
appointed a young former KGB officer who served
during the Cold War in East Germany named Vladimir Putin. And briefly Putin had been a deputy
mayor in St. Petersburg and briefly had been the head of the successor to the KGB called FSB
and the oligarchs around Putin, I've heard various Russian accounts have had this happen but
Berezovsky, Brzezinski and other, the Yeltsin oligarchs thought they could take this young guy
Putin and do business with him and you know that he was young and had no political base.
So, at that point Putin gave the ultimatum to Yeltsin, resign or face serious consequences
and it turned out that Putin which has later been confirmed was the spokesperson for a
nationalist faction within the intelligence community, a patriotic faction, call it what you
want but Russian nationalist. And so Yeltsin was told, "If you resign and just get out of
politics, we'll leave you alone." So he took the offer and ran. And before he did that he named
Vladimir Putin as acting president until elections in March the following year.
So, Putin then came into power and called a meeting as it were of the most powerful
oligarchs who had made staggering fortunes at the expense of Russia and he called them creators
of a corrupt state through insider dealings and began criminal prosecution against oligarchs
like Vladimir Gusinsky and Media-Most, a financial group led by Vladimir Potanin who is in the
newspaper today and soon left an oil company controlled by a Roman Abramovich and Boris
Berezovsky. So, at that point Putin began the uphill battle of trying to stabilise Russia as a
functioning economy. And the recent re-election of Putin indicates that the Russian people by
and large support that effort of Putin's.
LS: Meanwhile he also had to react to something new that was taking place then and that was
NATO was marching east.
FWE: The negotiations and this is, has been confirmed by former US Ambassador to Russia Jack
Matlock and that was the negotiations between the Bush administration in 1991 Germany and
Gorbachev included a solemn guarantee as Jack Matlock, Ambassador Matlock who was in Moscow in
'87 until '91 in this period. He said that we gave a categorical assurance to Gorbachev when
the Soviet Union still existed that if United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not
move eastward. So, of course that pledge like so many pledges of Washington under Bush
successor governance was honoured in the breach and the newly created National Endowment for
Democracy that I write about quite a bit in the Manifest Destiny.
You had, Vin Weber was the chairman of the NED at that time and he took US taxpayer money
through the NED to supposedly bring democracy into former communist states. Then Weber was also
a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon think tank which really
shaped the personnel of George W. Bush in the year 2000 and 2001. And Vin Weber was also a
lobbyist for the largest military industrial conglomerate of the US Lockheed Martin.
So, he was instrumental together with another military industrial Lockheed Martin, former
Vice President for Strategy named Bruce Jackson, Bruce P. Jackson to promote back democracy in
former communist countries including Russia. And they started the process of expanding NATO to
the east in strict violation of the pledges that had been given back in the early '90s. So, by
2003, they had begun this whole expansion of NATO into Poland, into Hungary, all the former
communist countries.
LS: And the countries at the Baltic Sea.
FWE: So, at the Baltic Sea right on the doorstep of the Russian Federation, and Poland,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so forth. And you began to see a very
definite NATO encirclement of Russia. And then in 2003-2004, the National Endowment for
Democracy, George Soros' Foundation, the whole arm of the fake democracy NGOs of Washington,
began to create the so called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and also the Rose Revolution in
Georgia next door. And if you look at a map, if you bring a pro NATO government into power in
Ukraine, this they did under Viktor Gerashchenko in 2004, then you're presenting a pretty
formidable military threat to the national security of Russia.
Now, at that time 2003, Russia was in no shape to do much more than feebly protest as loud
as they could but of course they were ignored. Then you had something quite dramatic in 2006,
the end of 2006. The George W. Bush administration Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence
back then announced that they were installing ballistic missile defence now I'll get to that in
a minute but it's anything but defensive. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and that those
anti-missile defence installations which included missiles would be aimed at a rogue nuclear
attack from Iran.
In early 2007, Vladimir Putin personally came as president of Russia Federation to the
Munich Security Conference, the International Security Conference held here in Munich Germany
and gave a speech which really defines the security position of Russia right up to the present
date. He said of course this is not aimed at Iran or North Korea as Washington says. That's a
lie. It's like taking your right arm to scratch your left ear we say in Russian. It's aimed at
Russia. And we consider this intolerable as a threat to our national security and we will be
forced to respond.
LS: And it is aimed at Russia as a first strike possibility.
FWE: Yeah. Well, the point about the missile defence is I – in connection with the
book, I interviewed, in an earlier book I wrote, I interviewed Colonel Robert Bowman who had
been briefly the head of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars or missile defence programme. And became a
very, very severe critic of the Bush administration's reckless policies withdrawing from the
antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and so forth, said that missile defence is the missing link to
Nuclear Primacy. First strike capability.
And that's something that Pentagon planners had been opting for since the 1950s. And he
said, "If you can block the counterattack from your opponent and you then have this possibility
to make a first strike and wipe them out because they can't simultaneously fire an effective
counterstrike." So, that in a nutshell destroys the whole cold war doctrine of mutual and sure
destruction that kept nuclear options off the table up until that time. And the Russians
understand military strategy rather well I would say. And said, "This is simply intolerable. We
have to respond and we will respond but in our own way and you will see."
LS: And the Russians have reacted.
B: The Russians have reacted, and if we can go for a minute up until the present
LS: Please
FEW: On March 1st Putin gave an address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow televised to the
nation. The beginning part of the speech, his annual speech there, was about the Russian
economy and plans for the future. This was shortly before the Russian elections that
overwhelmingly gave him a new term. But the crucial part of that speech to the Federal Assembly
was Russia's military technologies and this is as he put it. He referred to that 2007 speech in
Munich and he said, "We said at that time that Russia would have to reply and since the
expansion of NATO to the east which really to be honest that's – see there is no reason
after 1991 or certainly after 2000 for the existence of NATO other than the reason given when
NATO was created by the first secretary general of NATO to keep the Russians out the Germans
down and the Americans in."
But Putin's speech talked about nuclear primacy and the Russian response and he outlined the
military are the developments that they had quietly brought online since Washington tore up,
unilaterally tore up the ABM Treaty in 2002/2003. So he outlined an awesome array of missiles,
hypersonic low flying stealth missiles carrying nuclear warheads, unpredictable trajectories,
invisible against perspective missile defence and air defence systems, unmanned submersible
vehicles to great depth that could go many times higher than the speed of submarines cutting
edge torpedoes just and commentators in the West like CNN. They said, "Oh, this is just bluff
and so forth."
People who know Russian military technology and the intensity of the kind of research and
development that's focused on defending the nation confirm that this is no joke. Hypersonic
aircraft five times the speed of sound, that's hypersonic and they have something called the
[unclear] which goes 10 times mark 10 and as Putin described it, "This missile flying 10 times
faster than sound can manoeuvre in all phases of the flight trajectory, overcome all
prospective and aircraft county missile defences in a range of 2000 kilometres."
He outlined about six or seven of these I would call them not even cutting edge, bleeding
edge military technology and as The Saker commented in his blogpost after the speech, it's
indeed set marching game over for the empire. There's no more military option against
Russia.
This all is to make a point that the entire history up until now, these fake accusations of
Putin would have an interest or Russia would have an interest to meddle with the US elections
when you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to accuse Putin and Russia of
international violations of law by allowing a referendum to take place in Crimea after the CIA
coup d'etat in Kiev and now it's come out from actual mercenary snipers that were brought in
from Georgia under [#inaudible 00:55:08-0#] umbrella that they were paid by the CIA or promised
to be paid by cut outs to the CIA to create the Maidan Square February 2014 chaos that led to
the collapse of the government and the coup d'etat.
So, you know, this is not Russia is the arch Evel Knievel looking for a fight every corner
of the world. It's not Russia doing bad things in Syria. It's Russia trying to stop a NATO and
Saudi and other embedded destruction of the Middle East and create some kind of peace and
stability. And anyone modest to take the slightest bit of care and follow this, they can read a
running commentary on my website williamengdahl.com but not only there, it's all over the
place. You realise that the fake media is the media that dominates and is guided by NATO public
relations strategy in the West and it's not the so called critical media that's being
sanctioned and censored right now.
LS: Let's talk further about the present, William, by closing one circle of our interview.
As we've discussed the Russian gold vaults were empty since the early 1990s. This has changed
since basically the financial crisis broke out in 2007, 2008, 2009. Since then the Russian
Central Bank is buying gold like basically no other nation in a very rapid tempo.
FWE: Since the financial crisis and especially since the opposition of sanctions after the
annexation of Crimea in 2014, it's been the policy of the Russian Central Bank and the Russian
Federation to buy as much gold for reserves of the ruble as they can get their hands on. And
they are now I think number five or number six in the world in terms of gold reserves and
correct me if I'm wrong but just slightly behind the people's republic of China which has also
been vigorously adding gold towards Central Bank reserves for the yuan.
So, what Russia is doing is creating a buffer gold, by the way in my view has never ceased
being an object of value to stand behind currencies. If you have currencies like the dollar
after all this 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the bread and wood, gold exchange [unclear],
then if you have a military you might or manipulate the oil price petrodollar and so forth, you
can create money if you have the reserve currency you can create money without them. So what
the Russia is doing is creating a security in terms of its currency and now that security is
probably going to be tested by the economic warfare division of the US Treasury in these new
sanctions.
But Russia is merging together with China. Interestingly enough after 2014 when the CIA coup
d'etat Ukraine took place, Putin responded not by getting bogged down in the destructive war
inside the Eastern Ukraine but he responded by turning east, strengthening his relationships
with China, with the new president of China then Xi Jinping bringing the Asian economic Union
which Russia is the leading economy in, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Armenia and
others, bringing that in a coherence with Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative One Belt, One
Road to link the infrastructure, the energy pipelines, the high-speed rail networks, the deep
water ports and so forth to create a Eurasian, some people call it the land bridge but it's an
economic space in Eurasia that would have the majority of the world's population, would have
every raw material resource that the world needs including rare earth metals that China is
world's leading supplier of at the moment.
And Russia has vast oil and gas reserves and military technology, civilian technology, an
educated labour force that is probably one of the finest in the world and scientific country
and so forth. And independent of the bankrupt economies of Britain and the United States and
very rapidly of the European Union where this banking crisis has, since the crisis of 2008 has
just been swept under the rug but it's ready to explode on a moment's notice. So, you have a
depth loaded western NATO world. Let's call it a NATO world, a world of the NATO member
countries and you have Russia together, which by the way, Russia has unbelievably small
LS: Debt.
FWE: National debt.
LS: Yes.
FWE: Something like 13 to 17% of the gross domestic product.
LS: And now they have this huge stock of gold relative to very little sovereign debt. It's
almost ideal.
FWE: Yes, and that's by design. That is by Putin's intention to create this independence.
And one thing, I am very often in Russia, have a very, very dear special friends in Russia over
the years, the first time I was there was 1994. That was a vastly different, that was in the
middle of the Yeltsin and the insanity. The Russians are very not only proud people but they
are very determined and they protect their existence and have done that I would say for well
over 1000 years going back to the great schism between the Western church in Rome and the
Eastern Church in 1054. I think that was a pivotal date in modern history, the division
there.
But certainly the Russians have gone through two World Wars and the rape of Russia under
Yeltsin, unbelievable trials and tribulations and they are not shying away from defending their
existence. That's something I think the west or certainly Washington with these neocons really
doesn't have a sense of.
LS: One thing that I would like to ask you about as my final question is the following. You
are a renowned expert for the geopolitics and the history of oil. And since this month we have
a future's contract in Shanghai, denominated in yuan for oil and we also hear that the Chinese
are planning to price oil that they import in yuan which is safe for this buying of oil
internationally via yuan, Russia would be the candidate number one as the exporter?
FWE: Definitely. Most definitely and Russia and China are connecting their financial markets
ever closer. The Russian government is the in the process sometime this year of issuing Russian
bonds denominated new Chinese yuan. The announcing of the petrol yuan, the oil futures
contracts being sold in Shanghai, ultimately it won't happen overnight but it's certainly off
to a positive start in the marketing acceptance. That has the basis for taking oil sales.
Let's step back a moment to the 1970s and I document this at length in two of my books,
Myths, Lies and Oil Wars and A Century of War. In the early 1970s when Nixon took the dollar
off of gold, the dollar relative to the German mark and the Japanese yen dropped like a stone,
something like 40% over a period of five or six months. And in order to stop that because the
New York Banks were hurting quite a bit from that, there was a oil price shock that was
orchestrated. I won't go into the details it's documented quite extensively in those two books
of mine.
LS: And Sheikh Yamani had said something about this, too.
FWE: Yes. He invited me after reading my book to his annual energy retreat in London in
2000, September 2000. And then called me to a private dinner discussion at his home outside of
London to talk about what I wrote about in the book. And he later went on CNN on an interview
and mentioned my book by name. In the written transcript it's in there and in the television
version they spliced it out so that you couldn't realise that it'd been in there. But Sheikh
Yamani told me you are the first journalist or the first person outside of myself that writes
correctly what happened with that oil shock. And that was manipulated by among others Henry
Kissinger, the Secretary of State and by a group in the Atlantic establishment called the
Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden back in May of that period before the Yom
Kippur War.
In any case, the US circles around Rockefeller, who at that point was the chairman of the
board of USA Incorporated, I would say. They had engineered a 400% price rise in oil and to
make sure that Germany and Japan and other countries wouldn't make deals to buy oil in German
mark but keep the dollar demand high and the dollar value high. They send a delegation from the
US Treasury to sign an agreement with the Saudi Arabian monetary agency for a new relationship
taking surplus Saudi petrodollars or OPEC petrodollars and buying US government debt.
LS: Yeah, and outside of the normal auction to privileged conditions.
FWE: Yes. In return, Washington agreed to give the Saudis tens and billions of dollars of
defence equipment.
LS: Yeah, and Saudi Arabia would use its status as a swing producer in OPEC that it would
only accept dollars as a pricing for oil.
FEW: And the quid pro quo was after 1975, this was formalised that Saudis would as swing
producer in OPEC guarantee that OPEC sold its oil only in dollars and that held up until the
time of Saddam Hussein during the sanctions shortly before the US invasion and Saddam Hussein
began buying oil through a French bank denominated in Euros and not in dollars.
LS: And he made a plus, he made a net plus because he did sell his oil in Euro.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And so this, what that has done up until the present is prop up the US
dollars despite the fact that the internal industrial economy import activity of the United
States went down the tubes over the past 40 years since the taking the dollar off of gold and
the, putting of English dollars for the world economy. So, the idea than China and Russia would
trade in energy and that other economies would begin to sell oil to China, Iran for example is
a prime candidate in the petro yuan not in petrodollars, this began slowly like acid drops
begins to erode the reserve currency status of the US dollar. And if that goes, it's end game
for the US as a financial global power.
LS: We have to make clear to our audience. The fact that you have to buy oil in dollar makes
sure that you need dollar, that you acquire dollar in order to buy oil.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And so if this mechanism goes, well then the US has a problem because the dollars that
are floating around internationally would find their way back into the homeland of the US.
FWE: Well, the other thing is that in order to sell now you have under this wonderful
Trumponomics as I call it, you have projections that the US annual government deficit, shortage
of tax income from tax outgo, spending outgo will by 2020 exceed one trillion dollars a year
for every year as far as the eye can see. And by end of 2020, 2028 I think was figured by the
congressional budget office, the US public debt is estimated to be well over $33 trillion, it's
20 now, 38 maybe, it's just out of control. So, if the ability of the US dollar to command use
in the world economy is severely undermined, you're going to have to raise interest rates so
high to sell this debt and it just becomes dysfunctional.
LS: Yes, but you have already in the last few years interest rates payments on this already
existing that of per annum $400 billion.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And if interest rates go up
FWE: Yeah and that was under zero interest rates, but now, you know, if they have to put up
interest rates to five, six, seven, 8% like it was in the 1980s. the whole thing just blows up
sky high.
LS: And so coming back to gold, gold has the advantage relative to bonds or shares or the US
dollar or other Fiat currencies that there is no counterparty risk. If you have the gold in
physical form, there is no counterparty risk.
FWE: Right.
LS: So would you say that gold will be one of the ultimate winners of the ongoing financial
crisis when it goes into full gear?
FWE: Well, it's documented that J. P. Morgan, Chase and other select banks with this
collusion of the Federal Reserve have been artificially depressing the price of gold for years.
Every time there's a new financial crisis, they intervene and keep gold within a very tight
range. At a certain point that's not going to work anymore and then some people estimate to
follow the gold markets much more than I do but it could quickly go up to $10,000 an ounce or
even beyond that.
Be that as it may, gold as you point out has no counterparty risk and it's a historic store
of value. It's one of the beautiful commodities out there and it has a special – the
other just being special significance economically and historically, the other thing is that
China is the number one mining producer of gold in the world today, not South Africa. South
Africa has fallen far behind
LS: Yeah, and Russia is number three.
FWE: Russia is number three.
LS: And a lot of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are producers or are
buying gold.
FWE: At the rail connections of the circle of the China Belt Road Initiative in part are
aiming to go in the areas where there are known gold reserves but no infrastructure during the
Soviet era to bring that gold down to market. So, we have an extremely fascinating prospect,
not just for China and Russia, for the world really to build up instead of tear down, destroy
and burn and bankrupt which is the only policy that Washington seems able to follow these
days.
LS: Yeah. To sum it up with a famous Chinese proverb. "May you live in interesting times"
– you and all the others.
FWE: We certainly do.
LS: Okay. great. Thank you very much, William, for this interview.
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer
program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the
Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the
ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major
energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and
corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President
George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and
concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities
during 1990 and 1991.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses
immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a
Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution
centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.
The rise has been astounding and all because they have a leader that can't be bought ,
not corrupt and loves his country. That is why he literally was swept in in the last
election. The Western leaders will not admit it but I am sure they are terribly envious
.
It open eyes on how the West political elite are a criminal rotten cancer syndicate
and Georg Bush Sr. shows up to be even worse than the disgusting profile he already has
in media and Georg Soros bad reputation gets confirmed.
No police or court are available to take this out. We only have John Connor or The One
to count on.
Choice is the problem now. We will have to make a choice.
On a side note I would add that 3-4 years ago when Ukraine was boiling, much of the
discussion by concerned people focused on countries outside of the US, and the damage caused by
the US. The US, in this context, was largely regarded as an evil but coherent entity.
But that coherence has now come more and more into question. Discussion shifted gradually,
as the US made more and more mistakes and lost battle after battle in so many theaters, and
revealed itself as a failing actor. And in the last year or two there's much more discussion
about the US itself, largely trying to pierce the obscurity of how that country is actually run
and by whom. This shift was already happening, and Trump of course added to the
fascination.
I was glad to see that gradual shift. To me it indicated the war itself was won, while many
battles were yet to be fought. I think it's true that Russia, China, Iran and others are
increasingly concerned with curtailing the damage that the US can still inflict. Every day they
increase in actual, effective power, and the US decreases in that power. Yesterday's battle
will be fought differently tomorrow, because the balance of that power will have shifted again
by then.
Syria has been an enormously useful magnifying glass to show us so much about the relative
power balances of many nations. And even as the US lashes out in its death throes, it is
increasingly cornered and stymied. The same is true of Israel. It's reaching the point - if not
already there - that every move made by the US will result in clear damage to itself, with no
gain, and no damage to its targets.
The other side has had sufficient time to wargame countless contingencies, and think them
through and make preparations for them. Increasingly, it gets to choose what damage to allow
and what to stop, because the costs of every action have now been calculated - and the passage
of time reduces the costs too, so the equation constantly updates.
This is true outside of Syria also, in all theaters and on many planes of
activity.
The US Deep State doesn't want to "conquer" any country. Then they'd have to pay the bill
for the destruction they caused... think an actual Marshall Plan, not the Iraq and Afghan
Debacles. It is not trying to "win". It is trying to destroy those countries' ability to
function outside the iron-fist influence of the IMF/BIS/etc. banks/economy.
... ... ..
As for US operations in Syria being handed off "to others", i.e. to Prince's latest
iteration of Blackwater/Xi/Academia, the last we heard of Erik was trying to sell a budget
airforce/drone system to countries in Africa. What a joke.
Not going to happen in Syria,
because Russia, Iran, Hezbolla and Syria would have no qualms about directly assaulting
Prince's Kurd/Arab/Wahabbist mercenaries... Eric may be a self-serving parasite, but he's not
stupid enough to directly take on the Russian military, or even the SAA for that matter.
Especially with no NATO air cover...
Killary is not around to unilaterally impose a Libya-style
no-fly-zone.
Trumpty Dumbdy is trapped, just trying to convince his base that he really is getting the US
out of being Israel's and the Rothschilds' bitch, but that is not a potential reality.
It would
involve dismantling the FED and cutting off the yearly $multi-billion military aid tap to
Israel. I doubt he is smart or informed enough to comprehend the situation he is in. Any sane,
intelligent person would walk away and tell the Zionist/Rothschild/Deep State to find another
patsy.
Count on an inverted yield curve and Treasury Department derivative losses in the trillions
on interest rate swaps sold to Wall Street banks.
Wall Street banks have been buying surplus US government debt that the world doesn't want
to finance huge budget deficits over the last 10 years and the Treasury Department sold them
insurance protection against capital loses on that debt.
A lot of malinvestment in fracking and share buybacks with borrowed money has
overleveraged corporations. Personal debt, corporate debt and government debt compared to GDP
are at 1929 levels and a lot of that debt will be uncollectible.
The USA has kicked the financial can down the road for 10 years. It created a huge asset
inflation bubble with borrowed money ie all malinvestment via interest rate suppression by
the Fed that will blow up when the yield curve goes inverted signifying a financial panic is
underway. That is the demand for short-term money(to borrow) is greater than the supply of
money to short-term borrow.(to lend)
All I have to do is look at the SPX chart of the SP500 to know the US is FUKUS. The bull
market that started in 2008 has started a head&shoulders topping pattern. In 2019 I
expect 52-week lows to be hit and a bear market worse the 2008 financial crisis to be
underway.
People keep tossing out "The US economy is tanking, it is going to implode/explode/crumble
sooner or later" etc., etc. Such beliefs may be soothing to hold but they do not rest on
knowledge or economic literacy. Briefly, here is why.
Economies do not tank because of massive credit. Money Supply = M1 + M2 + M3, where M3 is
the outstanding credit in the economy. The US M3 is huge because the economy itself is huge.
Modern economies have moved away from paper notes and in future all money supply will
essentially be M2 + M3. M2 (total outstanding bank deposits) and M3 are in turn fusing into
one as credit card payments replace the practice of mailing out cheques.
Nor is high foreign indebtedness in itself a sign of future imminent collapse. Yes, it is
worryingly high presently, but no it is not imminent that some sort of disaster will befall
the US Treasury. No one forces the rest-of-the world to buy US treasuries, bonds, and stocks.
Yet governments, corporations, and individuals from all over the world line-up to buy these.
Ask yourselves why. The answer is: Money and Capital flows to low risk and high return zones.
This is how it always has been, and this is how it always will be. Why do Alibaba and the
other Chinese majors seek listing on American stock exchanges?
Yes, there are plenty of things wrong with the USA, and yes it may end up paying a dear
price for its arrogance, aggression, and cruelty all over the world (not to talk of its
collapsing morality, ethics and social cohesion at home) but there is nothing the matter with
its economy. Those who wait for its supposedly "Ponzi scheme" to collapse will wait to
eternity, I am afraid.
@guest. I think your conclusion that the US economy is not tanking is blinkered. The US
economy tanked in 2008 and would had crashed into a worse depression had not the Chinese held
up the US economy (the Chinese also held up Europe by holding up the German economy). Alibaba
is not the biggest Chinese company to list in the US. The biggest which is twice as
profitable, twice the market capitalisation of Alibaba(more than USD500 billion) and listed
on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, is Tencent.
The US economy and the US dollar was viewed as safe haven becuase there was no
alternative. The US dollar and the US economy became a bubble because of the global demand
for the US dollar resulting from there being no alternative. Besides the use of the USD is
enforced by the US military.
But, if you have been following the latest economic development, that had changed. The US
economy is no longer the biggest, certainly not the strongest. The US dollar is no longer
indispensable. It's value is now perched on the edge of a sharp slippery slope due to US
financial mismanagement and profligacy ala the late great USSR!
Its stupendous, useless, egoistic and hubristic military spending and other factors will
push the US economy down that very slippery slope to oblivion.
But China will be waiting at the bottom of that slope to cushion the fall!
No, it's not over Saker, but compared to 2007 victory is in sight.
First, my opinion is that the Russia/China asymmetric attack on US dollar hegemony will
create a second financial crisis next year, worse than the one in 2008.
Second, in my opinion, Russia and China are winning on the most important Grand
Strategic/Moral level of warfare for global public opinion. The UN votes are illustrative of
that moral victory. Also, Qatar, Turkey and the Philippines switching sides are examples of
moral victory.
"Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!"
That's the perfect strategy to defeat yourself.
"Those who defeat others are strong, those who defeat themselves are mighty." Lao Tzu
Napolean marched into Russia in 1812 with lot's of allies but left several months later
with none.
I agree with MK Bhadrakumar assessment of the strike on Syria over your assessment. It's a
moral defeat for the F#$%ing stupidest, exceptional nation on the face of the earth.
Well, I'm not sure what old Lao was smoking on that day but if we replace the word
"mighty" with "exceptional" then perhaps Trump fits the bill in a modern context.
Putin the Great vs Trump the Mighty (and Exceptional) who managed to defeat
himself.
Russia and China have stopped buying US Treasuries, in fact are selling down for gold. The
deficit if 1.3T will be more costly to fund, and the debt impossible to service. And China
with the petro-yuan has tolled the death knell. Added to that is the dysfunction of the US
political system. The mid-terms will be very interesting. I doubt Trump will see out 1 term,
never mind 2.
And yes, the so-called US allies are fair weather friend.
Rob is right: the coming economic crisis will be nothing like 2007, or like any depression
that occurred over the past century for that matter. It is the first time a cycle is ending
with interest rates so low, so the trick of lowering them further cannot be used this
time.
Even though hyperinflation is not happening because of globalised and cheap offer (Richard
Duncan), Western economies are slowly collapsing under the burden of debt (Prof Steve Keen,
Prof Michael Hudson).
The global Ponzi scheme will soon end, with major geopolitical consequence. The US, being
given their history, will probably go to full blown war where this can bring most economic
gains. The Chinese are fully aware of that, and are preparing for it All of their plans ( the
OBOR initiative, the petro-yuan) depend on a strong Russia, The Chinese will not let Russia
go down, their own survival depend on Russia.
All the best.
"... The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. ..."
"... If you read very carefully the articles written by high level advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they were, whether they were Russian or Chinese. ..."
Shame on Arabs and China! My personal experience with Chinese convinced me that the real God
for them is money. Beside collecting money by any means possible, these people have no other
issue to talk or discuss. They had shown zero interest in the geopolitics or the dire situation
of the planet, or suffering of humanity. They did not show any emotional or sentiment towards
what is happening in the World.
Majority of them express some kind of inferiority complex towards West. China Will soon or
later betray Russia, They do not think about any higher moral or human value, heroism,
solidarity, except for collecting money.
But the Number one betrayal came from Arabs, 22 Arab countries, and some 90% of them are
happy in their slave minded status. They are the biggest disgrace for humanity and Muslims.
Some of them are more aggressive then their masters in the West.
If not for the virus of Wahabism which infected the body of many Muslims, there could
emerge a true alliance of Orthodox Christians and True Muslims. Such an alliance would be
undefeatable, even without money worshiping China.
Antoni, you know obviously what you are talking about. Especially since I myself am Chinese,
and spent almost two decades coordinating the visit of Chinese officials and business folks
to US, on behalf of the US government. This was my previous career, before I abandoned it and
moved to Russia.
The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically
psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. One would not
want to speak too undiplomatically about the Chinese mentality, and the current state of
Chinese National psyche.
If you read very carefully the articles written by high level
advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a
significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a
point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president
Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they
were, whether they were Russian or Chinese.
The overseas Russian get very emotional at such trying times for their motherland. I more
than relate to that. But they show a natural tendency to idealize everything about Russia,
and gets instantly suspicious on hearing a different opinion. The same eagerness to believe
is now extended to the new great Asian ally of Russia. I wrote something a couple of days ago
to the same effect. The moderator even did not allow me to post. I hope now that this war
charade has temporarily abated, the moderator would regain a minimal level of calmness and
openness for dialogue.
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." – Mahatma Gandhi
Hizbullah, Persia, Russia vs China
The real power and fearlessness is not about numbers. It is about soul and its vibrant
energetic radiation.
How can a small movement of people like Hizbullah be more vibrant and fearless and outspoken
against oppression and international criminals then the so called giant nation of China?
How could Bolivia a small nation can be so to the point then China?
How can Iran (Persia) with its 70 millions people and totally surrounded by Kosher Nostra
mafia can be so brave and standing tall against the international oppressors of humanity in
compare to China, which doing practically nothing?
It is not about numbers, it is about power of soul, about life philosophy, about way of life,
about believe in true and one God. So that is way Persians historically influenced humanity
more then anything China can dream of.
There is reason why King Cyrus, is mentioned several times in Bible. There is a reason why
Saadi poetry about humanity is written in the entrance of UN:
Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you've no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain!
"Saadi Persian poet"
But perhaps, the most significant solid power and force which has not only the soul of
justice, solidarity and humanity, but even instrument of physical power and ability to fight
back a total war is Mother Russia. Despite its shortcomings, Russia is a gift from God,
Russia is the historic Rom of our time, mentioned in Sura 30 of Quran (30:1-5 "To Whom Power
Belongs" Declares the truth of the universe).
Russia may be is the second period of Zul-Qarnain mentioned in the Sura 18 of Quran.
Russia is an exceptional Caucasian (White race, i personally do not believe in race ) people,
(if we exclude Persians as Caucasians) which does not participate in the oppression of
non-Europeans and blocking the total subjugation of planet by Western and its minions.
When you talk with Russians and Westerners, you will immediately recognize the difference.
Russians are not arrogant and it is exactly what Quran describing a kind of Christians, who
are not arrogant, but a people with love and affection. I have no illusions, but i talking in
general terms, i talking about sum of all vectors and direction of this common vector.
Numbers are not important, historically majority always were wrong. Truth is still truth even
you are a minority.
So, the conclusion is that, if I am right and if Russia is righteous and just and hold on
rope of God, no force of this plant can defeat Russia. Russia does not need China, China is
not a nation of ideology, faith or religion, they only believe in money, which is also the
god of Western world and its minions. China is not a natural ally of Mother Russia, natural
ally of Russia is nations with believe in God, justice, solidarity, soul and judgment
day.
My personal encounter with Chinese convinced me that they have a completely different mindset
and I was completely disappointed.
With love and respect to Russia and its heroic people
Yow Darius my man, you speak the truth. It is fire and light in one's soul, and nothing else.
And if one might add, a preparedness to die, a simplicity and gentleness of character. Labels
mean nothing.
Degeneration afflicted many nations, comes in many forms, it can be a well-mannered and
finely dressed German so proud of himself, it can be an oily and greedy petty Chinese
businessman, it can be a Mercedes driving Arab in front of some big hotel in Dubai.
Globalism is a satanic cult of our times. They are huge in numbers, but their souls are
small, enslaved, and twisted. We have no fear of them. Keep well brother.
I agree with everything you said. I will take a more wait and see approach with China. I
hope for the sake of the world they jump onboard. Ultimately the issue is materialism. The
Anglo zios want to deal with a world in which everyone has a price on their head, so they can
be easy to buyout and compromised. Since the Zionists are the one with the most capital,
anyone who wants a piece of the world, will have to go through them. So that materialistic
outlook the Chinese have, can be a huge opening for the zios to exploit.
The state of the Arab leaders are even more pitiful. A bunch of animals who are enslaved
to their lusts, and desires. I would tell them to enjoy it, because their end will not be
good. Most of them have sold out to the highest bidder(Zionists) a ling time ago.
Now the Wahhabi movement, what's left to say about this devious, malicious cult. If you're
interested check this article out. It talks about the founder of the Wahhabi movement,
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and how he was in cahoots with British spy's who were looking for
a way to bring down the ottoman empire. I have to do more research on this article, however
as someone who has studied wahhabisim, I'm fairly certain it was a movement that had
malicious intent from the beginning, regardless of the article I linked below. It's just
somewhat hard to explain to non Muslim's because some of it deals with matters of theology.
Anyways I enjoyed reading you're post. Peace my friend.
Saker says "But what could the Russians have done?" is the right question.
Ans: Provide advanced defensive weapons well-ahead of time so that the Syrians themselves can
impose a cost.
In addition what the Russians have already done, why is Russia not selling advanced
anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons to countries in the cross-hairs of the West? Often, they
talk about selling S-300 to Syria. Now imagine, Syria has Bastion, anti-sub weapons, and
S-300. There will be costs to the West in this case. I think, this possibility is something
Russia can do. Why wait, as it is obvious that promises by the West are basically lies.
(Despite, dismantling the CW, the same argument is used to justify the attack. The Skripal
case uses this method against Russia itself.)
What has the Russians got by withholding the sale of such weapons? What is the Russian
calculus?
The attack was pretty clearly highly coreographed and followed strict rules that were not
violated. The US provided a turkey shoot for the Syrian AD restricting the missile flight
path to lanes with no typical deviations to confuse the AD. I'm sure this is what the
Russians required in order to guarantee no response from them.
So there are a number of important questions here.
There was insistence that an attack must occur, despite Russian objections. The US and
Russian militaries worked out a way for this to occur as safely as possible. Good that they
pulled it off safely as it implies a high level of competence and discipline on both
sides.
It seems likely from public behavior that the Pentagon thought this a bad idea and was
fully aware of the dangers.
Where is Trump on this and was he forced to acquiesce?
It also seems clear that the pressure on Russia has not diminished and that the 'allies'
intend to try and force an agreement on Syria through Geneva process that partitions the
country and likely deposes Assad.
The Russian side said that the president of Russia had been insulted/disrespected and that
there would be consequences for this action.
There has not been much effective push back in Europe to this policy of direct
confrontation.
China is wearing a mask in public but is not pleased and has offered some diplomatic
support in public.
I rate the situation as highly dangerous, unpredictable, with a great deal going on behind
the scenes.
As an addendum b over at moa has pointed out in his summary that while the US Defense Dept is
claiming only 3 targets Russian and Syrian sources claim many more, specifically airports. I
also read that B1s, I believe, used laser guided bombs in the attack and I have no idea what
the targets were as all discussion has focused only on the cruise missiles. Perhaps more
sites were targeted than was agreed upon.
Also, regarding the Skripal poisoning, Russia has obtained the evidence of BZ use from the
Swiss OPCW lab, perhaps through back channels. I see this as hopeful – Russia does have
friends in Europe, although the remain afraid or without the power to assist openly.
Postings in various places suggest that the US deviated from the agreed on plan and that the
Russian jets that scrambled near the end of the attack put a stop to further deviations.
Perhaps a broken promise like this led to the specific assertions of disrespect.
Thanks to the Saker especially and all the commenters for this forum and the robust
discussion.
However, I think Russian behaviour is consistent with the long game strategy. Syria lost
three buildings and its citizens were celebrating in the streets. The US had the bulk of its
missiles shot down. This is quite simply posturing by the Empire. I don't think the last 48
hours add to the perception the US can whatever it wants whenever it wants. If anything its
the opposite.
I think the US will try again. Its attempt will be no more powerful or successful than
what just occurred. They will continue to do so for many years yet. They will continue the
delusional narrative delivered ad nauseam to its own people for another decade at least.
My point is that as each month goes by, it matters less.
The American hrandstanding is becoming white noise.
I am encouraged by the last 48 hours. I admire Russian restraint. I have for years now and
I expect to continue to do so for some time yet.
As former analyses of you spoke of, the russians Lack the number of planes etc the
Wallstreet-fascists have. This time they will use to speed up the stuff they need. The stuff
Putin spoke off in his march speech. The provocation as much to to with it I guess.
And time Saker is not at the Side of the US, as the petro dollar Will be replaced and
their debts Will reach astronimical figures. Remember China is a creditor of this fascist
regime. Simply stop funding this moron shit. Why did China buy worthless state-papers from
the US??
The americans didnt dare to kill Any russian a hoge difference to the event Pompeo was
bluffing about. So ..?
China bought the worthless state-papers from the US because it give it's leader's the good
life and the illusion of great wealth. If they sell off the Treasuries than that illusion
with evaporate in hyperinflation. The Russians are only waist deep into the Global Economy,
they probably can crawl out with some effort -- the Chinese are up to their eyeballs in it,
they cannot.
China was being pragmatic and keeping its major market afloat. Little point in being the
factory of the world if the world stops buying what you produce through lack of
liquidity.
I have faith in the Chinese leadership–they are ordinary people like everyone else but
their culture and mindset gives them a clever edge that the west has lost, long ago.
It is indeed not over, because in history there is seldom a clear beginning and an end.
However, the Saker is being too pessimistic. The FUKUS coalition avoided the Russian
positions (ie showed a wariness and respect), and Syria did stand tall in defending
herself.
For Russia to have taken the bait and reacted reflexively would have been
counterproductive. As things stand, no escalation occurred, and Russia comes out looking
cool-headed and mature. In effect the good guys.
The US is in sharp decline. It's current behaviour demonstrates that it is in the final
stages of Empire. Time is on Russia and China's side. To engage the US unless absolutely
necessary would work to favour the US and against the rising powers of China and Russia.
Kevin Barrett re-posted a Gordon Duff censored article re the SAA capturing a Takfiri
chemical weapons facility in East Ghouta with western weapon components and reporting the
capture of AZ personnel:
Some excerpts:
"The Syrian Arab Army and with the help of Russian captured a shipment of chemical weapons
destined for the Eastern Ghouta. These were British weapons produced at Porton Down in
Salisbury.
"American, British and Israeli military personnel captured in Syria have confirmed they were
ordered to stage chemical attacks in East Ghouta by their governments.
"The Americans are still being held along with Israeli's while British prisoners are being
negotiated for. Sources in Damascus told us that representatives of Oman in Damascus
approached the Russian Office of Reconciliation on behalf of Britain for the return of
British chemical warfare personnel.
"The shells are identified as VX gas from British stockpiles.
"Russian officials in Syria informed Britain through Oman that they would have to directly
deal with Syria for the return of their personnel. We have received no further information
since, Damascus has remained silent on how or if negotiations were proceeding.
"Last week, VT Damascus received evidence that Americans, US Army Special Forces along with
Israeli chemical weapons officers had been captured in East Ghouta. We were told that not
only was a command facility captured with modern weapons but a stockpile of British made 81mm
poison gas mortar shells, numbering in the hundreds, was seized as well.
"Videos were viewed by former MOD weapons specialists who identified the green stripe on the
shells seized in East Ghouta as VX gas from British stockpiles."
Just pencil in that article.
My comment:
Regarding Russian response, my feeling is Russia recived plenty of assurance the US was
unwilling to hit Russian facilities, and got special corridors for attacks. The Russians
could sit this out and watch and the US failed in a major way again militarily against only
Syrian defenses. I think it is a wise principle for Russia to avoid the temptation to reveal
the real power of its weapons prematurely until there is a real need for them at which time
they may be a rather significant surprise.
-Martin
I view Russia's position as unassailable. After the bombing of Friday night is it even
conceivable that the US could ever gain air superiority over the Russian homeland? Yes the
attack was made with second-tier missiles at third-rate targets without the element of
surprise and poorly coordinated, but it was still easily repelled by a combination of
Soviet-era junk and modern EW equipment and radars. Even those in the West who are apathetic,
if they are listening at all before they change the channel, must at some unconscious level
realize that the US could not have a "perfect" air strike with over a hundred missiles and
destroy only three unoccupied buildings.
A conventional WWIII of any length of time will destroy the Global Economy. The Russians
will win easily simply because they are tougher and more prepared. They may not desire that
outcome, but of all people they probably have the best chance to survive. Except if the nukes
end up being released by accident or through escalation. So the Russians, being just about
the only moral actors around, have a moral responsibility not to fight back until there is no
other choice.
NOTE: Not that all western nations or the people within them are immoral actors, the
greater population and smaller countries are just bystanders.
I am not convinced the US used second-tier missiles. These were launched from active duty
warships and I can only assume it is the standard cruise missile weapon employed. There is
way too much not yet known about the details of this operation.
If, and it is a big "if", the missiles moved along agreed corridors, it is not surprising so
many were shot down.
As I say, so much is not yet known.
I always figure that the best stuff is under wraps, although available in no great quantity.
BTW, I think a technology that isn't discussed much is passive detection systems, which
may have taken the element of surprise away from standoff weapons.
Here comes this important question of purely tactical nature which many flag-waving
uber-patriots miss completely, while, I am sure, Pentagon and not only, is puzzled with what
went wrong. The question is not about excellent performance of Syrian AD–what and how
about this performance are being unveiled with each passing hour. Russian EW? Absolutely, no
doubt it. Massive shooting down of Tomahawks and Scalpel TLAMs? Absolutely. But, but what
about JASSMs. It is conceivable that these were they Trump was bragging about in his idiotic
twits when spoke about those "Smart" missiles that "are coming". There are still no firm
numbers about the number of intercepted JASSMs, what is clear, however, is the fact that many
of them were intercepted. If JASSM passes today for "Smart", it kind of puts good ol'
Tomahawks, logically, into the category of "Dumb". Obviously, as latest Syria's experience
shows, Tomahawks are not an overwhelming threat, as they were positioned as for decades, for
truly (not in Saddam Hussein's, or, rather US media, way) highly integrated and EW capable
air-defense system.
But JASSMs, "stealthy" and supposedly "Smart", even by preliminary data pouring in didn't
fare much better than Tomahawks and this was against Syrian AD assets which are pretty damn
old. So, what about "stealth"? Ah, but in the modern signal processing, including well
developed now sensor-fusion (or data-fusion) techniques it really doesn't matter for advanced
adversary. But that is purely technological aspect, however influential for operational and
strategic levels. Truly global, geopolitical issue is this, as Apps concludes:
Therein lies one of the greatest challenges of this situation. In 1990, after Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the George H. W. Bush administration was
relieved to find that Russia – then still in the hands of Mikhail Gorbachev – was
inclined to avoid turning the conflict into a Cold War-style standoff. In the years that
followed, successive U.S. presidents became used to acting without such worries. Putin has
now successfully signaled that those days are entirely over.
No it ain't over. It has just begun. Call it the great tribulation or Jacob's troubles or
whatever you like but understand we have another half dozen years to go. In any event Daniel
says Damascus will have terror fall upon it at night and become a smoking ruin byvmorning. So
Damascus will fall to align reality with prophecy. The ultimate vanity.
The recent events are complete theatre but the first act is about setting up the second
act.
In the second act, America's tough actions force Iran Russia and Syria to the negotiating
table where a grand accord is hammered out.
In the third act, the Empire cuts its losses and gets the fuck out of the ME because it no
longer has interests there. Israel BTFO. KSA BTFO. They are really the worst allies ever.
In the epilogue Russia becomes the main broker in the ME and balances out the competing
interests while keeping the peace. France and England BTFO. Nobody wants these douche bags
around anymore. America goes back to squabbling in South America and Asia where it arguably
does have strategic interests.
The world Zio-Massonic movement has just shown that it can not dispense with provocations and
plots that can unleash bloody world wars.
The United Nations are a farce and should be dismantled!
Just remembering, it is always England and Judea that press for war as they did in
1938-1939 or release the great and relentless butcher – the only true holocaust –
1914-1918 !
There is another possibility: These "empty strikes" were strictly intended for domestic
consumption. Consider: The US openly telegraphed the coming strikes. Syria and Russia cleared
some areas for the West to hit that would result in no injuries to personnel and limited
damage to infrastructure. The West dutifully hit those evacuated areas and proclaimed
"Mission Accomplished". Syrians danced in the streets for "surviving" the missile strikes
while Russia threatened consequences. What form those consequences take will tell us if these
countries are merely dancing a rather peculiar dance together or whether they are about to
starting fighting in earnest. So far Russia has been playing it cool as a cucumber, but these
strikes – empty as they might have been – demand some sort of response or Russia
will risk looking weak. The fly in the ointment is Israel and their attack on an Iranian base
within Syria that reportedly killed 20 Iranian officers. Will that loss of life influence
Russia's response after the West made every effort to avoid drawing blood?
Saker, many commenters here give me the impression that they will go to any lengths to
reassure themselves that we are not teetering on the brink of all out nuclear war. All of
their theories and reasonings seem to avoid facing that grim reality. Is that also your
impression, or have I misjudged your position?
I think this blog may have misread China. I think I can read the Chinese mind and the
'Western' more subtly since I am ethnic Chinese but educated in the 'West'. But I follow Sun
Tzu and therefore will not expound anymore on China's strategy as far as the Yanks are
concern lest they are wised up.
Suffice to say that a catastrophic decline of the empire ala the Ottoman Empire which led
to WW1 and WW2 due to fighting over the spoils, is on nobody's interests, not even
Russia's.
The best case scenario is to ease the Yanks into a break-up ala the late great USSR.
China's economic, diplomatic and political strength will be critically needed to do this
and to rebuild the new independent states of Western North America, Eastern North America and
the Southern Confederation.
Anonymous. No Chinese empire. The Chinese don't want to occupy other countries. Too
troublesome ruling them. Philippines president Duterte recently suggested half-jokingly that
the Chinese should just make the Philippines a Chinese province. China don't want that. Just
to make the Philippines more prosperous and stable in order to trade with it – which is
far better. If China wanted make the Philippines as its own province, She would have done so
600 years ago when Admiral Zheng He sailed his then unmatchable in the South China Sea and
onwards to India, Persian Gulf, Africa and possibly beyond.
Which means never, unless you're talking about the individual organism, is it "over".
So get over it never being over.
What would you (we) do if it were "over"? Contemplate our navels??
Oh, you mean stress inducing bluster , bluff and brinksmanship of a dying entity. What
else has it got, except blowing itself and everybody else up?
Patience, perserverance. Look at the reaction in the US. Don't forget this terrain, even
if Trump's Unreality Show self destructs.
Is there progress? I think there is. None but the most cretinous deplorables are so stupid
as to cheer the Donald in the last week. Most are dismayed.
And even Alex Jones is allowing open talk of Israel's Empire role in putting DT on this
war mongering course that those who buy his supplements refuse to buy .:
Although Dr P is the one to explicitly state that Israel is a total liability.
So I wouldn't quibble too much about AJ and his mistakes and prejudices. Weaker on Israel
than you would like but as good on Russia as you can expect.
Stupid on China. But Dr P isn't. And anyone watching can see that and see that AJ panders
to his base's fears and prejudices.
But if they are wising up on Israel (as they have!) they can wise up on China and the
whole picture, as well.
Who would want that process of improving consciousness to end, to be "over"??
To relax go back to what??
Actually, I like Snow Leopard's comment the most. And I am contemplating a surgical
procedure on my navel, soon. It's just that Action is part of Being, and I see certain
actions other than handwringing and brow wiping being more productive right now. Especially
in terms of encouraging the process in the US where increasing numbers of people are
realizing they have to think and act to grease the skids for the out of touch geriatrics like
McCain, Feintsein, Pelosi, etc .or DT will go out with them, if he keeps acting just as
ridiculously untruthful as they are.
'ridiculously untruthful' -- - that and deceit is the sea that the Donald has swum in his
entire life, do you really believe that he could recognise reality if it smashed him in the
face like a two ton truck?
Precious little chance of that happening in this lifetime, I'd say. It is by now part of his
cell make-up and ineradicable.
The US has backed Russia into a DEEP, DEEP corner . Sooner or later Russia will have to
respond to the AmeriKKKan madness or surrender and become a vassal State like Europe,
Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea .After Syria is Iran and China. If Russia goes so is
China. Now is the time to stand upp to AmeriKKKa (the empire of chaos)
Check out the work of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.org and Professor William Engdahl
All I can say at this stage is that Sun Tzu said not to fight out of anger, fear or enemy's
provocation to a fight. Russia should stay cool. Pick carefully the battlefield (not
necessarily a battlefield like Borodino), pick her own fight (not necessarily in the
battlefield with guns and missiles but just as decisive) and pick the issues to fight for.
This way retain the initiative and not let the enemy drive and maneuver Russia. Drive and
maneuver the enemy instead.
The full-frontal 'love-in' with the Germans in WW2 is a no no type of war to be avoided.
If unavoidable, must be very well prepared. But both the West and the semi-West seem addicted
to the prospect of such an 'orgasmic' love-in. They seems locked into the paradigm of such
logic. But beneath the rationalisation is simply a love for war.
Here is an extract from Richard Lovelace on the English Civil War. He reflects accurately
on what, me as an Oriental, views as what drives the West's and the semi-West's mindset to
war:
1) Tell me not (Sweet) I am unkind,
That from the Nunnery
Of thy chaste breast, and quiet mind,
To War and Arms I flee.
2) True, a new Mistress now I chase,
The first Foe in the Field;
And with a stronger Faith embrace
A Sword, a Horse, a Shield.
3) Yet this inconstancy is such
As you too shall adore;
I could not love thee, Dear, so much,
Loved I not War.
Some version replace the last line in stanza 3) with: "Loved I not Honour more". But you
get the drift. "war" and "Honour" (in or through war), are essentially the same.
Speaking of Borodino, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Russians not only repelled
Napoleon, but crushed him definitively in the end (thing somehow overlooked in 'histories' of
the 1812-14 war genre 'War and Peace') and reorganized Europe on their own terms. Of course,
it did not last too long (due to the usual British treachery), but the subsequent attempts to
destroy Russia ended in the same way. Now if Hitler has not learned anything from Napoleon,
how do you expect a Tramp like Donald, to learn anything from Hitler (and the Kaiser and
Napoleon, for that matter)?
I am in complete agreement with you Simon. All indications are that Mr Putin and team has a
firm grasp on reality also, whatever that may bring in the future. It may not be too pretty
for the western sphere but delusion and rank stupidity never has a pretty outcome.
Not over. Not even close. The reason this isn't over is that the causes and conditions
causing the root of the problem have not been dealt with. The cause of the problem can only
be dealt peacefully through diplomacy. In the Empire's current configuration diplomacy is
near impossible as there is no competent partner to negotiate with on this side. The Empire
will signal their openness to negotiation by removing Bolton aka Captain Crunch, Haley and
their ilk. This doesn't seem likely and I'm not sure who a competent replacement would be.
Russia needs to sell to Syria and to Iran ~30 nukes each plus delivery vehicles able to reach
New York (thus also Israel, Paris, London). Also S400 systems to protect nukes enough to
guarantee launch. Syria and Iran then declare next attack from any of the Gang of Four states
will mean a nuclear response to all.
You forgot to mention that without adults Mattis & Dunford, WW3 would have started the
last time they "bombed" Syria, now because of they talked the volatile, impulsive and
emotional Trump out of it, it landed on a compromise, on Moscow's terms.
The PRC is one of the only other 2countries that supported the Russian UN resolution, so it's
not clear to me what the Saker is referring to re "just standing by" ? Do you expect PRC to
send troops to Syria? has Syria or Russia made such a request or invitation? Do you know if
such a move by the PRC has wide support by the Chinese public? Please do not respond with
nonsense like public opinions don't matter in china. The Chinese government uses public
opinion polls frequently and widely. Fact is I believe majority of Chinese are also affected
by all the lies from the western msm, especially the well educated elites, most of whom
studied in the West. This explains why their Global Times pieces tend to be much more pro
Russia than their better educated elites
Diplomacy??? It degraded beyond recognition. We used to have the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Now we have geniuses like Samantha Powers and Nikki Haley. We also had a joke of an
ambassador to Saddam's Iraq that triggered 1-st Iraq war, although I tend to think (more and
more lately) that her blurb to Saddam was a deliberate in order to advance Bush's
understanding of his "new world order" idea.
Yes, but the previous UNSC meeting where Russia submitted a text requesting a full and
objective investigation of the chemical attack in Syria only Bolivia voted yes. China
abstained! So Russia looked isolated just prior to the attack
China abstained on the US-sponsored "poison pill" resolution which was set up to be vetoed,
and allowed the US to say they tried to resolve the chemical attack diplomatically but since
the resolution was vetoed the only avenue left is to retaliate by missile strikes. However,
China voted FOR the "clean" Russian-sponsored resolution to investigate but this seems to be
lost.
Yes you are right. So there we're a total 4 resolutions. 3 resolutions on chemical weapons
investigation and 1 on violation of international and UN charter.
For the chemical weapons: Russia submitted 2 resolutions and US 1. None of them passed.
China abstained on one, the US one, which Bolivia and Russia vetoed. Here are the links:
It is impossible to quickly overcome a ~30 years misguided attempt to impose physical
hegemony forever. No complex dynamical system deviates from stable trajectory for too long
and too far without breaking apart. And since nobody wants (or foolish enough not to be
afraid) of a WWIII (a.k.a. breaking the system apart), the US will be forced to change its
guiding principle of perpetuating its sole hegemony. Hopefully sooner than later and
peacefully.
Is Putin not putting himself at a huge disadvantage if he allows the carriers group now
crossing the Atlantic to get close to Syria and Russia. As this confrontation is obviously
not over should Russia not draw a red line at the straits of Gibraltar or somewhere?
I don't understand military issues but can see that the USA/UK/France cannot in the
slightest way, be trusted to do anything other than wait for what they perceive to be a
moment of advantage, then attack.
I understand he has a "Dagger" or six under his arm. Not only will that stop the Carrier
Group, it will place it where it belongs. At the bottom of the sea.
Another possible option would be to simply bring the Warsaw pact again new life.
The US in the past didnt dare to attack pact-members in the cold war. Now we have a
situation that the US considers other States as his toy for torture.
Syria, China Venezuela Belarus, and Donbass even North Korea should become members of
it.
Two days ago Vladimir Putin was handed the worst and most humilliating political (and
military) defeat of his entire life, something that in other, more normal times, would have
immediately forced a man in his stature to resign his post and go away (Chamberlain anyone ?)
yet his own adoring fans seem to be the only ones who haven`t noticed it, preferring instead
to keep living in that universe of denial they have been dwelling in for years already. What
shows best the extent of this attitude of denial is the fact that they were gloating about
the fact that Russia didnt even intervene–contrary to what the man himself had promised
he would do only a month ago if one of Russia`s allies was attacked. By now is evident that
his word is not worth the saliva that was wasted in saying it and that the US has absolutely
no respect for him or for Russia. There are just two things to notice to see the truth in
these words: a gloating, exulting Nimrata in the UNO, knowing well how cheap was for her and
her country, or rather her neocon masters, this victory was (Russia didnt do a thing, so no
WW3) and the headlines in the web "Russia furious". If there is still any doubt about this
conclusion, well, beware, the Gang Of Three now plans to present to the UNSC a proposition
celebrating the illegal attack on Syria of the 14th and they intend to invite ALL members of
it, including Russia, to accept it and take it as a fait accompli. But that will be only a
prelude for what is to come, which is of course the demand by the U.S. that the UNO accepts
her way of conducting business as the norm, as something they will be able to do in every
possible occasion they will wish to do it. Which means, more fake chemical attacks and more
bombing in Syria until Russia is thrown out of the country. So much for our master chess
player in the Kremlin. Only last year he was still insisting, against all caution and the
warning of people as knowledgeable as PCR, that his first priority in foreign policy was a
good relationship with Amerika, see how well he has done in this regard (Chamberlain anyone,
again ?) All in all, things wont become better but much worse after this devastating defeat
of the master chess player, they will only become worse until they get him and Russia
cornered and with only two possible options, which we all know well. This is not about Russia
being alone or being weaker than the US NATO gang, it is all about Putin`s deliberate policy
of putting above everything else his vain and useless attempts at being respected and even
liked by his worst enemies, the Western elites.
Regarding China. China it's a great and powerful nation with a vision and a strategy that
span far in the future. His policy has always been to go on with extreme caution and as low
as possibile exposure. First and foremost she takes care of his own interest, as any other,
however. His main opponent is, that for sure, the "western" empire. In this long term fight,
China finds herself in company of other nations who are fighting the same long term struggle.
Yes, China doesn't share the same cultural, historical, ethnical heritage with Russia, wich
in that regard is part of the Euro family, but shares a vital, long term surviving fight with
Russia (and Iran, Syria). This is a matter of fact that can not be underestimated. So, in
long term, and in spite of some annoying behavior, I'm quite sure that China will stand with
Russia. I read that Chinese warships were placed in front of Syria together with Russian
navy, maybe someone forgot that, this is a strong message to me.
I side with PCR. Only a public military humiliation can stop the Empire. Russia had a
golden opportunity to inflict such an humiliation yesterday and she missed that
opportunity.
Let's suppose that Russia downed as many attacking warplanes as possible, whatever their
location was, plus a few ships like the USS Donal Cook. What would happen next ? Would the
USA launch their strategic missiles on Russia ? I very much doubt it, since the US know as a
hard fact that they would be destroyed in retaliation. MAD has been restored. The would have
no military response at all and the whole world would see it. And this would have been the
end of the Empire, with many vassals leaving it.
Of course, such strikes will happen again. Let's hope that Russia will strike back
then.
The public is brainwashed because they are hooked to the mass media and they are the product
of our "educational" system. Americans are about sports and shopping. A good portrait is the
rabbits of Watership Down.
In 1958, I still believed that there was a significant intellectual difference between the
American bourgeosie and the cattle one sees peering between the slats of large trucks as they
contentedly munch hay on their way to the abattoir.–R. Oliver
Donald T' s inheritance was a loose canon. I'm sure he knew it when he ran, as a proved tower
– builder, against floating sands and the satanic Hillary-fan-club.
America is in psychiatric treatment since 2014 by the spirit of the north.
April 14 was a peace of the art of political wisdom, 'taking two to tango
above the triggers of the planet's doom
Saker, no it is not over by a long shot. Haley again today (it appears she is running US
foreign policy by herself) says empire gonna sanction Russia again via Treasury tomorrow. It
looks like empire trying to ride the false flag chem thing to build a coalition of the
"fools" against Russia or some kind of mass movement to give them cover for military action.
They are furiously trying to bring massive pressure on the Russian leadership so they will
back off and let them have Syria, admit US is almighty god and so they can then go after
Iran. It seems US and Brits so knocked off balance by Putin and his election victory and
weapons announcement that empire frantically trying to reassert that they and only they are
the "decider" of right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. This will go on all of April
and into May as Trump backs out of nuke deal with Iran. Then things will really get ugly and
fast. And that doesn't even factor in North Korea.
I notice that Russian MOD states that the "allies" were configured to launch 300 missiles
not the 110 that were sent. He indicates that they had poor planning and that no one was in
charge. But, it may be that they have decided to come back for another hit when the next
false flag chem attack is perpetrated probably soon. The chem thing is all they have that is
working for them and that isn't much. I finally got emails announcing anti-war protests by
ANSWER and I hope they will continue. I have been to some strong street actions with ANSWER
in the past although impacting these monsters is nearly impossible.
I agree with you that Russia should flood both Syria and Iran with anti missile systems
and they should do it now.
It looks like the Duma gonna finally sanction the US back with some pretty good things
including stuffing US "intellectual" property rights in the US ass by turning Russian
companies loose to use patents without paying license fees. They can also fuck up US space
program and rocket programs.
Actually, Saker, I think what US empire is really up to is to create enough mass hysteria
globally that they think they can build some kind of "coalition of the truly stupid" to
attack Russia and take it. I honestly think they are that stupid and desperate. Because if
that is not it then at some point they are going to have to back off, admit defeat and be
seen as the losers they really are. They just don't have the basic decency to do that.
Yes you are right about the U.S. intention to create mass hysteria , and a " coalition of the
truly stupid."
The lead item on RNZ news at 5 a.m. this morning referred to the silly little girl who is
currently P.M. of N.Z. condoning the U.K. /France / U.S. strike; presumably she will also
support the Israel strike against Iranian assets in Syria.
Every day , the lies and propaganda start in NZ, and are halfway around the world before the
truth gets out of bed.
Count on it. Thank you Rupert.
And Rupert's whores are at it in Australia as well, reporting on the grovelling snot bag
Turnbull's obsequious offering of more Australian lives to lubricate the Anglo Zionist
machine. I say lets put his kids in the first jet to attack Syrian positions and see if he
still thinks it is worth the cost.
In 2001 Australians have marched in their thousands to protest the imminent strike on
Irak.
Today they blabbered non stop about the the 'tampered ball' and protesting the punishment of
the cheaters and hounding the pedophile clergy.
I appreciate your comments but do not share you perceptions. Reportedly, the USA informed
Russia before they dropped the bombs. Does that make sense? Reportedly, they bombed a factory
which has not been in use since 2013. Reportedly, either no one was killed or 4 unfortunate
civilians were killed. Reportedly, no Russian personnel or equipment was affected.
Reportedly, the 3 attacking countries dropped 103 bombs and 71 or 73 or whatever were
intercepted, yet the USA said the complete opposite. "We are confident ..". Amazingly, the
USA has developed a bomb, or a method of bombing, which, if it hits a factory producing
chemical weapons and therefore is full of lethal substances, will not, repeat not, dissipate
these into the air, thereby insuring that no one will be affected!!! (emphasis mine) I agree
that some people might think that the attack actually did something, but who are they? Nobody
I know. My perception is that people working in the our government are isolated and out of
touch and they are the ones who had to be satisfied(?). I also think that Mr. Trump is so
surrounded by liars that he can trust no one. He stated he wanted the US to leave Syria,
then, shortly after, the USA performed this inane bombing attack. Maybe this is Mr. Trump's
response to the immense pressure I think he gets from those around him. It was very confusing
but certainly did not make me feel that our country is great again – I am just
embarrassed. I feel very badly for the citizens of Syria who unfortunately live in a country
located in the center of the world, surrounded by all that gas and oil.
I have seen reports that said they did, and I have seen reports that Moscow was furious
because they were not given notice on the deconfliction channel.
"The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be
announced 4 weeks in advance"
Even though you live in the US, you seem sadly out of touch with what Americans know and
believe. "America" is NOT your blog audience, any more than "America" is Donald Trump and the
US State Department.
I found out last Thursday that my own mother took seriously the idea that Assad gassed
people in Douma. So, yesterday I asked 4 of my coworkers what they thought about the US led
missile attack. I was actually more interested in finding out whether they believed Assad had
any culpability in Douma.
It turns out that everybody approved, including a guy that I knew for a fact was a Trump
supporter (who, as a candidate, would not have approved of meddling in Syria, or at least
pretended to be such). This particular guy explained by asking a question: "If you saw your
neighbor beating his wife to a pulp, would you jump in to stop him, or just stand around and
let it happen?"
The sense I got from everybody is that intervention was a moral act. Most zombies that I
have seen in movies are, at best, amoral (assuming they have no agency).
Consequently, you are misusing the term "zombified"!
The appropriate term is "brainwashed". They believe in a pseudo-reality.
That is why the absence of a 4th category in your graph is potentially tragic. You are
missing the category of communication/education, which would encompass benign (truthful)
propaganda and benign (truthful) psyops, targeting the American public directly (American
elites more indirectly). While this was better done as prevention, the resultiing
de-legitimization of the American War Party could be thought of as retaliation.
To a person looking at things in a detached manner, prevention (going forward) is better
than retaliation (looking backwards), but such considerations are secondary to solving the
problem of the ignorance and brainwashing of American citizens. Doing so would provide at
least fertile soil for the emergence of corrective political pressure from the bottom,
up.
Do you SERIOUSLY think your own efforts, plus Russian government efforts in the form of
rt.com and sputniknews.com, are sufficient to deprogram and educate Americans? (There is no
disrespect for you efforts intended by asking this question.)
Then please do the following: learn how to use the video feature on your smart phone, or
tablet; then do a walking video poll of passersby on some crowded street near you. (You
probably won't be allowed to do so in a shopping mall, but it might be worth a try.) I
suggest you use the same technique I used when doing a video poll of TPP awareness amongst
the public (which proved, to my satisfaction, that polls showing popular acceptance were a
complete fraud; most American HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE TPP, Pew notwithstanding). I asked
people "May I ask you 1 yes/no question?" About half the people won't give you the time of
day, even for that. Of those that do, maybe 1/3 will be interested in talking about it;
typically, they they will ask the same question of you.
Afterwards, tabulate the results, upload the video to youtube, and write it up here.
Better yet, do this and ask you audience to do the same. Then, include the links to their
youtube channels in your write-up.
You should try to get your results (which are almost sure to be similar to mine) to the
Russian government, because they act AS IF they had the same viewpoint as you.
Putin could reach millions of Americans by tweeting to @realDonaldTrump, but doesn't
bother. I have to wonder, why? If he assumed that the American public are all "zombies",
instead of containing moral but brainwashed citizens in their 10's if not 100's of millions,
then his lack of action would make more sense.
He'd be wrong, but at least his actions would logically follow from his mistaken
notions.
It is over. It was over in 2000 and the hammer came down in 2006. With the defeat of the
anglo/zionists in Lebanon by Hezbollah it marked the beginning of the end for the occultists.
Hezbollah was not actually fighting the iof but rather the combined forces of western zionist
imperialism. And they won.
Iraq, Libya and now Syria are a direct result of the ouster of the baby killers from Lebanon.
The chaos in the ME – the Arab bullshit spring – the propping up of the gulf
monarchy muppets is panic mode by the zionist oligarchy. There is no policy only blind
reactionary behaviour – this is evidenced even in the propaganda of the MSM which not
only makes no sense but speaks continuous transparent lies.
The west has been forced to use moderate and not so moderate head chopper orc mercs to fight
its battles. Proxy war by orc is a sign of desperation and with the collapse of the hegemon
on the horizon.
The Russians and the axis of resistance is simply trying to mitigate the damage that the
oligarchy can still do and keep the US and the western vassals from imploding.
I think the UK is exhibiting signs of genuine fear because it has dawned on the UK elite
after the miserable performance of their Three Amigo's missile strike that Russia has a
special present for instigators of ww3.
The great harlot is going to fall. A smoking ruin no man will ever wish to tread. England
has whored itself to the gallows.
N, it is not over, that much , we agree on. But the Chinese, I believe are not short sighted
nor are they stupid. The will probably not do much for Syria, but I think they will raise
their voice immediately if Russia is seriously threatened. China knows if Russia falls, she
is next. Iran knows this too. So I cant see other than these three will have to stand
together. But other may join India, possibly, Pakistan, possibly. And possibly further some
smaller countries.
But I am 100 % certain that in all these countries, the people, the knowledgeable of the
people, we know that if we end up, in a unipolar world, we will be slaves and remain slaves,
forever.
And those countries I just summed up are more than 3 Billion.
Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Who knows. But
Better die standing, than live crawling.
I think you underestimate how hated and despised the US is around the world. In most of
the non western world, the United States story of oppression and murder is very well known
and it is not forgotten. But fear keeps people in bondage, and the US has shown it will spare
no excesses to reach its goal, so when the battle comes it will be long bloody and
brutal.
And yes it will come.
From today's Global Times editorial, semi-official organ of the Chinese politburo:
"However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain
world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the
framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international
relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they
can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?
Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how
touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were
lynching Syria without due evidence "
What about a fourth type of retaliation, cleaning out the
financier/Zionist/pro-Western/liberal infestation inside Russia? This wouldn't require
China's approval, and would lead to a much healthier and stronger Russia in the long run.
In my view, China has done far more to get itself out of AZ control and on the path to
pursuing its national interests than Russia has. It is depressing to read most Russian blogs
as they keep harping on what needed to be done years ago.
The Chinese newspaper the Global Times agrees with the Saker:
"Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious
contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a
pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark
path." Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way.
Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak
economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West
provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace Western countries continue
bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance
breeds risk and danger."
Yes, I also follow the Global Times editorials, and have friends in China
Simon Chow nails it, in my opinion
America is playing checkers (or some other child's game). Russia is playing Chess, and we
know how good they are at that. China is playing Chinese Chess and that is fking impossible
to understand for a westerner subtle does not cover it .. and China has the father
(godfather?) of all generals and military strategists, Sun Tzu . go figure
I agree, the fat lady is out there somewhere warming her vocal chords.
Talking about chess In my humble opinion all the suffering and foreign occupation of Syria
could end in less than a month if Russia would have the guts to threaten (behind closed doors
or overtly) that if the attacks and occupation of Syria will not stop Russia will provide the
weapons necessary to nullify the military superiority of Israel to all relevant enemy of
Israel and of course to Syria. The timed leak in the news that Russia considers providing
S-300 to Syrian is a good start but obviously not firm and strong enough, According to Paul
Craig Roberts "to restate the point once again, the passivity of the Putin government in the
face of Washington's aggressiveness is leading directly to nuclear war and the end of life on
earth". I think Russia can be "passive" by not attacking US but can be very engage by
threatening were it hurts the most the safety of Israel. Cheers
It is an old metaphor. I think it was used on Atimes years ago: Americans play Monopoly,
Russians play chess. Someone added (it could have been me) and Chinese play Go! That was a
response: Americans play poker, the game of the 'achievers'. The response was: Americans play
poker with loaded dices' and if their bluff is called, they pull the gun and 'take it all'.
If I am not mistaken, the verbal joust originated in Australia!
From the rules:
• Sacrifice: Allowing a group to die in order to carry out a play, or plan, in a more
important area.
Interesting
From the Global Times
'Drill a warning to secessionist forces'
The news that the People's Liberation Army will conduct live-fire military exercises in
the Taiwan Straits on April 18 has shocked Taiwan. It is a clear warning against recent
pro-independence activities on the island, especially head of Taiwan's administrative
authority Lai Ching-te's advocacy for independence.
Secessionists should not fantasize that the US will come to their rescue, even though the
US had passed the Taiwan Travel Act. National unity is in the core interest of China, which
is determined and capable of shattering any foreign intervention. Once Beijing decides to
take action, it won't be stopped by any other force.
We believe that if the mainland were to take a military strike against
"Taiwan-independence" forces, Washington would have no effective means other than
protest.
The planned military drills will be a reconfirmation of Beijing's bottom line. Let the
bombing and shooting drills alert Taiwan, rather than letting them actually occur on the
island. The mainland does not wish to end the Taiwan question with a military showdown,
however, how the situation develops depends on how much rationality remains in the Taiwan
administration.
The Ukraine, North Korea .. Sth China Sea .. Syria
Russia, cold war
China, trade war
America is somewhat busy at the moment.
Could it take on a direct confrontation over Taiwan?
I think Syria is too strategically important to be 'allowed to die' .. but, then, I cannot
play Go
What about the 'rumors' that China will build a base in Vanuatu? "We would view with great
concern the establishment of any foreign military bases in those Pacific Island countries and
neighbours of ours," Mr Turnbull said. Ahem!
Could America take on a direct confrontation over Taiwan?
If Taiwan is 500 kilometers off the coast from California, America just might give it a
try. But alas, Taiwan is 500 kilometer off the coast from Fujian Province. Only a deranged
America would take the bite. Let's see if America is deranged. Lately there are signs it is
down that slippery slope.
What I meant, is the China is choosing its timing and confrontation very carefully
America is the next door neighbour who has watched the plum ripen every day, fearing that
pesky Chinese neighbour will steal it and eat it
Not being careful, or just being plain dumb, the American knocked over a hornets nest and
and now too busy dealing with the angry hornets to keep an eye on the plum
Every single country (!) on this list- except for Bolivia – abstained in the latest
UNSC vote to stop aggression against Syria Russia, China, Bolivia voted in favor. USA, UK,
France vited against. With just ONE vote the resolution would have passed
Kazakhstan is a member of the SCO..why did they not join Russia and China to support this
resolution?? I am beginning to think the SCO is just hype.
One thing's for sure: I'm going to miss Bolivia when their term ends this year
The resolution was never going to pass. The US, the UK and France all posses the veto
power of a permanent member of the UNSC. Thus, it does not matter how many voted in favor.
The resolution was defeated.
I think I remember seeing at least one statement from another country that said that there
was purpose of voting in favor of a veto'd resolution. Why bother. Especially when the US is
infamous for blackmailing and armtwisting nations that vote against them. It was only a few
months ago that Nutti Nikki declared the US was 'taking names' of those who opposed the.
There isn't any reason to vote for a resolution that is already and certainly veto'd.
Actually, you see this alot also in bodies like the US Congress. Once a side has the votes to
know they won (or lost), then a single vote doesn't mean anything. Thus a congressperson can
vote a way that pleases the voters (or the lobbyists) and know that they are doing so with no
impact on whether the measure passes or fails. You sometimes see members of congress voting
for and against the same bill so they can take either position in the next campaign!
Anonymous, you are of course correct. It's the SC and not the GA so any veto will bring down
the resolution. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I also understand perfectly your point
about tactical voting.
However:
It would send a powerful message to the empire (and the world) if Russia were not so
isolated in her diplomatic efforts, even if a resolution is vetoed!..As Saker mentioned above
noone seems to care about the higher values of international law. By keeping a low profile
and abstaining these countries are basically confirming that there is no diplomatic way to
stop the aggression.
what is happening to Russia funnily reminds me of what happened to me as a kid – I was
maybe 9.
there was a bully in our neighborhood park where we used to play – he was 3 or 4 years
older than most of us. He used to beat all of us individually (I was the youngest in the
group) – but then I would come behind him when he was not looking and hit him with a
brick etc.
so one day all the kids gathered (not sure whose idea it was – not mine – but I
approved and joined them) and agreed to circle the bully and at 1..2..3..we were all to jump
at him and to start beating him I thought it was a great idea.
so we went there and did that – 1..2..3 – I jumped on the bully and started
kicking him – only to realize that everybody else just stayed where they were. I was
the only one fighting him Even my brother didn't join me.
I hope the same thing does not happen to Russia – but if it does – just be
prepared – and never trust psychopathic Anglo – west
Bolivia has a democracy that has elected governments that actually favor their people over
corporations, and god forbid, that don't favor foriegn (American) corporations over their own
people.
Thus, the US has already declared Bolivia an enemy. They don't seem to be number 1 on the
American kill list, but they are already on the list.
At this point in time, the UNSC is blocked to both sides. Neither side can pass a UNSC
resolution against the other. One side had 2 and now 3 vetos. The other side has 2 vetos.
Nothing is passing.
Which means that neither side can claim UNSC sanction for their wars. Which in turn really
makes any war illegal. Not that any of the Axis of Evil care about that. For the record,
Trump violated the US Constitution in two ways (at least) by attacking Syria, thus, if the
system were honest, he would now be impeached. Of course, the system is not honest, but it is
highly rigged.
Since Russia and China don't seem to be starting any wars of aggression, that lack of
ability to get a UNSC certificate for wars of aggression won't matter much to them. But, also
don't expect them to pass anything condemning the Axis of Evil through the UNSC.
The UNSC is now only for making speeches. Both sides then use these messages in their
psyOps operations. PsyOps is the right word because both sides now view propaganda as warfare
by other means.
Vietnam brought forth the term "hearts and minds." That's what they psyOps wars are
fighting over. The hearts and minds of everyone. Or at least those who are paying attention,
and of course getting more to pay attention to your psyOps is a part of the battle as
well.
The UNSC is thus a tool in these psyOps wars. The Russians make their case. Nutti Nikki
screams, rants and threatens. Each is then used as propaganda both at their own people at
home and at the rest of the world. It will stay that way as long as no one repeats the Soviet
mistake of the Korean War era and gets so fed up with it that they don't bother to show up
and cast their veto.
One interpretation of these comments is that diplomacy is just a bunch of fancy talk to
create fodder for psyops. While NATO and other military organizations may view it that way,
from another perspective, making speeches in a public meeting like this, where a resolution
is on the line, can serve to entrench or resolve conflict. As part of a larger diplomatic
strategy.
The 'hearts and minds' concept originated in the Malaya campaign in the
50's–counter-insurgency–and it was never about hearts and minds, it was about
'killing people in order to save them'– a precursor of 'humanitarian intervention'
–basic BS, in other words.
Part of the so-called psyop then was head-chopping of communist Chinese by the British
soldiers, I seem to recall.
Kazakhstan is one of the founding members of the Eurasian Economic Union. But it has always
made its position clear that its membership is based upon economic and not political union.
So its vote was not all that surprising. It's called hedging your bets.
Russia has a lot of options and none of them involve attacking US/NATO forces directly.
And General Rudskoy already hinted at one of them, the S300 to Syria and to possibly some
other countries. A great idea, but only one of Russia's options.
Following from that, the first thing Russia should do, a long with Iran, Hizbullah and
Syria, is exactly what it has been doing: securing more and more of Syria. Since the last
time AZ axis did this, Syria's situation on the ground is much improved. By the next time
they try, it will be much better still. Eyes on the prize.
Next, the S300. Russia has to impose a painful cost to the enemy without triggering a war.
That's where Israel comes in. Russia needs to help Syria (Russia should not do this herself)
to bring down a handful of Israeli jets and capture their pilots alive. You will see
immediately of the situation changes once 2, 3 or 4 of those most precious of souls are
captured. Your head will spin. They will trade whatever they have to to get them back.
Capturing American pilots would not have anywhere near the same effect. And British or French
pilots? Don't make me laugh. Nobody really cares about the hired help.
Russia also has the option of soft retaliation. The empire has troops all over the world
and faces insurgencies in many places. I'm just sayin'. Sometimes accidents happen when you
are fighting insurgencies.
Believe me, I understand how disgusted you are by the situation. But this has been
Russia's role in the world forever. Defending Europe and the world from the mongols, the
Prussians, the Swedes, Napoleon, the Turks, Hitler has earned Russia zero gratitude. But
nevertheless, many of us see. Even I, who am not a Christian, can see the analogy clear as
day.
Sinking gas/oil platforms of Levithian field by "unknown assistants" might be a similar
"symbolic" response. Similar to US attack of uninhibited buildings, this response by a third
party against an ally of US (nominally ally, in reality the master) would send the message,
without too much of a risk.
Your comments about the Israeli reaction to the loss of its planes and the capture of their
pilots is right. Read the Israeli press and especially the comments that follow the stories.
Israeli hubris is not to be believed. The commenters (much less the article authors)
can´t acknowledge that US missiles were shot down (albeit, with integrated modern
radars, electronic interference, etc, acknowledged) by Syrians with Soviet era junk.
"... Yes it is annoying that USA keeps bombing Syria, and yes it ruins the lives of the families that lose loved ones in such attacks. But they do not hinder the progress of the Syrian army. Which likely will have wrapped up everything that is politically easy to wrap up in Syria this year. The border with Israel, Idlib and the kurds being the last more politically difficult parts. ..."
The consequence has not come yet. Those that expected that Russia would sink every American
vessels and fire of off thermonuclear weapon at Washington, has no real connection to
reality.
Such an action would be the dream of neocons and liberals in the western world. Russia
will win as long as they can avoid a full on attack on Syria by USA and getting themselves
dragged into a conflict with USA or one of its clients.
Yes it is annoying that USA keeps bombing Syria, and yes it ruins the lives of the
families that lose loved ones in such attacks. But they do not hinder the progress of the
Syrian army. Which likely will have wrapped up everything that is politically easy to wrap up
in Syria this year. The border with Israel, Idlib and the kurds being the last more
politically difficult parts.
In reality, Russia and Assad won from this attack I think, it made them look good
internationally, it made USA look bad, Trumps supporters are in an uproar right now.. This is
not like last year when the democrats supported his attack and his base kinda thought it was
acceptable..
This time everyone thinks Trump is a lunatic, even his most fanatic supporters such as
Alex Jones that has been being over backwards to protect Trump have lost hope in him
When Russia unified with Crimea, it lost the international moral initiative which it had,
now, it is absolutely regained it. This attack while it caused no damage to Russia or the war
effort for Syria also gives Russia an excuse to do whatever it wants back.
The consequence of the USA strike could be something like.
1. Giving Syria better and "forbidden" in the style of S400 or S300.
2. Giving Syria more and more advanced pansirs.
3. Giving Syria advance anti-ship missiles, enabling them to take out every USA ship off
their coast.
4. Arming groups that oppose USA over the world state actors or non-state actors, either
covertly or openly with advanced weapons.
5. Revealing classified information about USA that perhaps USA got Russia to agree it would
not reveal. Could be anything, proof perhaps that the USA gold reserve is empty perhaps that
USA did 9/11, anything really.
6. A purge of USA backed fifth columnists inside of Russia.
The consequence will be something alone the line of causing long term severe consequence
for USA but causing no problem for Russia or even being beneficial.
Update : Interfax reports that the Russian military has discovered a rebel-owned chemical weapons lab in Douma.
The Russian Defense Ministry says that components for Mustard Gas production were discovered along with cylinders of chlorine
at a alb belonging to militants in Douma.
Additionally, Moscow has said it is stunned by a French statement that Russia is obstructing OPCW experts from entering Syria's
Douma (echoing Ambassador Ward's). the Russian foreign ministry confirms OPCW expoerts are already in Douma.
* * *
And on the game goes...
While Russia's foreign ministry warns that Western powers are interfering with OPCW's work in Syria (noting that the chemical
weapons experts' access to Douma is being hampered by remaining militants, supported by Washington),
as Caitlin Johnstone details , we are now being told by US officials (and I assure you I am not making this up) that if the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons doesn't find evidence that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack in Douma
last week, it's because Russia hid the evidence .
"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site,"
reports U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward.
"It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission
to conduct an effective investigation."
I guess the idea is that this international top-level investigative team on which tremendous credibility has been placed by the
western world can be thwarted by Russians showing up with a Hoover and spraying some Febreze in the air like a teenage stoner when
mom comes home? I'm not sure, but given the immense dearth of evidence we've been seeing in support of the establishment Douma narrative
and the
mounting pile of evidence contradicting it, it sure does sound fishy.
The Independent 's Robert Fisk has published a report which affirms
the story so many westerners have been dismissing
as Kremlin propaganda for days now after interviewing a doctor from the hospital of the area where the Douma attack was supposed
to have occurred. Dr Assim Rahaibani told Fisk that what was in actuality an outbreak of respiratory distress among occupants of
a dusty oxygen-deprived tunnel was made to look like the aftereffects of a chemical weapons attack when a member of the White Helmets
started shouting about a gas attack in front of a bunch of video cameras. Everyone panicked and started hosing themselves down, but
in the video, according to Rahaibani, "what you see are people suffering from hypoxia -- not gas poisoning."
This report was independently backed up by a reporter from One America News Network named Pearson Sharp, who
gave a detailed account of his interviews with officials, doctors, as
well as many civilians on the street Sharp says he deliberately selected at random in order to avoid accusations of bias. Many people
hadn't even heard that a chemical weapons attack had taken place, and the ones who had said it was staged by Jaysh al-Islam. The
staff at the hospital, including a medic-in-training who was an eyewitness to the incident, gave the same story as the account in
Fisk's report.
The increasing confidence with which these unapproved narratives are being voiced and the increasing discomfort being exhibited
by empire loyalists like Ambassador Ward indicate a weakening narrative in the greater propaganda campaign against the Assad government
and its allies, but don't hold your breath for the part where Fox News and the BBC turn around and start asking critical questions
of the governments that they are meant to be holding to account.
The journalists who have been advancing the establishment narrative on Syria aren't about to start reporting that they've gotten
the entire Syria story assballs backward and have been promoting a version of events manufactured for the benefit of CIA-MI6-Mossad
agendas. You're not about to see CNN, who last year
staged a fake scripted interview with a seven year-old Syrian girl to manufacture support for escalations against Assad, suddenly
turn around and start asking if we're being told the full story about what's happening Syria.
Watch them closely. Watch how they steadfastly ignore the growing mountain of evidence and keep promoting the Syrian regime change
agenda that the western empire has been
working toward for decades . Watch them dismiss all evidence they can't ignore as Kremlin propaganda and shift the narrative
whenever things start to look bad for them. Those riding the crest of the wave of establishment media are too far gone into the blob
to ever admit error and change. The least among us aren't about to stop constructing a public reality tunnel which depicts them as
heroes of truth, tear it all down, and start advancing a narrative which makes them look like fools at best and villains at worst.
It will not happen.
Luckily for us, it doesn't need to. Internet censorship is still far from closing the door on our ability to network and share
information, and we've been very effective at sowing skepticism among the masses. The war propagandists are not nearly as good at
their jobs as they want to believe, and we can beat them.
They work so hard to manufacture support for war because they require that consent. If the oligarchs try to launch a war against
a disobedient nation amidst very clear opposition from the public, they will shatter the illusion of freedom and democracy that their
entire empire is built upon, and then they're exposed. Corporatist oligarchy has succeeded in weaving its web of dominance because
its oppression has thus far remained hidden and its depravity disguised as humanitarianism. They cannot expose themselves by transgressing
a loud NO from the public or else the masses will realize that everything they used to believe about their country, their government
and their world is a lie.
They won't risk that. We can force them into retreating from open war by circulating facts and information and keeping a healthy
level of skepticism circulating among the public. Watch them squirm, move goalposts and shift narratives, and point and yell about
it whenever it happens. We can win the media war against the propagandists. We have truth on our side.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my
website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish.
My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
That fact-finding body (OPCW) could change the whole paradigm IF it finds conclusive evidence this was a false flag event,
and IF they trumpet their findings to the world, and IF people get all the real ramifications of such a potential finding/announcement.
This said, I fully expect their "findings" to be a masterpiece of ambiguous language and weaslespeak.
This body after all is a creation of politicians and bureaucrats answering to many governments. They, almost certainly, will
"punt."
The OPCW had better release their findings if they contradict the "official" narrative before they fly out from Douma as they
could well end up like the passengers on MH17.
That in itself will be another problem because the "good guys" will know within minutes that Russia did it.
"No conlusive evidence was found" will be the finding which either side can spin to their desire.
Russia - there is no evidence so there was no attack
US - the evidence was no conclusive but only because enough time has passed that it degraded to the point where a good sample
could not be located.....and Russia kept the inspectors from the site in order for this to happen.
Theresa May's
decision to authorise British military action over the skies of Syria by royal prerogative
rather than obtaining the backing of parliament was the wrong thing to do. Even if the prime
minister thinks it was done for the right reasons. It was wrong because the government's plans
should have been articulated so that MPs could have had a chance to endorse – or reject
– a motion to bomb Bashar al-Assad's weapons factories. It was wrong because there was no
emergency – an exception used when after a debate MPs retrospectively endorsed action
against Muammar Gaddafi's
Libya . It was wrong because only prime ministers can recall parliament – and there
was time to do so. It was wrong because decisions about how to police the unlawful use of
weapons of mass destructive terror in Syria turn upon judgment rather than available facts.
Parliament is the best place to assess whether the use of military force serves the overall
interests of a nation in such cases. This is especially true of a government without a majority
of its own. Jeremy Corbyn's resurrection of an old idea for a
war powers act , which would force the PM not to authorise the active and large-scale
deployment of British forces overseas without the approval of the House of Commons, ought not
to be dismissed.
But it should be accompanied by a wider recognition that the days of self-regulation of
cabinet government are over. Observing the parliamentary convention would be better than
creating an act where fractious disagreements over the precise nature of the circumstances in
which the law is to be applied – especially in a situation as fluid and volatile as war
– prevail.
"... casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation ..."
"... repeated acts of violence ..."
"... could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention. ..."
The story we're told is simple: Syrian President Bashar Assad is an evil maniac who uses
poison gas on his citizens for the sheer entertainment value. As neocon think tank the Atlantic
Council
put it last week, when Assad gasses people, he is simply " indulging an addiction
" -- an addiction which he seems to have only recently acquired, given the fact that before
Syria's war began, American journalists were busy praising the "
educated " and " informed " Assad and marveling at the " phenomenal
" levels of peace and religious diversity within Syria.
In 2006 Diane Sawyer praised Assad during a trip to Syria for the "phenomenal" levels of
religious tolerance and peace in Syria. Funny how he turned into a monster at the exact
moment Washington decided it was time for regime change. https://t.co/24qy6UtFez
Anyway, so intense is Assad's newfound desire for watching Syrian babies foaming at the
mouth, that he is willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by deciding to use these
weapons despite knowing it would provoke worldwide outrage and potentially a major US military
effort to oust him. So, that's the story. Assad is a monster and the world must unite to stop
him.
There are plenty of people who are less than convinced by this narrative, however. One of
them is Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Ford told BBC Radio Scotland that " in all
probability " the alleged chemical attack never happened and that the video and image
evidence used as proof by the US and its allies was falsified. There are others who believe
that the attack could have been real, but that the perpetrators were anti-Assad rebels trying
to provoke fresh military action from the US -- in other words, it was very possibly a false
flag event which served its purpose perfectly.
One of the best questions to ask when something like this happens, is: Who benefits? Very
clearly in this case, Assad has not benefited at all, but the rebel groups fighting against him
have.
Whatever the truth about this alleged chemical attack, the notion of false flag events being
used to prompt military action should not be met with such skepticism. The US has a long
history of using lies (or 'fake news' you might call it) as a pretext for war. It is important
to look at recent events in Syria within that context.
Nayirah testimony
Perhaps the most famous of all examples was the heart-wrenching testimony to Congress of a
15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, which was used to sell the first Gulf War
to the American people in October 1990. An emotional Nayirah told the Congressional Human
Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving
them on the floor to die.
What Americans did not know, was that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to
the US and she had been coached by the American PR firm Hill and Knowlton. But before the
details of the stunt and false testimony became widely known, it had already been used to sell
America's war against Iraq in 1991.
In 1990 young Nayirah told of seeing Iraqi soldiers pull Kuwaiti babies out of incubators.
Today our delivery of atrocity propaganda is more sophisticated, yet public credulity remains
about the same. pic.twitter.com/l7UYmByl5D
In the 1960s, American military leaders devised plans to bomb US cities and
blame Cuban leader Fidel Castro in order to manufacture public and international support for a
war.
The plan was codenamed Operation Northwoods and what it advocated was nothing short of
horrendous. The American military suggested sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees, hijacking
planes and bombing Miami. The goal was to convince Americans that Castro had unleashed a reign
of terror upon them.
The top brass were even willing to cause US military casualties by blowing up an American
boat in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. Why? Because, as they put it, " casualty lists in
US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation " and help manufacture
support for war. The plans were quashed by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated one
year later, leading some to speculate on a link between those events.
Gulf of Tonkin
Top US officials also distorted
the facts in the lead-up to the Vietnam War and the media dutifully reported the official
narrative as absolute fact, helping launch perhaps the most disastrous war in America's
history.
On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack the USS 'Maddox' while it was on "
routine patrol " in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the US
Navy reported a second " unprovoked " attack on the 'Maddox' and the USS 'Turner Joy'
-- a second destroyer which had been sent in after the first attack. President Lyndon B.
Johnson told the American people on TV that " repeated acts of violence " against the
US ships must be met with a strong response. Soon after Johnson appeared on TV, Congress passed
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which pre-approved any military action that he would take from
that moment on.
The only problem was, there was no second attack on the US ships at all -- and the
allegation that the first attack had been " unprovoked " was also a lie. In reality,
the USS 'Maddox' had been gathering intelligence and providing it to South Vietnamese boats
which were attacking North Vietnam. As for the second attack, the US boats had misinterpreted
radio signals and radar images and spent two hours firing at nothing. Nonetheless, the "
attack " was used to convince the American people to support war.
3. Given the folly of the British government over Iraq and Libya, and its undoubted
misleading of the public over Iraq, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect it of doing the
same thing again. Some of us also do not forget the blatant lying over Suez, and indeed the
Gulf of Tonkin https://t.co/GLzyoPWaDG
Recently declassified
documents show yet more American false flag plotting, this time against the Soviet Union. A
three-page memo , written by
members of the National Security Council, suggested that the US government should acquire
Soviet aircraft which would be used to stage attacks and provide the pretext for war.
Such aircraft, the memo said, " could be used in a deception operation designed to
confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in
a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly
installations to provide an excuse for US intervention. "
The government even considered producing the soviet planes domestically in a massive covert
operation. They went so far as to acquire estimates from the Air Force on the cost and length
of time such an operation would take.
In a memo of undisclosed date, the US National Security Council suggested the government
should either buy or covertly produce Soviet aircraft and use them to launch fake attacks,
providing pretext for war https://t.co/d7fPLW6Fxwpic.twitter.com/tVnqbValPP
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Is there even any need to rehash the lies which were
told in the lead-up to the Iraq war? The media here again swallowed the government's lies, one
by one -- and 15 years later, the region is still suffering the consequences and very few
lessons appear to have been learned.
These are not conspiracy theories. They are cold, hard evidence that the US has no qualms
whatsoever about using false flag events and fake evidence to provide pretext for military
action.
Continued lack of critical inquiry from the media, given the severe potential consequences
of escalating the conflict in Syria, is tantamount to a crime.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Russia and the Syrian regime have been accused
by western diplomats of denying chemical weapons inspectors access to sites in the town of
Douma, where an attack killed dozens and prompted US-led missile strikes over the weekend.
Russia and Syria had
cited "pending security issues" before inspectors could deploy to the town outside Damascus,
said Ahmet Üzümcü, the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons, at a meeting of the OPCW's executive council.
Syrian authorities were offering 22 people to interview as witnesses instead, he said,
adding that he hoped "all necessary arrangements will be made to allow the team to deploy to
Douma as soon as possible".
Meanwhile, the Trump administration delayed action on sanctions against Russians suspected
of helping Syria's chemical weapons programme, contradicting remarks on Sunday by the US envoy
to the UN, Nikki Haley.
It would be legitimate to wonder if the U.S. MIC will stealthily add to the long list of sanctimonious sanctions the interdiction
for any western vassal state to buy the vastly superior Russian weapon systems in a not so distant future. One can feel it coming.
Needless to say this kind of short sighted vision will be the straw that will break the camel's back.
These sanctions are ultimately going to hurt more the USA than Russia because little by little countries are leaving the American
sphere of influence for the more balanced and reasonable Eurasian one. Nobody wants to stay with a maniac like Nikki or a fool
like trump...
The Americans will be begging to be integrated once they hit the bottom.
"... This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America. ..."
Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.
This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.
I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the
first to use nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no
doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the
utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that
the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate
hostilities.
The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The
people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent
being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny
the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at
the knees.
Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that
nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes.
"Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global
exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life
forms.
Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only
weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically
and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy
is making a mistake
True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities
and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical
grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours.
Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it
would take a long time to recover. We really are our own
worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of
the stupidest shit.
If limited global depopulation is the ultimate goal, then
yes, the USA will suffer the most due to the prevalence
of firearms and the general hostility that is clearly
evident within its citizenry.
That's obviously
not
the main objective for the warmongers and neocons in DC.
The ultimate objective is global dominance, and the
complete and total subjugation of humanity.
Like I said, criminal insanity is the paradigm that
rules the West.
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not
going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave
Syria and does not bow to America.
This recent American
fiasco in
Syria is just the opening overture.
In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the
unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war :
America is losing power and needs it.
Actually the terrorists were sent by Israel and more specifically, the
Mossad, who trained them. Israel wants to expand its territory by
committing a GENOCIDE.
The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria
found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that.
The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta
after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals
have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down
Salisbury.
Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things
never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing
gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Forgot to say that theses sanctions are downright embarrassing.
So we illegally attack a different country, that country's ally doesn't respond to our act of aggression, and we're now slapping
sanctions on that country... for not responding to our attack? Not only sanctions but sanctions on products that both parties
actually know aren't there. Unless the US is sanctioning the supply chain of swimming pool and industrial/domestic cleaning agents
based on chlorine.
Brilliant just the way to get an agreement from them next time.
Trump had 1 BILLION $ in debt to the chosen banks ; maybe this can point toward whether or not he was part of the deep state
from the beginning ? But ,does it matter any longer ?
Sanctions... act of war. Dropping bombs on a sovereign country (without UN approval even)... act of war. Insulting foreign
leaders and creating false flags to justify your illegal actions... act of war. Don't be fooled into thinking that just b/c Russia
did not respond to the US actions, that "nothing happened". War has started, this is just the beginning.
Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly -- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons
attack into a fait accompli, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation mockingbird-controlled, corporate
(MIC) media!
Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN) right
now?
Wonder how Monbiot feels now Syrians are being killed by western bombs?
Will he be slightly suspicious about the urgency of the attack (which took place just
before the inspectors were due to go in) or indeed lack of parliamentary scrutiny about the
necessity for such extreme measures, not to mention the potentially catastrophic consequences
of provoking Russia?
The US is not under threat and neither is the UK – the Syrians have not asked for
bombs to be dropped on them.
The information sources alleging the use of chemical weapons come from the same tainted
Sunni extremists using weapons supplied by the west to destroy Yemen.
Yep, those Jihadi pals of Monbiot and co, need all the help they can get now that they are
losing the war against the legitimate government of Syria. Next time there is a jihadi
outrage against London, Manchester, Paris or St.Tropez, let's see what the likes of Monbiot
and the rest of the liberal-imperialist scum at the Guran has to say. This is Iraq all over
again. Every time the US-NATO wants to bomb a recalcitrant country they invent a pretext. The
Gulf of Tonkin incident, Saddams fabled WMDs and now the fake chemical attack in Syria. Is
there anything worse than liberal imperialism? This has been a political game changer. It is
now apparent beyond doubt that the liberals are on the side of the most vicious ultra-right
warmongering crazies.
What I find troubling about George Monbiot's opinions on President Assad and his supposed
habit of celebrating SAA victories by gassing the very people who voted him back as President
in 2014 (maybe they can't get enough of being gassed by sarin and chlorine, eh, George?) is
his use of strong and often bullying language towards critics like Tim Hayward, Patrick
Henningsen and Vanessa Beeley. He has the hide to question Beeley on who funds her work and
insinuates that she is in the pay of the Russian government. If he only stuck to his opinion
and dubious Just War reasoning – he would be all for invading Syria if, say, Denmark or
Sweden were in charge of leading the cavalry – at least he would be tolerable. But to
tell Hayward that he should listen to a suspicious and sinister character like Oz Katerji
– who openly flaunts his friendship with takfiris – "for [his own] sake" amounts
to harassment.
The Russian Centre for Reconciliation jointly with the Syrian authorities is completing
the large-scale humanitarian operation in the suburbs of Damascus – the Eastern Ghouta.
In total, 170,152 people have been evacuated during the operation, including 63,117 militants
with their families.
All the settlements in the Eastern Ghouta are currently under the control of the Syrian
government.
The Russian military police has been deployed in the Eastern Ghouta in order to monitor
situation and maintain law enforcement.
As environment in the suburbs of Damscus stabilizing, people are making their way back
home. In total some 63,000 people have return to their homes now. It makes a half of those
who had left the area.
The Syrian government working on rehabilitation of destroyed civilian infrastructure.
Power and water supply systems have been recovered; reconstruction is underway in the area.
People are provided with medical assistance.
Thus, the present-day Eastern Ghouta is far from a "black hole" where no one could get to,
but a capital suburb returning to peaceful life.
Excellent article. I suppose I shouldn't be too terribly surprised by Monbiot's irrational
and immoral stance on Syria, as it's lack of logic and ethical coherence dovetails nicely
with his new found support for nuclear power as a solution to climate change – inspired
no less by the events at Fukishima. Quite amazing actually!
If Monbiot wanted to find out what was happening he could find out just as easily as we
found out. Hes a fake, a traitor and a supporter of the destruction of a securer democracy by
British backed Al Qaeda terrorists on the orders of the zionist state.. There are no
excuses.
I have nothing but contempt for Monbiot or the people he works for and nothing but respect
for the Syrian people who stand against Monbiots head chopping, child killing, family
burning, evil cannibalistic scum
Some times people become so lost in their own ego through education and privilege that they
no longer have capacity to recognize anything but hubris. The whole education system pushes
this mindset through reward and accolade to the most susceptible students. This system
encourages a level of blind faith in the theories that are taught to them to the the point
that the student forgets that what they are being taught is only theory and indoctrination
that they should have learned to question. These students are the ones that life opens up
for. They are afforded the best jobs, high life styles, nice houses with big mortgages
effectively trapping them in a spiders web that becomes difficult to escape from even if they
do wake up. Deep down they realize that they are out of their depth but keep up the pretense.
These people become the perfect mouth pieces for the state and don't even necessarily realize
they have been hijacked and compromised by their status. This makes it difficult for them to
recognize others opinions and to question them selves or the narrative they hold. To query
there stance unhinges them. This is the point that they often become dogmatic, dismissive and
angry . The worst ones are often the ones who see them selves as liberal as they really do
believe that they have got where they are by being intelligent and informed. Guardian
journalists seem particularly susceptible to this belief. The most sinister part about these
journalists is they do manage to manipulate their readers on an insidious level lulling them
with their {liberalism}.
I appreciate the force and elegance of Prof. Hayward's argumentation. I'm not sure, though,
why he would stop at (or, for that matter, start with) the loyalty of the Syrian army. He
was, after all, elected and even after several years of violence, it could probably be fairly
plausibly confirmed (or disconfirmed), in principle at least, that he has majority (indeed
increased) support among the population. Another argument subject to (dis)confirmation would
be that a very significant number of the "rebels" and the vast bulk of their funding,
training, weapons and diplomatic / media cover are not Syrian. They would not, then, be part
of a rebellion but foreign mercenaries or (largely Salafist) fundamentalist legions in a
regime change operation that happens to be consistent with American policy towards Syria
since the 1940s.
During the time [around 2011] Monbiot was asking people about their opinions on Syria an
opinion poll on Syria was published, "According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by
The Doha Debates [ the sponsors of the debate no supporters of Assad by any means] Syrians
are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign". One of the main
reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the
country". Then in the 2016 presidential election Assad won gaining 88% of vote. Followed by
Parliamentary elections when the Ba'ath party won 200 out of 250 seats. The Syrian army is
majority Sunni and the majority of the Government is Sunni. He has overwhelming support
inside and outside Syria, in Lebanon for instance there was a huge turnout for Assad with
tens of thousands queuing up to vote for him.
How anyone can voice support for the "rebels" is beyond me, since they are made up mostly of
Jihadis who want to slaughter any opposition to themselves. They say so themselves.
Very early on in the jihadist attack on Syria, there was a massive demonstration in Damascus
of two million, where a huge Syrian flag was held aloft by the crowd, in support of the
Government. It was broadcast on the Austfalian SBS 'multicultural' TV as an 'ANTI-Assad'
demonstration ie a complete LIE, but one as far as I know never acknowledged or
retracted.
Thereafter, until today, the SBS, has been the vilest of all our filthy fakestream
propagandists working for a takfiri victory. The Syrian Government is 'the regime'. The
salafist child crucifiers 'rebels', the favoured media source the al-Jazeera sewer controlled
by the vile Wahhabist Qatar regime, one of the prime sponsors of the death-squad butchers.
The SBS even has a coterie of female voice-over operatives, whose histrionic utterances,
spitting out the hate propaganda, often verge on hysteria.
I've often wondered why they took this position. I suspect Zionist influence, all pervasive
in this country, but NEVER dared to be mentioned (the PM Turnbull represents the richest
electorate in the country with a large Jewish constituency, and his groveling is epic)and
Saudi. For decades the Sordid Arabians have been allowed to finance Wahhabist proselytisation
in this country, including in Moslem schools, a decision of bizarre stupidity. As a result we
sent scores of enthusiastic wannabe head-loppers to Syria, one of whom was photographed
grinning as his seven year old son held up a severed head. While these butchers were used in
Islamophobic hate propaganda, the scum death-squad army they were members of, was still
afforded TOTAL support by the local fakestream as 'rebels' against 'animal Assad'.
This is excellent. Far from being 'too kind' to Monbiot, its restraint, both in tone and in
substantive argument – not making claims that can't be defended, and being precise on
such as the difference between high probability and empirical or logical certainty – is
a great strength. Hayward stands head and shoulders above Monbiot not just in his arguments
but in his scrupulous manner of advancing them.
Monbiot is a fake. His role is to help maintain the fiction that there is a diversity of
opinions in the corporate media, which enables them to pretend there is no rational dissent
from the official narrative when the pretend left and the centre and the right all agree,
such as when they all say: Assad is bad.
This is a very well put together piece on a very troubling individual. Monbiot has always
been deeply suspicious in my view. He issues his statements (often lies) and never engages
his critics, evidently viewing criticism as an intolerable offense. Not the behaviour of an
honourable man.
I would very much like to see a follow-up piece similar to this but that looks wider and
takes apart his deception on issues other than Syria.
Ultimately, he should not be working as a so-called journalist. His ability to push lies
is deeply offensive to those of us with an interest in truth and integrity. He is truly a
stain.
The feeling I get from Tim Hayward's article is of lost love – but not in the romantic
sense – for Monbiot – who he used to feel part of, believe in, stand side by side
with? Is this a long letter TO G.M?
There's another feeling I get over the incitement to war on Syria – and that is of
the many being forced, terrorized, or convinced at least that going along with the pressure
to act out the line or at least not challenge it – is the choosing of a lesser
evil.
However I do not see any convincing actors on the stage in the 'case' for making war on
Syria. Only of assets by one means or another.
We may be misled about most everything, perhaps because the mind from its earliest
adaptations to sense of loss of love, support and connection, learns to mask pain and seek
protection in strategies of self justification.
Since the earliest catastrophic beginnings of the development of this peculiarly split
human consciousness, the gods that terrorised us from above were sacrificed to in
supplication of appeasement. So that which sends fire and plague is entreated to save us from
it. Nothing has changed but the costumes of its human reenactments.
I feel it is time for a New Story.
Don't fight over narrative – just read where it comes from with some compassion. The
promise of 'power and protection' reveals a hollow and pathetic dependency. We feed a monster
as if to 'survive'.
The capacity for introspection is also the capacity to uncover a fundamental humanity
within even the worst of times. Everyone acts in self interest as in that moment they define
themselves to be in relation to it. The lie is considered bad to be exposed in – but
necessary to hide by.
But if everything is subjugated to serve a lie (too big to fail) then there is nothing
true – excepting the power to say so and enforce it, and is that not the 'thinking' to
which we have been trained to suckle?
I cannot make another man (or woman's) choices. I can only live my own and by tasting the
results, learn to make better choices. But this absolutely depends on self-honesty. We cannot
lie to others and be true to ourself nor lie to ourself and be true to others. And if we try
to make the lie true – we will project the mind of it into the perceptions of others
– whether they extend a true willingness or a deceit – we wont be able to
tell.
That is the recipe for hell – because everything reflects a hidden hate that
'threatens' to destroy or violate our defences. But the enemy is not 'OUT THERE!' –
even if there are many with grievance.
The lie and the father of the lie sets us against our Self – each other and our
world.
"No it doesn't – it protects me from chaos, powerlessness, humiliation and loss of
self!"
Yet all these things has it delivered while pointing the finger away.
There is a heart prayer from Hawaii
The mind is erected against saying it:
"I'm sorry, please forgive me, I love you , thank you".
This is an excellent article among many here, but Binra's comment really resonates with
me.
I see a direct link between:
unconditional love (love is unconditional, or it isn't love),
learning how to become part of love's continuing evolution,
learning how to avoid war.
For me, the quality of being that is love is the nature of the personal choices we
each must make if we are to learn – both as individuals and by extension as larger
groups – how to navigate the sinister and deceptive propaganda this article addresses,
and hopefully put an end to it one day. We otherwise fall prey to its machinations and are
lost to history's darker forces.
"I'm sorry, please forgive me, I love you , thank you".
Humility, love and gratitude are strong when undertaken with courage, perseverance and
patience. This is not easy to do. But we know that. The right way is the hard way.
"Monbiot is, like Noam Chomsky, a Khazarian Jew " What the hell has this to do with the point
you are trying to make?
Are you trying to say that all Khazarian Jews (or all Jews?) "support the globalist
finance plutocracy." etc.? Unlike the very justified condemnation of the massacre of unarmed
Palestinian protesters at the Gaza/Israel border by the Israeli army, this is genuine
anti-semitism.
It's fine to criticise Monbiot and Chomsky as individuals, however harshly. but there
should be zero tolerance for attributing the "sophistry and faux-empathy" you see them
exhibiting to their ethnicity.
The global capitalist elite are indeed our enemy. They are mostly white and male but share
few other characteristics.
Susanna, that type of idiot with their stupid stereotyping of whole groups, are often, I
suspect, frauds, sent to discredit those around them. So, some Ashkenazi Jews are descended
from the Khazars who converted to Judaism. So what-as Shlomo Sand shewed, a number of groups
over time converted to Judaism, when it was more proselytising than now, just as groups
converted to Islam or Christianity. That makes no difference to how Chomsky acts (pretty well
as far as I can see) or Monbiot (increasingly very badly, and shamefully).
Monbiot's arrogance is innate. It got him into strife when he tackled the formidable Edward S
Herman over the phony Srebrenica 'genocide' and was savagely mauled, but, as expected, he
declared himself the victor and retreated to smear his adversaries from the sidelines.
He propagandises as he must, or he'd get the Pilger treatment, and his nice sinecure at the
Fraudian would disappear. And since the Sorosification and the other measures taken to turn
the Fraudian into the sewer of disinformation and hate-mongering that it is today, working so
frantically for a jihadist victory in Syria and Syria's vivisection, to the greater glory of
Eretz Yisrael, Monbiot has simply goose-stepped ever further Right, as scores of his type
have done, over the years.
Polonius: This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the
day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!
I have been thinking lately this might apply even to villains, as in Peer Gynt. Then if
you are really strong black and white but sincere, the Divine Photographer has a chance to
season you in acid gall and reduce you in sulfite until your positive emerges Lily White. But
if you are just a misty inbetween maundering Boyg of a man, you have to resort to Photoshop
to provide a fake identity.
"Those who were neither for God nor for Devil but only for themselves . So many, I had not
thought Death had undone so many". -- Dante, The First Circle
Sorry, the above post should have been addressed to Binra who said something similar to the
advice Polonius gave Laertes. Ibsen's Peer Gynt goes further: even a villain who is true to
himself may be valuable in the scheme of things; but people like the Fraudian journoes who
just drift the way the wind blows are puffballs that carry no seed.
The bombing of Syrian government targets by the United States, Britain, and France is a disgraceful and ineffectual act masquerading
as a noble gesture. Far from preventing a more vicious war, the bombing instead legitimizes the continuation of the conflict. In
fact, what this barrage of weapons really reveals is how little interest the global powers have in ending Syria's ghastly war.
ss="rich-link">
Syria: who are the key players in the conflict?
Read more
Similar to the attacks on Syrian government targets that Donald Trump ordered just over a year ago, the airstrikes
this time will not seriously damage Bashar al-Assad's larger military capacity, nor are they intended to. Instead,
we're told that the western bombing campaign has specifically aimed munitions at locations where the storage and testing
of chemical weapons occurs.
But wasn't last year's attack meant to put an end to Assad's use of chemical weapons, and aren't these the weapons that he was
supposed to have destroyed under international auspices in 2014? At this rate, should we expect that an aerial bombing mission to
finally and completely destroy Assad's chemical weapons will be launched every April?
The question is ridiculous, of course, but so is the idea that this attack will accomplish anything beyond boosting the war-making
egos of its protagonists and enabling Assad, his reprehensible regime, and his allies to complain of being the perpetual victims
of western aggression. Beyond the bombast on both sides, Syria's daily misery will continue.
These strikes mark the first timeTheresa May of Britain and Emmanuel Macron of France have committed their respective militaries
into combat, and they have done so, according to May, "to protect innocent people in
Syria
from the horrific deaths and casualties caused by chemical weapons, but also because we cannot allow the erosion of the
international norm that prevents the use of these weapons."
May's words might sound more intelligent than those of Donald Trump, who in his statement about the attacks told the American
people: "Hopefully, someday we'll get along with Russia and maybe even Iran, but maybe not." But what May's words really reveal is
not the ethical reasoning of a head of state but the devastating lack of moral concern by the international community when it comes
to the people of Syria.
The fact that three of the world's most powerful militaries have now been mobilized into action, even for a limited campaign such
as this one, to prevent "the erosion of the international norm" of using chemical weapons is far from comforting. Since the war began,
Assad's regime has engaged in the repeated and dreadful use of barrel bombs and mass starvation, the systematic torture of thousands
of citizens and the laying siege to multiple cities, the killing of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of more
than half the population. Yet, all of this horror does not seem to "erode an international norm" and certainly has not motivated
these western leaders to any meaningful action to end the war.
On the contrary, regional and global powers now exploit Syria for their own advantage and apportion out its territory for repeated
bombing. At this point, the country has been bombed by the Assad regime, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, Iran, Turkey,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE.
Rather than limiting war, this latest bombing of Syria normalizes the war's ongoing brutality. Forget the chemical weapons for
a moment. The bombing of Syria by the western powers essentially and unconscionably establishes near total warfare on civilians as
an acceptable "international norm." Our politicians will wallow in their most recent action, calling the bombing a great success
for our civilization. In fact, it's much more akin to our demise.
"... But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news", and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies. ..."
"... And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and conquered. ..."
"... a totally and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported. ..."
"... The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even more rubble, causing even more death and destitution ..."
"... the US economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon manufacturing. ..."
"... But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on humanity. ..."
Poison gas is not only deadly, it often provokes a slow suffocating death. That, perpetrated
on innocent children, is particularly cruel.
But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news",
and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what
it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies.
Is that what we have become – brainless, greedy, selfish beings, no sense of
solidarity, no respect for other beings; I am not even talking about humans, but any living
being.
Poison gas, the weapon of choice for fear.
Poisoning in Salisbury of the former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter,
Yulia, visiting her dad from Moscow. Poisoning with a nerve gas, called Novichok that was
allegedly made in Russia. In the meantime, we know that nerve gas made in the former Soviet
Union, now non-existent in Russia, was military grade and deadly. The gas used for the alleged
attack was not deadly. We also know by now that the UK – all of their highest officials,
from PM May down the ladder, lied so miserably that they will have a hard time recovering. It
will backfire. Unlike the foreign secretary, Johnson boy pretended their secret bio-gas /
bio-weapon laboratory Porton Down, just 13 km down the road from Salisbury, where the pair was
allegedly found unconscious on a park bench, assured him the gas was made in Russia. Alas, the
laboratories chief chemists testified later to the media that they could not be sure that the
substance was made in Russia. No, of course not.
In fact, Porton Down, working in close collaboration with the CIA, is a highly sophisticated
chemical warfare facility that can easily make the gas themselves – at the grades they
please, deadly or not so deadly, if it should serve a "false news" purpose – which this
did.
Were father and daughter indeed poisoned? – This is a legitimate question. Who has
seen them since the alleged poisoning occurred on 28 March? – They disappeared from the
public eye. Apparently, they are both recovering, Yulia having been released from hospital a
few days ago, but has not been seen by anyone in public, nor been able to talk to the media,
lest she could say "something" the public is not allowed to know. Her father is also recovering
and may be released soon – released from where? – Is this all a farce?
An aunt talked to Yulia from Moscow, where she noticed that Yulia was not free to talk. The
aunt wanted to visit her niece in the UK but was obviously denied a visa.
Where are father and daughter? – Washington has "offered" them a new home and new
identity in the US, to avoid further poisoning attempts how ridiculous! A blind man or woman
must see that this is another farce, or more correctly, an outright abduction. The two won't
have a chance to resist. They are just taken away – not to talk anymore to anyone ever.
– That's the way the story goes. The lies are protected, and the "Russia did it" syndrome
will prevail – prevail in the dumb folded public, in the herd of pigs that we all have
become, as Goebbels would say.
And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing
else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and
conquered. But the empire needs the public for their support. And the empire is almost
there. It disposes of a vicious media corporate army – that lies flagrantly about
anything that money can buy. It's like spitting in the face of the world, and nobody seems to
care, or worse, even to notice.
* * *
On the other side of the Mediterranean is Syria. A vast and noble country, Syria,
with a leader who truly loves his people and country, a leader who has despite a foreign
induced war – not civil war – a proxy war, instigated and funded by
Washington and its vassal allies in Europe and the Middle East; Syria, a highly educated
socialist country that has shared the benefit of her resources, free education, free medical
services, free basic infrastructure, with her people. This Syria must fall. Such strength
cannot be tolerated by the all-dominating west. Like Iraq and Libya, also socialist countries
once-upon-a-time, and like Syria, secular Muslim nations, sharing their countries wealth with
the people, such countries must fall.
According to Pentagon planners and those Zion-neofascist thinktanks that designed the PNAC
(Plan for a New American Century), as the chief instrument of US foreign policy, we know since
Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied commander and Chief of NATO in Europe (1997-2000)
talked to Democracy Now in 2007, saying that within 5 years seven countries must fall, one of
them is Syria.
Since 2011, the Syrian people have been bombarded by US and NATO and Saudi funded
terrorists, causing tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees. Now, even more
blatantly, US bases are vying to occupying the northern third of Syria, totally illegally, but
nobody says beep. Not even the UN.
The recent fake gas attack on Douma outside of Damascus, has allegedly killed 80 to 120
people, mostly women and children.
Of course, that sells best in the propaganda theatre – women and children. Strangely,
like last time the infamous White Helmets discovered the gas victims, including a gas
canister-like bomb laying on a bed, having been shot through the roof of a house a totally
and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported.
They called on an independent investigation, one that could not be bought and corrupted by
Washington. President Assad invited a team of investigators to inspect the scene.
Instead of heeding this invitation, Trump, the bully, calls Mr. Assad an "animal" and a
"monster", twittering his brainless aggressions throughout the world. Tell you what, Mr. Trump,
Bashar al-Assad is a far better human being than you are a monster. You and your dark handlers
don't even deserve being called human. Mr. Assad has regard and respect for his people,
attempts to protect them and has so far succeeded with the help of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah,
recovering the last bits of Syrian territory from the terrorist, except of course, the northern
part, where the chief terrorist and the world's only rogue state has itself installed, the US
of A. – Why in the world would Mr. Assad choose to gas his own people? Especially, when
he is winning the war? – People, ask yourself, cui bono (who benefits?) and the
answer is simple: The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even
more rubble, causing even more death and destitution . That's who.
While you, Donald, and those monsters that direct you from behind the scenes, have no, but
absolutely no respect for your people, for any people on this globe, for that matter, not even
for your kind, for your greed-no-end kind of elite, as you bring the world to the brink of an
all-destructive, all killing annihilating war.
Since the other fake event, 9/11, we are, of course, already in a "soft version" of WWIII,
but that's not enough, the United States needs a hard war, so badly it doesn't shy away from
destroying itself. That's how blinded your own propaganda has made you Americans, you generals,
you corporate "leaders" (sic-sic) – and all you Congress puppets. That is the sheer
truth. You better read this and wake up. Otherwise your dead sentence is hastened by your own
greed and ignorance.
Both Russia and the US drafted a Security Council Resolution – which of course are
both not approved, with Nikki Haley lambasting Russia, accusing them of being responsible for
the countless deaths in Syria – pointing again to the children and women, making up the
majority. Again, it sells best in the world of psychological propaganda, while evil Nikki Haley
knows very well who has caused all these deaths by the millions, destitution and refugees by
the millions, tens of millions throughout the Middle East and the world – her own
country, directly or through NATO, the European puppets allies and proxy wars, paid and funded
by Washington and by elbow-twisting her vassals.
On 9 April – UNSC – while Nikki Haley, repeats and over-repeats her lies and
fake accusations, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Vassily Nebenzia, listens. And then in
a twenty-minute statement of sheer intelligence, he dismantles all the lies, and lays bare the
truth, about all the fakeness being played out internationally. The depth with which he
addresses the assembly is concise and so brilliant, none of his UK, French and German
counterparts could have ever come close to a statement of this magnitude and excellence. Even
Ms. Haley can't help glancing over ever-so
often to Vassily Nebenzia, as he speaks . Her eyes reveal some kind of hidden admiration
for what he says. – After all, she can't be as dumb as she is paid for to look and
sound.
By now anybody who dares not just reading and listening to the mainstream presstitute "fake
news", but has the courage to dig into the truth news, RT, TeleSur, CGTN, PressTV – and a
few others, or websites like Global Research, The Saker Blog, ICH, NEO, Greanville Post
CounterCurrent, Dissident Voice and many other trustworthy sources – knows about the lies
and the only, but the very only purpose these false flags cum false news serve:
Provoking a war with Russia, subjugating and dividing Syria, and the Middle East and becoming
the hegemonic masters of the universe.
For the simple reason, and hardly anybody talks or writes about it – the US
economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which
finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon
manufacturing.
The entire war industry with all its associated civil services and industries, of banking,
electronics, aviation, mining . makes up more than half of the US GDP – but of course,
it's never broken down that way. The chosen people will control the world. Well, they do
already – financially at least the western part of our globe. But it's not enough. They
will not stop, before they burry themselves in their own-dug graves, or rather in one massive
mass-grave. But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and
more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And
give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on
humanity.
"... Next, there was an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called "western values" (democracy, rule of law, human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill. ..."
"... There was also a broad consensus that the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake. ..."
"... Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the "experts" was representing, or working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for the so-called "experts". Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing popular consensus. ..."
They all agreed that the AngloZionist (of course, they used the words "USA" or "Western
countries") was only going to further escalate and that the only way to stop this is to
deliberately bring the world right up to the point were a full-scale US-Russian war was
imminent or even locally started.
They said that it was fundamentally wrong for Russia to reply
with just words against Western actions. Interestingly, there also was a consensus that even a
full-scale US attack on Syria would be too late to change the situation on the ground, that it
was way too late for that.
Another interesting conclusion was that the only real question for
Russia is whether Russia would be better off delaying this maximal crisis or accelerating the
events and making everything happen sooner. There was no consensus on that.
Next, there was
an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common
sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported
by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called "western values" (democracy, rule of law,
human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill.
There was also a broad consensus that
the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts
are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh
measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris
Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake.
To my amazement, the
notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the
Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.
Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the "experts" was representing, or
working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also
know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for
the so-called "experts". Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing
popular consensus.
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
This is US specific bank of chickenhawks, who feed from MIC cramps. this breed is really entrenched in State Department too (Madeleine
Albright, Nuland, Powell, Haley, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria! ..."
"... It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names? ..."
War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it
appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria!
It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope
for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names?
"... There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here - and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing the MSM and/or our government. ..."
@ BM: My take on the situation in Germany: the MSM - leftish or rightish, doesn't matter -
mindlessly repeat what our US colonial masters are telling them to.
There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here -
and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing
the MSM and/or our government.
But what can you do when the published opinions are completely manufactured and anyone has
to suppose his neighbours all believe this idiocy?
That's a bit of a stretch. Germans were demoralized long before, as each sane person knew the war will end in
defeat from mid'42 on. Back in the days I had the somewhat questionable pleasure of talking to German ex-soldiers
(two of my grand-uncles) that were deployed to the Eastern Front. Compared to the kind of warfare that was going
on there, the fighting in the west and south was almost akin to being on vacation - I'm serious about that.
On average the Soviets, mainly comprised of todays Russian peoples, lost 16-18000 people a day, this is
evidence of the fierceness of fighting and, also, to what amount of a beating the Russians can take without
losing sight of their goal.
The Soviet Union did the real fighting against German forces. At all times there'd been about 85% of all
German forces deployed to the east, without this there would had been no bombing campaign against Germany simply
because the number of fighter aircraft available against allied bombers would had been overwhelming.
Except for a few elite units, hastily re-deployed from the east, the main force was inexperienced draftees
with both a lack of proper training and equipment. All other experienced units stayed east in a desperate attempt
to hold back the red army as long as any possible.
A very good friend of mine, who died a couple years back at age 84, was one of these unfortunate souls. When
he turned 17 in late Dec.'44 he received an official letter that read 'A gift from the Fuhrer' - it was his draft
note. That's been the kind of opponent the western allies faced late in the war, a bunch of badly under-equipped
troops consisting of exhausted regulars and youths, that were scared shitless (his words, not mine).
Russia's a different kind of animal. They won WWII - European theater almost singlehandedly but had to pay
dearly.
Ukraine is a debilitated state, created under Soviet auspices, hampered by a difficult
Soviet inheritance, and hollowed out by its own predatory elites during two decades of misrule.
But it is also a nation that is too big and independent for Russia to swallow up. Russia,
meanwhile, is a damaged yet still formidable great power whose rulers cannot be intimidated
into allowing Ukraine to enter the Western orbit. Hence the standoff. No external power or aid
package can solve Ukraine's problems or compensate for its inherent vulnerabilities
vis-à-vis Russia. Nor would sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine's brave but ragtag
volunteer fighters and corrupt state structures improve the situation; in fact, it would send
it spiraling further downward, by failing to balance Russian predominance while giving Moscow a
pretext to escalate the conflict even more. Rather, the way forward must begin with a
recognition of some banal facts and some difficult bargaining.
Russia's seizure of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine do not challenge the entire
post-1945 international order. The forward positions the Soviet Union occupied in the heart of
Europe as a result of defeating Nazi Germany were voluntarily relinquished in the early 1990s,
and they are not going to be reoccupied. But nor should every detail of the post–Cold War
settlement worked out in 1989–91 be considered eternal and inviolate. That settlement
emerged during an anomalous time. Russia was flat on its back but would not remain prostrate
forever, and when it recovered, some sort of pushback was to be expected.
Something similar happened following the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, many of the
provisions of which were not enforced. Even if France, the United Kingdom, and the United
States had been willing and able to enforce the peace, their efforts would not have worked,
because the treaty had been imposed during a temporary anomaly, the simultaneous collapse of
German and Russian power, and would inevitably have been challenged when that power
returned.
Territorial revisionism ensued after World War II as well, of course, and continued
sporadically for decades. Since 1991, there have been some negotiated revisions: Hong Kong and
Macao underwent peaceful reabsorption into China. Yugoslavia was broken up in violence and war,
leading to the independence of its six federal units and eventually Kosovo, as well.
Unrecognized statelets such as Nagorno-Karabakh, part of Azerbaijan; Transnistria, a sliver of
Moldova; Abkhazia and South Ossetia, disputed units of Georgia; and now Donetsk and Luhansk,
parts of Ukraine -- each entails a story of Stalinist border-making.
The European Union cannot resolve this latest standoff, nor can the United Nations. The
United States has indeed put together "coalitions of the willing" to legitimize some of its
recent interventions, but it is not going to go to war over Ukraine or start bombing Russia,
and the wherewithal and will for indefinite sanctions against Russia are lacking. Distasteful
as it might sound, Washington faces the prospect of trying to work out some negotiated larger
territorial settlement.
Such negotiations would have to acknowledge that Russia is a great power with leverage, but
they would not need to involve the formal acceptance of some special Russian sphere of interest
in its so-called near abroad. The chief goals would be, first, to exchange international
recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea for an end to all the frozen conflicts in which
Russia is an accomplice and, second, to disincentivize such behavior in the future. Russia
should have to pay monetary compensation for Crimea. There could be some federal solutions,
referendums, even land swaps and population transfers (which in many cases have already taken
place). Sanctions on Russia would remain in place until a settlement was mutually agreed on,
and new sanctions could be levied if Russia were to reject negotiations or were deemed to be
conducting them in bad faith. Recognition of the new status of Crimea would occur in stages,
over an extended period.
It would be a huge challenge to devise incentives that were politically plausible in the
West while at the same time powerful enough for Russia to agree to a just settlement -- and for
Ukraine to be willing to take part. But the search for a settlement would be an opportunity as
well as a headache.
NATO expansion can be judged to have been a strategic error -- not because it angered Russia
but because it weakened NATO as a military alliance. Russia's elites would likely have become
revanchist even without NATO's advance, because they believe, nearly universally, that the
United States took advantage of Russia in 1991 and has denied the country its rightful place as
an equal in international diplomacy ever since. But NATO expansion's critics have not offered
much in the way of practicable alternatives. Would it really have been appropriate, for
example, to deny the requests of all the countries east of Germany to join the alliance?
Then as now, the only real alternative was the creation of an entirely new trans-European
security architecture, one that fully transcended its Cold War counterpart. This was an
oft-expressed Russian wish, but in the early 1990s, there was neither the imagination nor the
incentives in Washington for such a heavy lift. Whether there is such capacity in Washington
today remains to be seen. But even if comprehensive new security arrangements are unlikely
anytime soon, Washington could still undertake much useful groundwork.
Critics might object on the grounds that the sanctions are actually biting, reinforced by
the oil price free fall -- so why offer even minimal concessions to Putin now? The answer is
because neither the sanctions, nor the oil price collapse, nor the two in conjunction have
altered Russia's behavior, diminished its potential as a spoiler, or afforded Ukraine a chance
to recover.
Whether they acknowledge it or not, Western opponents of a negotiated settlement are really
opting for another long-term, open-ended attempt to contain Russia and hope for regime change
-- a policy likely to last until the end of Putin's life and possibly well beyond. The costs of
such an approach are likely to be quite high, and other global issues will continue to demand
attention and resources. And all the while, Ukraine would effectively remain crippled, Europe's
economy would suffer, and Russia would grow ever more embittered and difficult to handle. All
of that might occur no matter what. But if negotiations hold out a chance of somehow averting
such an outcome, they are worth a try. And the attempt would hold few costs, because failed
negotiations would only solidify the case for containment in Europe and in the United
States.
It is ultimately up to Russia's leaders to take meaningful steps to integrate their country
into the existing world order, one that they can vex but not fully overturn. To the extent that
the Ukraine debacle has brought this reality into sharper focus, it might actually have been
useful in helping Putin to see some light, and the same goes for the collapse of oil prices and
the accompanying unavoidable devaluation of the ruble. After the nadir of 1998, smart policy
choices in Moscow, together with some lucky outside breaks, helped Russia transform a crisis
into a breakthrough, with real and impressive steps forward. That history could replay itself
-- but whether it will remains the prerogative of one person alone.
"... 'A relatively recent body of research has shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition to a market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture.' ..."
"... Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does. ..."
"... What is bizarre now is the c ombination of an unreal sense of danger relating to non-existent or grossly exaggerated threats, with a lack of any sense of danger relating to our current practice of making actually or potentially unstable areas of the world even more unstable (pushing Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, one might call it.) ..."
Another point may be worth bringing into the discussion. One thing that Oxford University does rather well nowadays, perhaps
ironically, is mafia studies – they have two splendid Italian professors, Diego Gambetta and Federico Varese. As the latter put
it in his 2011 study 'Mafias on the Move':
'A relatively recent body of research has shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition
to a market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply
of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture.'
An interesting feature of this work is that a great deal of it is really an application of 'rational choice' theory. Applied
in the conditions of the Soviet Union in the Nineties, 'shock therapy' actually created pressing 'rational' incentives leading
to extensive criminalisation.
If property rights cannot be protected by an effective state, they will be protected by private enterprise – which means mafias.
And if at the same time a vast military, intelligence and internal security apparatus is being demobilised, some of its members
have the strongest incentives to join mafias.
Some kind of reconstruction of the Russian state – and also of Russian patriotism – was clearly necessary if large parts of
Eurasia were not to be permanently locked in a state of criminalised anarchy.
People can legitimately disagree about the merits and demerits of Putin's approaches, and the interpenetration between organised
crime, supposedly 'legitimate' business and politics continues to be a massive problem.
However, any argument based upon the belief Russia was 'on the right lines' in the Yeltsin years quite patently makes it impossible
to understand what the possibilities are in the country today – in particular as, precisely as rkka says, it leads to the conclusion
that Putin's supporters are suffering from a massive case of 'false consciousness'.
"Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently
aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does."
Exactly. In the '90s, oligarchs felt no need to pay wages to workers or taxes to the government, preferring to offshore every
kopek they could get their hands on. Hence, workers suffered and the government was bankrupt.
And the FreeMarketReformers were fine with this.
When Putin arrived, he offered the oligarchs a deal: Keep your swag from the '90s, but behave from this point on. Most took
him up on it. Several refused and tried to do as they had before. And when these were exiled or jailed, the Angosphere Foreign
Policy Elite and Punditocracy (AFPE&P) howled with outrage at Putin 'violating their human rights'
However, the Russian people know by their own experience that they now live far better than they did while FreeMarketReformers
were running the place. This is the simple reason Putin is popular with Russians. The AFPE&P say its because the Russian government
dominates Russian media and propagandizes the ignorant masses. The AFPE&P lie about this, from both ignorance and malice.
USG is clearly out of date by at least a decade and a half, or more likely, two or more, when it comes to Russia. After all, isn't
that when we supposedly "won" the Cold War? If my speculation is right and no serious Russia experts came near the loci of power
in USG since then, I shudder to think how out of date our information about the rest of the world (besides Russia and its surroundings)
are.
Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently
aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does.
I would absolutely agree with everything you write.
Some tentative thoughts in response.
In relation to British imperial experience, it may be relevant that the distinctive nature of Indian society, both the religious
issues involved and the critical issue of caste, facilitated imperial control over a population which was not simply 'primitive'
in the way that was the case in, for instance, most of Africa.
But 'divide et impera' can only be practised on the basis of understanding. Moreover, there were clear penalties for obtuseness,
as we discovered in 1857.
What is bizarre now is the c ombination of an unreal sense of danger relating to non-existent or grossly exaggerated threats,
with a lack of any sense of danger relating to our current practice of making actually or potentially unstable areas of the world
even more unstable (pushing Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, one might call it.)
As regards alien cultures, it is certainly not necessary either to agree with or to 'respect' them. What however strikes
me is the apparent marginalisation of a sense of interest – which I think has catastrophic consequences for intelligence.
An example from British intelligence history may be to the point. The unit in MI6 which handled the material from Enigma
relating to the Abwehr, the German intelligence service, was headed by Hugh Trevor-Roper. A classicist turned historian of
early modern Europe – and a strange, feline creature – his response to the chaos of the time was to identify strongly with
an eighteenth-century Enlightenment tradition.
But he made sense of the accumulating evidence about the nature of the Nazi regime through a perspective shaped by a tradition
of interpretation of despotism going back through Gibbon to Tacitus, and knowledge of millenarian and apocalyptic cults in
early modern Europe.
Doing so enabled him to see something which both Roosevelt and Churchill failed to grasp – that the view of the Second World
War as a continuation of its predecessor, and the enemy as 'Prussianism', was at best a half-truth, and a dangerous one at
best, obscuring the radical gulf in attitudes between the nihilistic millenarians of the 'Sicherheitsdienst' and the German
General Staff.
One of the most fascinating counterfactuals of the war is what might have happened had Trevor-Roper's attempts to get the
British to respond to the overtures from the Abwehr chief Admiral Canaris born fruit.
"There was no chemical weapons attack," Nebenzia told the council. "Through the relevant
channels we already conveyed to the US that armed forces under mendacious pretext against Syria
– where, at the request of the legitimate government of a country, Russian troops have
been deployed – could lead to grave repercussions."
A few hours earlier, Donald Trump said his administration was on the brink of deciding its
response to the Douma attack. "We are meeting with our military and everybody else, and we'll
be making some major decisions over the next 24 to 48 hours," he said at a cabinet meeting. "We
are very concerned when a thing like that can happen. This is about humanity and it can't be
allowed to happen."
Pressed by reporters, Trump went further, saying: "We'll be making that decision very
quickly, probably by the end of today. But we cannot allow atrocities like that. Cannot allow
it."
Trump ordered airstrikes against a Syrian airbase after a previous chemical weapons attack,
in April last year. The latest use of poison gasprovoked from Trump unprecedented direct
criticism of Putin, something he had previously been at pains to avoid.
... ... ...
In his address, Nebenzia suggested a visit to Douma by the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) might be possible under Syrian and Russian military protection. The
UK envoy to the UN, Karen Pierce, said the Russian proposal was "an offer worth pursuing" but
she added that OPCW inspectors would have to have complete freedom of action and of access.
"... So the idea that the Israelis were trying to provoke a response directed against US assets in order to escalate the conflict seems plausible. But Syria didn't play. ..."
"... Seems like Israel was used to do the dirty work and get Trump out of the corner he had rapidly painted himself into. Trump's response to the fake Douma chemical attack was so over the top that he would have had to carry out a major attack on Syria to justify it. Major meaning much larger than the last one with 59 tomahawks. So probably a hundred tomahawks at least and against a more important target than last time. This the Russians have said they will not allow. So what to do? Have Israel launch a rather minor harassing attack against a base well away from Damascus and so relieve the pressure on Trump to do something. ..."
" Israeli officials have called on the US to attack the Syrian Army, following what they
called a "shocking attack" in Douma. Israel's own crackdown on Gaza protesters was
"self-defense" and not worthy of attention, they said.
Washington must launch a strike against Damascus in response to the alleged chemical
attack in the city of Douma, the Israeli Strategic Affairs and Public Security Minister Gilad
Erdan told the Army Radio on Sunday, commenting on the reports coming from anti-government
groups in Syria. Erdan also said he personally hopes that the US would take military action
against the Syrian government, which he blamed for the attack, the Jerusalem Post reports.
The minister added that the Douma incident shows the "need" for a US troop buildup in
Syria.
The Israeli construction minister and former IDF major general, Yoav Galant, went even
further and called for a military strike aimed directly against the Syrian president.
"[Bashar] Assad is the angel of death, and the world would be better without him," Galant
said. The Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog called on the US to take "decisive military
action" against Syria."
So the idea that the Israelis were trying to provoke a response directed against US assets
in order to escalate the conflict seems plausible. But Syria didn't play.
Confusion about the number, type, and source of missiles, and the fate of the synchronized
ISIS attacks in various accounts.
Seems like Israel was used to do the dirty work and get Trump out of the corner he had
rapidly painted himself into. Trump's response to the fake Douma chemical attack was so over
the top that he would have had to carry out a major attack on Syria to justify it. Major
meaning much larger than the last one with 59 tomahawks. So probably a hundred tomahawks at
least and against a more important target than last time. This the Russians have said they
will not allow. So what to do? Have Israel launch a rather minor harassing attack against a
base well away from Damascus and so relieve the pressure on Trump to do something.
So far I'd say it looks like this is what happened. If so then the Russians wisely allowed
Trump to save face. Hopefully that will allow things to blow over. Next couple days should
tell.
"... U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft . There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. ..."
Unless you've been living under a rock, by now you know that the British government falsely claimed
that irrefutable evidence proved that the Russian government was behind the poisoning of a former
Russian double agent and his daughter using a "Novichok" nerve agent.
In response, the UK and US
carried out the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history.
Now that the wheels have come off this farce, it is interesting to note previous examples of the
West falsely blaming Russia for bad acts.
Official German intelligence service documents show that, in 1994, the German intelligence
services
planted
(original
German
)
plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to
frame
Russia for exporting dangerous
radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals.
This frame-up job was so successful at
whipping up fear
that it
got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to "help" secure Russia's
nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.
While everyone "knows" that the Kremlin poisoned Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with
radioactive polonium, a very
high-level
French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, alleges that French, US and UK intelligence worked
together to kill Litvinenko and to frame Russia:
And
see
this
.
U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017
admitted
that
a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft .
There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to
confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a
provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly
installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.
Newsweek
ran
an article headlined (all caps in original Newsweek title):
U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS
SHOW
The article notes:
The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to
justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.
***
False flag attacks are covert operations that make it look like an attack was carried out
by another group than the group that actually carried them out.
Indeed, falsely blaming other countries for terrorism or violence is
the oldest way
to create a "justification" for war.
The governments have certainly learned how to mess with the thinking gear of people.
I spent most of my life working with inanimate objects not spending much time
figuring out how people think. Most of the people that I did try to figure out were
personally known to me. It was only in the last few years of my career that I paid
any real attention to how people are manipulated. I knew people were easily
manipulate for years, just think about how the war in Iraq in 2003 was so popular
amoung most people.
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on
top of other lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost
track. I am not sure if even MIC or Israel knows anymore.
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The
former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists
in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies
are easily stroked.
"... Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida. ..."
"... Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference? ..."
One common sense thought: no one wants a bigger or wider war. There is no nation that can
handle it.
The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds. We know the
Kurds in Syria will not fight Assad's forces.
So, there are probably 30,000 fighters of
various sorts the US and Turkey are still feeding and using.
As for the air space over Syria, that will eventually close to the US. All Putin has to do
is move S 400 75-100 kms closer toward the East border from the West enclaves where they now
defend.
The US will be grounded, unable to support their 14+ bases, and will have to leave.
Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at
Daraa and Suweida.
But no one wants to put their Armed Forces into Syria.
So, what happens tonight and the next few days is missiles strikes, unless Bolton can
convince the Military to do something enormous with a huge air strike. How Putin handles this depends on casualties and losses of Russian forces.
Since Russian advisers, Military Police and Reconciliation Officers are all over Syria
North to South, West to East, it will be sheer luck that none are struck by cruise missiles
or other weapons if they come into play.
The Lord Has Risen, and the forces of evil are rabid for more Death and Destruction.
Not exactly sure. Putin can move S-400 close to US presence but in order to Ground US, he
needs to send a message saying that he can shoot them. And in all these episodes Putin never
showed the courage. So you could place S-500 on door step of US airbase but still they will
continue flying!
Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct
statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the
difference?
It is hard for me to put into words the utter disgust and anger I feel towards the zio con
clowns in wash dc being led by the nose by Israel/mossad. But I guess, what the hell-zios do
not care what average americas think or feel-they are the fodder..
Might be Israeli that pretends to be USA hoping that Syria or Russia will think it is USA and
fire at USA forces causing a wider war.. Israel has actually done actually this before.
To
borrow from the British definition of an ambassador, United States military leaders are honest soldiers promoted in rank to champion
war with reckless disregard for the truth. This practice persists despite the catastrophic waste of lives and money because the untruths
are never punished. Congress needs to correct this problem forthwith.
General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, exemplifies the phenomenon. As reported in The Washington
Post , Dunford recently voiced optimism about defeating the Afghan Taliban in the seventeenth year of a trillion-dollar war that
has multiplied safe havens for international terrorists, the opposite of the war's original mission. While not under oath, Dunford
insisted, "This is not another year of the same thing we've been doing for 17 years. This is a fundamentally different approach [T]he
right people at the right level with the right training [are in place] "
There, the general recklessly disregarded the truth. He followed the instruction of General William Westmoreland who stated at
the National Press Club on November 21, 1967 that the Vietnam War had come to a point "where the end begins to come into view." The
1968 Tet Offensive was then around the corner, which would provoke Westmoreland to ask for 200,000 more American troops. The Pentagon
Papers and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty have meticulously documented the military's reckless disregard
for the truth throughout the Vietnam War.
Any fool can understand that continuing our 17-year-old war in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. The nation is artificial. Among
other things, its disputed border with Pakistan, the Durand Line, was drawn in 1896 between the British Raj and Afghan Amir Abdur
Rahmen Khair. Afghanistan's population splinters along tribal, ethnic, and sectarian lines, including Pushtans, Uzbeks, Hazara, Tajiks,
Turkmen, and Balochi. Its government is riddled with nepotism, corruption, ineptitude, and lawlessness. Election fraud and political
sclerosis are endemic. Opium production and trafficking replenish the Taliban's coffers.
The Afghan National Army (ANA) is a paper tiger. Desertion and attrition rates are alarming. Disloyalty is widespread. American
weapons are sold to the Taliban or captured. ANA soldiers will not risk that last full measure of devotion for an illegitimate, unrepresentative,
decrepit government.
The Taliban also has a safe haven in Pakistan. A staggering portion -- maybe up to 90 percent -- of United States assistance to
Afghanistan is embezzled, diverted, or wasted. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR),
related to Chatham House in London that "SIGAR was finding waste, fraud, and abuse nearly everywhere we looked in Afghanistan --
from the $488 million worth of aircraft that couldn't fly, to the navy the U.S. bought for a landlocked country, to the buildings
the U.S. paid for that literally melted in the rain ."
"The Taliban are getting stronger, the government is on the retreat, they are losing ground to the Taliban day by day," Abdul
Jabbar Qahraman, a retired Afghan general who was the Afghan government's military envoy to Helmand Province until 2016, told the
New York Times last summer. ISIS has now joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda in fighting the United States. Secretary of Defense
General James Mattis conceded to Congress last June that "we are not winning in Afghanistan right now," but added polyannaishly,
"And we will correct this as soon as possible." Only two months earlier, the Defense Department insisted that dropping the Mother
of All Bombs on Afghanistan would reverse the losing trend.
Upton Sinclair sermonized: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding
it." Thus do military leaders deceive themselves about futile wars to extract more spending, to maintain their professional reputations
and public stature, and to avoid the embarrassment of explaining to Congress and the American people that astronomical sums have
been wasted and tens of thousands of American soldiers have died or were crippled in vain.
To deter such self-deception, Congress should enact a statute requiring the retirement without pension of any general or admiral
who materially misleads legislators or the public about prospective or ongoing wars with reckless disregard for the truth. That sanction
might have prompted General Dunford to acknowledge the grim truth about Afghanistan: that the United States is clueless about how
to win that war.
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan and is the founding partner of Fein & DelValle PLLC.
Trump as a "false flag operation," That's rich ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... So the paradox is this: how are the elites herding people towards a new war, while at the same time encouraging thoughts and movements which will be a solid opposition block against military action? ..."
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be simply
PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and amplified
everything the establishment wanted. That much is clear and solidified now.
But here is the real strangeness in the situation:
A quick scan of Twitter and Facebook commentary on this new Syria situation shows that a
clear majority of Americans are opposed to anything that Trump touches. And this includes
military action in Syria, as evidenced from the social media postings. What was once a simple
matter of anti-war opposition has turned into a magnified anti-war plus anti-Trump
opposition.
So the paradox is this: how are the elites herding people towards a new war, while at
the same time encouraging thoughts and movements which will be a solid opposition block
against military action?
I think a rational explanation is that the elites simply got overconfident. They
overplayed their hand. It will indeed come back to bite them. The American people, whether
pro-Trump or anti-Trump, will resist any military action in Syria no matter what. The elites
will have to stop this movement and come up with a new strategy towards war.
"There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be
simply PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and
amplified everything the establishment wanted. That much is clear and solidified now."
Exactly. The main reason trump is better than Clinton, in my opinion, is all that
opposition to Trump we see, would not be there against a Clinton regime. Both in the u.s. and
international in the west.
Concur.
Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing
tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his
profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily
stroked.
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The
former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists
in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies
are easily stroked.
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill
Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to
frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
Court documents seen by the Observer reveal that Russian state investigators have named
Browder, a London-based hedge fund manager, as the suspect behind the mysterious murders of
three men.
All three deaths are linked to a £174m fraud believed to have involved Russian
officials -- a crime that was uncovered by Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, in
2008. Magnitsky was subsequently imprisoned on charges widely considered to be false, and died
in jail amid claims he was tortured.
Browder, once the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia, has infuriated Putin by
lobbying western governments to punish those responsible for Magnitsky's death. A number of
countries have imposed sanctions on individuals believed to be involved.
Putin really dropped the ball on the Libya No-Fly Resolution trusting the evil empire. Now
the stakes
are even higher. The absolute worse news in all this is that Trump is bringing in Bolton as
his lunatic
wing man at the worst possible time when things were looking like they were wrapping up in
Syria.
Bolton is the male version of Hillary on steroids. Trump is going to hide behind Bolton's
mustache - you know, me good cop; Bolton bad cop; IOW, don't blame me for what needs to be
done. Trump gifted
Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and now he's going to gift him Syria too. The Iran deal will
also get scrapped soon and that's more gasoline on a fire that's about to get out of control.
Here's one way
to distract from the Mueller investigation; start a war and rally the county under
a common cause: war with Syria, ergo Russia and then Iran.
It's as I said from day one: Trump can't help himself; he's always been a Zio-con and
Adelson
is getting his money's worth. It's all going to happen as I always said it would. Trump was
the perfect puppet.
Trump will look like the savior of the realm; a role his big fat ego always dreamed of and
won't resist.
Now, there still might be a way out of this potential catastrophe. Admit it, wouldn't it
be nice if Putin
really was holding back something big regarding Trump?
*sigh* - if only! Very soon would be a good time to drop it. Manafort?
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government
elites. The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe,
including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the
Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert
Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their
government's destabilizing activities.
The US lost proper timing for the coup -- it was possible in 2011-2012 timeframe. Now hardly. And if one think that
Russian oligarchs will sitting quietly while the West expropriate their money, think again. China banks do exist, if I am not
mistaken. And some other nations also have pretty developed financial sector.
I do not think that Russia should or can cut ties with the USA. Dependence of the US technological sector is substantial and
cutting the ties might backfire. This is the calculation of the UIS lawmakers, who enjoyed the impunity of the unipolar
moment. But bumerang always retrun. sooner or later.
Notable quotes:
"... The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia ..."
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with
protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia
The latest round of sanctions the US Treasury has imposed on Russia are a strange affair.
Earlier rounds of sanctions have been linked to specific acts of real or alleged Russian misbehaviour e.g. the death of
Sergey Magnitsky, the Crimean crisis, the war in the Donbass, the shooting down of MH17, and the alleged Russian meddling in
the 2016 US Presidential election.
This latest round of sanctions is different in that it is not directly linked to any Russian action – real or alleged – at
all. Nor are the people sanctioned – for example the Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska – directly accused of anything.
In place of any specific accusation against Russia or any of the individuals concerned, here is how a
statemen
t from US Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin justifies the latest sanctions
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites. The Russian
government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate
violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians,
attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing
activities.
(bold italics added)
In other words Russia is a bad corrupt country which does lots of bad things around the world of which the US disapproves.
Anyone in Russia who is rich ("an oligarch") and is therefore "profiting from this corrupt system" is in some way
responsible and risks being sanctioned
irrespective of anything they do
unless this changes.
The implication is that if they do not want to be sanctioned the "oligarchs" must overthrow Russia's government.
The latest sanctions are therefore an incitement to a coup.
All
other steps the US has taken having failed
, Russia's businessmen ("oligarchs") are now being told that unless they
engineer the overthrow of Russia's government they will be sanctioned.
The first thing to say about this policy is that it is decades out of date.
There was a time in the 1990s when a small group of stratospherically wealthy and corrupt individuals really did control
Russia's government.
By way of example, most of the people who met in the Kremlin during the 1998 financial crisis to decide whether or not to
devalue the ruble were not members of the government or even officials, and the meeting during which the decision was
finally taken to devalue the ruble was chaired not by a government minister but by the former Acting Prime Minister of
Russia Yegor Gaidar, who at the time was neither a member of the government nor an official, but who was merely an adviser of
Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin, who was at the time away reviewing the fleet.
The decision was in fact made by the same small group of wealthy and corrupt individuals who at that time really did
control Russia's government, meeting informally under Gaidar's chairmanship, and not through the official structures.
It is not a misconception to call these individuals "oligarchs". In the 1990s that is exactly what they were. The most
politically powerful amongst them – Boris Berezovsky – was not even properly speaking a businessman.
That is not the situation in Russia today. A person like Oleg Deripaska – the aluminium magnate whose name appears on the
latest sanctions list – may be a person of great influence and power. However he does not control Russia's government, and
has no means to do so.
I should say that I first came across the suggestion that the "oligarchs" could be mobilised to overthrow President Putin
or force him to reverse his policies by imposing sanctions upon them in early 2014 at the start of the Ukrainian crisis.
As I recall reports appeared in the media that the German intelligence agency the BND was advising Chancellor Merkel that
if the EU imposed sanctions on Russia the "oligarchs" would either force President Putin to change course or would overthrow
him in order to save their fortunes.
Many rounds of sanctions later one might suppose that that theory had been tested to destruction. However Steven
Mnuchin's statement suggests that faith in it dies hard.
The latest round of sanctions the US has imposed on Russian businessmen and their companies will not weaken President
Putin's position or that of the Russian government, and will not affect Russia's economy.
As China's semi-official English language newspaper
Global Times
has recently pointed out, Russia – unlike countries like Iran – has a big largely self-sufficient
continental sized economy possessing immense scientific, technological and natural resources, making it therefore largely
immune to sanctions.
As for the wealthy Russian individuals who the latest sanctions are targeting, the reason so many of them keep money
abroad is not because they control Russia's government, but because they do not control it, and do not wholly trust it.
The result is that they have been squirreling away much of their money abroad, beyond their government's reach.
Now what they are discovering is that their money is at far greater risk of being seized by the US government than by
their own – something the Russian government has been telling them for years – so that it is in fact safer kept at home than
it is squirreled away abroad.
Do not think Russia is in the mood to be Diplomatic or generous. Though, they will always be polite and show their manners and
respect for International Law, up on the world stage. Do believe the UK and US have seriously crossed the red line. Short term
pain for long term gain, so comes to mind.
With Theresa May and Donald Trump as leaders it is no wonder the world is in such a mess. Putin is the only adult left to lead
on the world stage. We will do better listening to Putin. The history of the warmongers (UK and USA ) should never be ignored...
Must, admit, I find it so reassuring the way that President Putin and President Xi-Jinping,
work together. Plus, President Duterte, he might be tactless, but, unlike Trump, he
comes across trustworthy and with a love of his nation and people. Not forgetting
President Assad, all Syria has been through, yet, he will not leave his people and
neither will his family. It is nice to see a different form of politician, that is
managing to come through and help another learn from their values.
Together, with
the fact that President Putin, would not be where he is, without a very confident and
strong team behind him.
"Russia won't "be spoken to in the language of sanctions"..."?
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
No country that has self-respect, no respectable person can possibly accept to be spoken
to and treated generally in that disgustingly arrogant, beyond contemptuous manner. The
terms and acts of abuse used by the Empire's representatives, including in the most
"prestigious" international institutions, have by now gone way too far repeatedly (a
euphemism!!!), with no limit in sight.
It is time for Russia and Russians to impose respect to those creatures come straight out
of the Empire's swamps and sewers! Being treated as they now accept to be treated by the
Empire is beyond unacceptable. To hear Russia's highest representatives refer to such
despicably disgusting bullies as "partners" is not amusing anymore. Only unbearably
painful...
Time to STOP playing the part of the poor victim of the Empire (US+EU+NATO+other
bits...). Time to adopt China's model, China now promising to hit the Empire hard and till
the very end of that war on tariffs. "Even if the Trump administration wants to take the
trade war to the direction that bilateral trade and investment is suppressed to zero, China
will meet all the challenges."
Neoliberalism as a social system is self-destructive -- similar to Trotskyism from which it was derived.
World leaders urged to act as anger over inequality reaches a 'tipping point'
Typical neoliberal mantra "need to rise productivity" is a typical neoliberal fake: look at Amazon for shining example here.
Notable quotes:
"... The real focus of our taxation system should be to tax wealth and recipients of silly amounts of annual income. ..."
"... Ur talking about something called "Reagan-nomics" or what was commonly and lovingly referred to as "trickle down economics". After the destruction of unionized labor, years of globalization, record profits for corporations & wall street and a high octane doze of Reagan / Thatcher Neoliberalism, "trickle down" has obviously been a complete failure. ..."
An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were
to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world's wealth by 2030. Even taking the financial crash into account, and measuring
their assets over a longer period, they would still hold more than half of all wealth.
Since 2008, the wealth of the richest 1% has been growing at an average of 6% a year – much faster than the 3% growth in wealth
of the remaining 99% of the world's population. Should that continue, the top 1% would hold wealth equating to $305tn (£216.5tn)
– up from $140tn today.
The population of third world countries is skyrocketing. The population of developed countries, outside the importation of poor
immigrants, is static. The top 1% of world population will continuously become comparatively richer as long as this is the case.
That means 6.75m households are in the top 1% of the world, At 1.94 adults per household, that's 13,000,000 people.
However, assuming households are not 'legal people' but the adults within them are, then you'd have to divide household income
by the number of adults (1.94) to get the wealth per person. So to reach £550,000 per person, a household would have to
have net wealth of £1.067m, and only 10% of households have that wealth.
10% of 27m is 2.7m and that equates to only 5,240,000 people.
So in terms of households we easily reach 10m mark, but in terms of individual people, you are correct, it is 'only' 5.24m.
Still and awful lot of people though.
A single mother get £20k on benefits per years. Over 18 years that is £360,000. She has two kids, so that iwill cost £3,000 in
education per years. 2 kids x 14 years x £3,500 per years = £98,000. We pay for child birth costs, free vaccinations, anti-natal
care, free prescriptions, free eye care, free dental care, free school meals, we pay her countal tax bil. Plus if she is lucky,
she get a free £450,000 council home.
Even if she works for a few years, it will never be enough to pay what she has received from the state. PLus we have to make
provisions for her pension and her elderly care, meals on wheels, elderly health care etc...
That is easily £1m to £2million per single mother....
The plebs are well on the way to figuring it out alright and so have the 1%. That's we now live under a militarized surveillance
state which serves the elites.. Think again if voting will ever change this.. Bernie was doomed from the getgo.
I think the principle here is that the longer this goes on and the greater inequality becomes then the more extreme will be the
countervailing force.
It is in everybody's interest that the world becomes fairer. That governments govern in the interests of as many people as
possible. That public services like health and education are available to all regardless. That taxes are progressive and that
governments have international treaties to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. That our democratic processes are as robust as
possible and that all our organs of state are as transparent as possible and open to scrutiny to the public.
If the accumulation of wealth on this scale continues unabated it will end in tears... inevitably.
Furthermore I believe that there is a relationship between inequality - and all the things that go with it and follow from
it - and environmental degradation.
Greater fairness between individuals and between countries is, in my opinion, one of the essential requirements for us to surmount
the epic problems that we face in the world today.
I think most of us have are aware of what really happens at Davos. The wealthy and powerful are cooking up more schemes to screw
the 99% over. Your Bono's and your Bill Gates are no friends to the working class or the working poor. Take Jeff Bezos for example.
He has a mass of wealth totaling $112 Billion.
To end global hunger - $30 Billion
To end homelessness in the USA - $20 Billion
Jeff Bezos, or even Bill Gates could do that in an instant and still have Billions to spare. The super rich don't care about
"regular" people, and never have.
Peter Rabbit ComfortablyPlumb 7 Apr 2018 14:25
This is the Osborne analogy regurgitated.
If you live in a £2.5 million house, you are wealthy, not average or poor. To be wealthy is not some form of human rights entitlement,
especially if it is at the cost of the overwhelming majority. This concept is known as "greed" and "selfishness". Obviously your
mantra is that of Gordon Gekko "greed is good".
The real focus of our taxation system should be to tax wealth and recipients of silly amounts of annual income.
All these arguments are dated and are applicable to the Thatcher era of the early 1980s which has long gone and is not going
to return. The problem facing our society currently is run away social and economic inequality and the entrenchment of substantial
wealth for a very small number of people which is fuelling generational social and inequality.
TakoradiMan BrotherLead 7 Apr 2018 14:24
I presume that most those living in the U.K. will fall within top 1% which the Guardianista loath so much.
I'm sorry but this post is utterly clueless.
To be in the top 1% you need to have a household income of well over £50k per annum (closer to £100k I suspect - no one here
has yet given very authoritative figures); only a fraction of the UK population are that well off.
AnneK1 Landlord52 7 Apr 2018 14:24
Except that they don't and the charities have to come along and ask us for more money because the public sector haven't used
tax revenue efficiently. I would say Britain's ineffective public sector are the greatest threat to Corbyn's chances of forming
the government we need to rid us of these dangerous Tories.
PeterlooSunset 7 Apr 2018 14:24
The richest 1% own the corporate media (including the private equity firms keeping the Guardian afloat) that keep telling us
we have to focus our attention on identity politics while they loot all the wealth.
prematureoptimsim -> Inthesticks 7 Apr 2018 14:23
Ur talking about something called "Reagan-nomics" or what was commonly and lovingly referred to as "trickle down economics". After the destruction of unionized labor, years of globalization, record profits for corporations & wall street and a high octane doze of Reagan / Thatcher Neoliberalism, "trickle down" has obviously been a complete failure.
U need proof ? Just examine recent history of presidential elections. . . .
Barack Obama - ( Mr. Hope and Change )
Donald Trump - ( Mr. Make America Great Again ).
And in the end it's the same as it ever was. The rich get richer and. . . . Well u know the rest. Good luck to u. Enjoy ur crumbs.
Twelve days
after 9/11, on the night of September 23, 2001, the CIA's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, received a telephone
call from his boss, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. "Listen, Bob," Tenet said, "we're meeting tomorrow at
Camp David to discuss our war strategy in Afghanistan. How should we begin? What targets do we hit? How do we sequence our
actions?"
Grenier later wrote in his book,
88 Days to
Kandahar
, that while he was surprised by the call he'd been thinking about these
same questions -- "mulling them over and over and over," as he later told me -- so he was ready. President George Bush's address
to the U.S. Congress just a few days before, Grenier told Tenet, was a good start: demand that Afghanistan's Taliban ruler,
Mullah Omar, turn bin Laden over to the United States. If he refused, the U.S. should launch a campaign to oust him.
Grenier had thought through the plan, but before going into its details with Tenet he abruptly stopped the conversation.
"Mr. Director," he said, "this isn't going to work. I need to write this all down clearly." Tenet agreed.
Grenier set to work, and over the next three hours he laid out the battle for
Afghanistan. Included in the paper was a detailed program of how the CIA could deploy undercover teams to recruit bin
Laden's enemies among Afghanistan's northern Tajik and Uzbek tribes (an uneasy coalition of ethnic militias operating as
the Northern Alliance), supply them with cash and weapons, and use them in a rolling offensive that would oust the Taliban
in Kabul. With U.S. help, which included deploying American Special Forces teams (under CIA leadership) coupled with
American airpower, the Northern Alliance (more properly, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) would
start from its Panjshir Valley enclave in Afghanistan's far northeast and, recruiting support from anti-Taliban forces
along the way, roll all the way into Kabul.
Grenier gave the eight-page draft paper to his staff to review, then sent it to Tenet in
Washington, who passed it through the deputies committee (the second-in-command of each of the major national security
agencies), then presented it to Bush. "I regard that cable," Grenier wrote, "as the best three hours of work I ever did in
my twenty-seven-year career."
Three days after the Tenet-Grenier telephone conversation, on September 26, the CIA
landed a covert-operations team in Afghanistan to recruit local allies in the hunt for bin Laden. The quick action was
impressive, but then events slowed to a crawl. It wasn't until October 20 that the first U.S. Special Forces team linked up
with anti-Taliban rebels, and it took another week for U.S. units to land in strength. But by early November al Qaeda was
on the run and the Taliban's grip on the country was slipping away. On November 13, militias of the Northern Alliance
seized Kabul. The Taliban was defeated, its badly mauled units fleeing south and east (its last bastion, in the south, fell
on December 6), and into nearby Pakistan, while what remained of al Qaeda holed up in a series of cave complexes in the
Spin Ghar mountain range of eastern Afghanistan.
By almost any measure, the CIA-led anti-al Qaeda and anti-Taliban offensive (dubbed
Operation Enduring Freedom by George Bush) marked a decisive victory in the war on terror. The U.S. had set out a plan,
marshaled the forces to carry it out, and then seen it to completion.
But this triumph came with problems. The first was that the offensive was hampered by
Washington infighting that pitted the CIA against a puzzlingly recalcitrant U.S. military and a carping Donald Rumsfeld,
who questioned George Tenet's leadership of the effort. This bureaucratic squabbling, focused on just who was responsible
for what (and who exactly was running the Afghanistan war), would remain a hallmark of American efforts well into the Obama
administration. The second problem was that Afghanistan's southern Pashtun tribes were only marginally included in the
effort, and they remained suspicious of their northern non-Pashtun counterparts. The mistrust, CIA officers believed, would
almost certainly plant the seeds of an endless inter-tribal Afghan conflict, embroiling the United States in an effort to
prop up an unpopular Kabul government. The third problem was Pakistan -- or, more precisely, Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence agency, the ISI, and the ISI's "Directorate S," responsible for covertly supplying, training, and arming
Pakistan's Islamist allies, including the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.
♦♦♦
The intractability of these variables, and America's 17-year effort (sometimes focused
but often feckless) to resolve them, form the basis of Steve Coll's
Directorate S
,
a thick but eminently readable account of America's Afghanistan misadventure. While
Directorate S
stands alone as a comprehensive
exposition of the Afghanistan conflict dating from 9/11, it's actually a follow-on of
Ghost Wars
, Coll's Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004
narrative of America's efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan following their invasion in December 1979. Given the
breadth of Coll's dual treatments and the depth of his research, it's likely that these books will remain the standard
exposition of the period for years to come.
While the focus of
Directorate S
is on Pakistan and its shady intelligence services, each of the obstacles that confronted the United States in Afghanistan
from the moment the Taliban abandoned Kabul is embraced in detail. These obstacles included America's post-9/11 attention
deficit disorder (the pivot away from al Qaeda to Iraq was being considered in Washington even as the Northern Alliance
cleared the Afghan capital) and the deeply embedded antipathy toward the new Kabul government among Pakistani-supported
southern tribesman. Thus, after the United States ousted al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, it embarked on a program to
strengthen the new Kabul government, anointing Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's president and pledging billions in
reconstruction aid. And so, or so it seemed, everything had gone as planned. The Taliban was routed; al Qaeda was on the
run; a new anti-terrorism government was in place in Kabul; and the United States had signed Pakistan on as a willing
accomplice. On May 1, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan. The war
was over. Won.
But of course it wasn't.
Coll's account provides a disturbing catalogue of the U.S. mistakes in the wake of the
Taliban defeat. Almost all of them are well known: Hamid Karzai, the consensus choice of a grand assembly (a loya jirga) as
Afghanistan's interim president, proved to be a weak leader. The monies appropriated for Afghanistan's postwar
reconstruction were woefully inadequate for the task -- "laughable," as one U.S. official put it. American soldiers
responsible for countering the Taliban's return (and hunting al Qaeda terrorist cells) were thinly and poorly deployed
(and, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of secondary importance in the Pentagon). Tentative Taliban efforts to engage the
United States in political talks were summarily and unwisely spurned. Allegations of prisoner abuse at U.S. detention
facilities consistently undermined U.S. legitimacy. American funds were funneled into Afghan ministries laced with corrupt
officials. Afghani poppy production increased, despite faint-hearted U.S. eradication efforts. And U.S. counter-terrorism
actions proved ham-handed and caused preventable civilian casualties, pushing Afghanis into a resurgent anti-Kabul
resistance.
More crucially, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's Afghanistan efforts proved to
be anything but unstinting. The reason for this was not only entirely predictable but was actually the unintended result of
the American victory. When the Northern Alliance and U.S. airpower pushed what remained of the Taliban (along with the
remnants of al Qaeda) out of Afghanistan, they pushed them into Pakistan, creating conditions that, as Coll tells us,
"deepened resentment among Pakistan's generals, who would come to see their country's rising violence as a price of
American folly . . ." Put simply, for the United States to seal the Operation Enduring Freedom victory, it had to ensure
that its effects did not spill over into the one nation that could ensure that its victory would, in fact, be enduring.
That didn't happen. The result was that the Taliban was able to rebuild and rearm its networks not only in Pakistan, and
under the eyes of the ISI, but also in Afghanistan.
It might have been otherwise. During a series of discussions I had about America's
intervention in Afghanistan in the months immediately following 9/11, a number of currently serving and former senior U.S.
officials told me they believed that, given enough time, the Taliban might well have handed bin Laden over to the
Americans, obviating the need for a full-on invasion. One of these officials was Milton Bearden, a famed CIA officer (his
close friends refer to him as "Uncle Milty") who, during his time as a station chief in Pakistan, had helped to head up the
CIA's war against the Soviets in the mid 1980s.
♦♦♦
After 9/11, Bearden recharged his Pakistan and Afghanistan networks in an effort to
convince the Taliban that turning bin Laden over to the Americans was a better option than the one they were facing. All
the while, Bearden kept senior U.S. officials apprised of what he was doing, even as he was attempting to head off their
rush to war. Bearden told me that, while his efforts had not reached fruition by the time the Bush White House had decided
on a course of action, he believes the United States had not fully explored all of its options -- or thought through the
long-term impact of its intervention. "I don't know what would have happened, I don't know," he says wistfully, "but I
think we have a handhold in history. We should have seen what was coming." He notes that Alexander the Great "took one look
at Afghanistan's mountains and decided against it. He thought his whole army could get swallowed up in there, and he wasn't
going to take that chance. So, well, you tell me if I'm wrong, but Alexander was no slouch, right?"
Not everyone agrees with this, of course. The dissenters include Robert Grenier, the
first drafter of what became the American war plan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he told me, was committed to his pledge to
protect Osama bin Laden; he viewed it as a blood oath that could not be broken. Moreover, argues Grenier, "Omar viewed
himself as a kind of world historical figure, a person on whom the axis of history would turn." One result was that he
believed his fight against the Americans would be epochal.
That said, Grenier believes America's foray into Afghanistan, and the mistakes that
followed, might at least have been dampened by a more diligent focus on the inherent divisions of Afghan society. "We [at
the CIA]," he told me several months ago, "were very aware that the march of the Northern Alliance into Kabul would likely
create real difficulties in the south. And we tried to slow it, precisely for this reason. But events overtook us, and it
just wasn't possible. So, yes, things might have been otherwise, but in truth we just don't know."
The value in Coll's
Directorate S
comes not from the elegant telling of a story not fully known, but from the dawning realization that Afghanistan is the
kind of lock for which there is no key. There is no reason to believe that a different outcome would have ensued if other
events had intruded -- for example, more personnel, money, focused diplomacy, or robust and disciplined enemy-defeating and
nation building; or that our war there and the occupation that followed would have yielded the same results that we
realized in, say, Japan after 1945. The real hubris here is not that we tried and failed but that we thought we could
actually succeed. Afghanistan is simply not that kind of place.
There is a term of art for this in the military, which found its first usage in Iraq in
2009, when U.S. commanders adopted it as an appreciation of what could and could not be accomplished. Instead of focusing
on defeating corruption, inefficiency, disunity, and poor leadership, the focus shifted almost exclusively to dampening
violence, to keeping the doors to Iraq open even as its factions battled for its control. More importantly, the adoption of
the phrase marked the abandonment of high expectations and an embrace of realism. The United States would have to yield the
business of replicating a Western-style democracy on the banks of the Euphrates. That goal, if it was going to be
accomplished at all, would have to be realized by the Iraqis.
Analyst Anthony Cordesman, one of America's premier military thinkers, adopted the phrase
and applied to Afghanistan in 2012 in an essay he entitled, "Time to Focus on 'Afghan Good Enough.'" His plan was simply
stated but had all the elegance of actually working: keep the Taliban out of Kabul and the major cities, preserve the
central and provincial government even in the face of endemic corruption, and work to provide security to large numbers of
Afghanis. Cordesman conceded that this was not the kind of victory that Americans had hoped for on September 12. And it was
difficult to describe the outcome as even vaguely passable -- or "good." But it was far better than adopting goals that could
not be realized or embracing an illusion that disappeared even as it was grasped. For the time being at least, it would
have to be "good enough."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to
The American Conservative
and the author of
The Pentagon's Wars
.
This Guardian pressitute can't even mentions the term neoliberalism, to day noting to accept that neoliberalism now experience a
crisis (which actually started in 2008)
Globalization blowback will not totally bury neoliberal globalization, but it puts some limits on transnational corporations racket...
hat is happening to national politics? Every day in the US, events further exceed the imaginations of absurdist novelists and comedians;
politics in the UK still shows few signs of recovery after the "
national nervous breakdown " of Brexit.
France "
narrowly
escaped a heart attack " in last year's elections, but the country's leading daily feels this has done little to alter the "
accelerated decomposition " of the political system. In neighbouring Spain, El País goes so far as to say that "the rule of law,
the democratic system and even the market economy are in doubt"; in Italy, "the collapse of the establishment" in the March elections
has even brought talk of a "barbarian arrival", as if Rome were falling once again. In Germany, meanwhile, neo-fascists are preparing
to take up their role as
official opposition , introducing anxious volatility into the bastion of European stability.
But the convulsions in national politics are not confined to the west. Exhaustion, hopelessness, the dwindling effectiveness of
old ways: these are the themes of politics all across the world. This is why energetic authoritarian "solutions" are currently so
popular: distraction by war (Russia, Turkey); ethno-religious "purification" (India, Hungary, Myanmar); the magnification of presidential
powers and the corresponding abandonment of civil rights and the rule of law (China, Rwanda, Venezuela, Thailand, the Philippines
and many more).
What is the relationship between these various upheavals? We tend to regard them as entirely separate – for, in political life,
national solipsism is the rule. In each country, the tendency is to blame "our" history, "our" populists, "our" media, "our" institutions,
"our" lousy politicians. And this is understandable, since the organs of modern political consciousness – public education and mass
media – emerged in the 19th century from a globe-conquering ideology of unique national destinies. When we discuss "politics", we
refer to what goes on inside sovereign states; everything else is "foreign affairs" or "international relations" – even in this era
of global financial and technological integration. We may buy the same products in every country of the world, we may all use Google
and Facebook, but political life, curiously, is made of separate stuff and keeps the antique faith of borders.
Yes, there is awareness that similar varieties of populism are erupting in many countries. Several have noted the parallels in
style and substance between leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. There
is a sense that something is in the air – some coincidence of feeling between places. But this does not get close enough. For there
is no coincidence. All countries are today embedded in the same system, which subjects them all to the same pressures: and it is
these that are squeezing and warping national political life everywhere. And their effect is quite the opposite – despite the desperate
flag-waving – of the oft-remarked "
resurgence of the nation state ".
The future of economic globalisation, for which the Davos men and women see themselves as
caretakers, had been shaken by a series of political earthquakes. "Globalisation" can mean many
things, but what lay in particular doubt was the long-advanced project of increasing free trade
in goods across borders. The previous summer, Britain had voted to leave the largest trading
bloc in the world. In November, the unexpected victory of Donald Trump , who vowed to withdraw from
major trade deals, appeared to jeopardise the trading relationships of the world's richest
country. Forthcoming elections in France and Germany suddenly seemed to bear the possibility of
anti-globalisation parties garnering better results than ever before. The barbarians weren't at
the gates to the ski-lifts yet – but they weren't very far.
In a panel titled Governing Globalisation , the economist
Dambisa Moyo , otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the
audience to accept that "there have been significant losses" from globalisation. "It is not
clear to me that we are going to be able to remedy them under the current infrastructure," she
added. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund,
called for a policy hitherto foreign to the World Economic Forum : "more redistribution".
After years of hedging or discounting the malign effects of free trade, it was time to face
facts: globalisation caused job losses and depressed wages, and the usual Davos proposals
– such as instructing affected populations to accept the new reality – weren't
going to work. Unless something changed, the political consequences were likely to get
worse.
The backlash to globalisation has helped fuel the extraordinary political shifts of the past
18 months. During the close race to become the Democratic party candidate, senator Bernie
Sanders relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton on her
support for free trade . On the campaign trail, Donald Trump openly proposed tilting the
terms of trade in favour of American industry. "Americanism, not globalism, shall be our
creed," he bellowed at the Republican national convention last July.
The vote for Brexit was strongest in the regions of the UK devastated by the flight of
manufacturing. At Davos in January, British prime minister Theresa May, the leader of the party
of capital and inherited wealth, improbably picked up the theme, warning that, for many, "talk
of greater globalisation means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut." Meanwhile,
the European far right has been warning against free movement of people as well as goods.
Following her qualifying victory in the first round of France's presidential election,
Marine Le Pen warned darkly that "the main thing at stake in this election is the rampant
globalisation that is endangering our civilisation."
It was only a few decades ago that globalisation was held by many, even by some critics, to
be an inevitable, unstoppable force. "Rejecting globalisation," the American journalist George
Packer has written, "was like rejecting the sunrise." Globalisation could take place in
services, capital and ideas, making it a notoriously imprecise term; but what it meant most
often was making it cheaper to trade across borders – something that seemed to many at
the time to be an unquestionable good. In practice, this often meant that industry would move
from rich countries, where labour was expensive, to poor countries, where labour was cheaper.
People in the rich countries would either have to accept lower wages to compete, or lose their
jobs. But no matter what, the goods they formerly produced would now be imported, and be even
cheaper. And the unemployed could get new, higher-skilled jobs (if they got the requisite
training). Mainstream economists and politicians upheld the consensus about the merits of
globalisation, with little concern that there might be political consequences.
Back then, economists could calmly chalk up anti-globalisation sentiment to a marginal group
of delusional protesters, or disgruntled stragglers still toiling uselessly in "sunset
industries". These days, as sizable constituencies have voted in country after country for
anti-free-trade policies, or candidates that promise to limit them, the old self-assurance is
gone. Millions have rejected, with uncertain results, the punishing logic that globalisation
could not be stopped. The backlash has swelled a wave of soul-searching among economists, one
that had already begun to roll ashore with the financial crisis. How did they fail to foresee
the repercussions?
Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the
media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers
conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is
ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").
The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm
Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?
We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake
air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere.
We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not
possible. http://themillenniumreport.com
It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.
The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver
orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been
breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope
for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way
to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media
is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of
the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up
by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a
catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in
the Middle East.
If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner
as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than
us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.
Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't
be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently
threatened that they would never be asked to come back.
Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors
know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with
a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina
I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After
class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting
that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every
American university.
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically
support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:
Interventionist wars;
The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing
"hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);
"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around
the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified
military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for
the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep
or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war)
describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"
Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic
Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists
from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including
Nicaragua and El Salvador."
-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become
truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.
It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin
to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American
"law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no
room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".
"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes
to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the
militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine
under penalty of law.
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year,
they made up, is):
Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling
families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.
Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in
books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.
If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.
Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling
for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining
it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep
the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some
commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by
the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled
media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.
But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles
I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.
We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting
Israeli collaborators out of our government.
Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington
Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will
dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.
You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.
What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do
we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?
My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.
You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.
8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly
not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration
without severely risking the security of Israel?
Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?
Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in
Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay
above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even
for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)
The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.
The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while
many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered
the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.
I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no
matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and
where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it
has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the
average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article.
Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers
deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the
facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible
war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands
Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has
caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective
response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the
costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only
about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has
carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much
from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local
pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been
abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies.
Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special
relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"
They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF,
58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.
But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a
deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?
The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and
all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.
Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?
Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically,
all fascists are socialists.
Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the
media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers
conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is
ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").
The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm
Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?
We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake
air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere.
We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not
possible. http://themillenniumreport.com
It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.
The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver
orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been
breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope
for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way
to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media
is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of
the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up
by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a
catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in
the Middle East.
If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner
as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than
us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.
Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't
be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently
threatened that they would never be asked to come back.
Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors
know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with
a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina
I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After
class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting
that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every
American university.
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically
support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:
Interventionist wars;
The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing
"hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);
"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around
the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified
military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for
the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep
or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war)
describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"
Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic
Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists
from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including
Nicaragua and El Salvador."
-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become
truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.
It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin
to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American
"law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no
room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".
"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes
to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the
militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine
under penalty of law.
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year,
they made up, is):
Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling
families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.
Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in
books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.
If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.
Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling
for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining
it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep
the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some
commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by
the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled
media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.
But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles
I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.
We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting
Israeli collaborators out of our government.
Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington
Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will
dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.
You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.
What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do
we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?
My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.
You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.
8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly
not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration
without severely risking the security of Israel?
Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?
Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in
Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay
above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even
for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)
The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.
The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while
many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered
the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.
I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no
matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and
where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it
has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the
average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article.
Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers
deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the
facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible
war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands
Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has
caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective
response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the
costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only
about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has
carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much
from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local
pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been
abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies.
Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special
relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"
They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF,
58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.
But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a
deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?
The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and
all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.
Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?
Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically,
all fascists are socialists.
The record is clear that 'our' (that is, the ruling Establishment's) intelligence agencies,
such as the CIA, have lied to the public many times, actually lie routinely -- but these lies
are always revealed only decades later, by historians, which is too late, because the damage
was already done. Think, for example, of just two of the now-famous cases, Iran 1953 , and Chile 1973 , in both of
which instances the US Government ended a democracy abroad, and established a brutal
dictatorship there (the Shah in Iran, and Pinochet in Chile) -- but what good can a historian
do, when the Government and its 'news'-media were persistently lying, and they had fooled the
US public, at the time -- which is all that really counted (and ever
will count)? Can a historian undo the damage that the Government and its
propaganda-agencies had perpetrated, by means of their lies, and coups, and invasions? Never.
But this Government, and its propaganda-agents, claim to defend democracies, not to end them.
Can it actually be a democracy, if it's doing such things, and doing it time after time?
Something's deeply wrong here. Government by deceit, cannot be a democracy. And, yet, the
public still don't get the message, even after it has been delivered to us in history-books. By
then, it's no longer in the news, and so only few people really care about it. The message of
history is not learned. The public still accepts the ongoing lies -- the new lies, in the new
'news', for the new atrocities.
During the period after the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact military
alliance, all ended in 1991, the US-and-allied historical record (all now after the Cold War
has supposedly been over) is even worse, and is even more clearly evil, because the ideological
excuse that had formerly existed (and which was only the excuse, and not the reason,
in most cases, such as in Iran, and in Chile) is gone.
Iraq in 2003 was a particularly blatant demonstration of the US-Government's psychopathy
regarding foreign affairs. So: let's consider this example (hopefully, to learn a lesson from
it -- which still hasn't yet been learnt):
Bill Clinton's CIA chief George Tenet told President George W. Bush that convincing the American people
that Saddam Hussein had WMD, weapons of mass destruction, was "a slam-dunk." His job wasn't
to find the truth, but to authenticate the 'evidence' to back up the President, and Tenet did
just that. The American people went for it, even though no WMD actually remained in Iraq,
because the U.N. inspectors in 1998 had destroyed all of them, and because there was no
indication (other than hired and coerced testimony, and especially fabrications from
CIA-partnered anti-Saddam Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi ) that there had been restored
in Iraq any WMD program. A crucial date was
7 September 2002, when George W. Bush and Tony Blair both said that a new report had just
been issued by the IAEA saying that Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having a
nuclear weapon. The IAEA promptly denied that it had issued any such "new report" at all, and
the 'news' media simply ignored the denial, which the IAEA then repeated weeks later, and
it again was
ignored ; so, the false impression, that such an IAEA report had been issued, remained in
the publics' minds, and they favored invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein before there
would be,
as Condoleezza Rice warned the next day following Bush-Blair, on September 8th, a "mushroom
cloud" . It was all just lies -- lies that were believed, at the time, and even believed by
many for a long time after we invaded. Some of these lies were derived from torturing detainees
-- torturing them to say what the US and British regimes wanted them to say.
"We do not – I don't talk about techniques," Tenet replies.
"It's torture," Pelley says.
"And we don't torture people."
US President Donald Trump has
now appointed to lead the CIA the very same woman, Gina Haspel, who had operated, under Tenet,
under Bush, the CIA "black site" in Thailand, where Abu Zubaydeh was waterboarded 83 times and
otherwise tortured so that he lost his left eye. The reason why he was being tortured was
in order to extract from him testimony that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, but
Zubaydeh didn't even know anything about any such matter, and tried desperately to say what he
thought his torturers wanted him to say, so as to stop these tortures, but he didn't know that
they were intending to torture him until he would implicate Saddam Hussein in causing the 9/11
attacks. And so the torturing just went on and on. The CIA's Haspel finally gave up, after
deciding that he'd die if they continued any further. The problem now was to hide him from the
public. So, Zubaydeh subsequently has been held incommunicado at Guantanamo since 2001, so that
he can't communicate with anyone in the outside world, and thus the crimes of George Bush and
his employee George Tenet and his employee Gina Haspel, can't be prosecuted. And, now, Trump
appoints her to Tenet's old spot, as the CIA Director. So: Bush had hired her, then protected
her. Obama protected instead of prosecuted her. And, finally, Trump now promotes her, to be the
CIA's new chief. She has demonstrated herself to be a reliable liar for whomever is her boss.
Trump therefore can trust her to vouch for whatever he wants her to 'prove', to whatever
American suckers still remain, as being American suckers.
Globally, there is a competition between aristocracies, and they are contending gangs.
That's no different than was
the case leading up to WW I . But WW III will end it all -- and all of us -- unless the
public wises up, and fast, and recognizes whom their
real enemies are (which are internal, not external). Without cooperation from the
news-media (owned by those aristocracies), to expose (instead of spread) the frauds, WW III --
the end of everything -- is in the cards. It's in the cards, right now. And, this time, it's
not a mistake. It won't need any wild
assassin to spark the conflagration . Instead, it's the plan
. It has actually been building ever since
24 February 1990 . And this has been even more confirmed now .
Patriotism is to the public, not to the rulers. Any rulers who expect it to be to them,
instead of to the public, are simply tyrants -- they are traitors, who happen to rule the
public. Do we live in a dictatorship, or
in a democracy? If it's a dictatorship ( such as the best available evidence shows that America is ), then
this, which we are now experiencing, is simply par for the course. But will we continue to
accept it? Or, will we, finally, learn from
history ? (And, if so, then will we do it fast enough, under the prevailing circumstances?)
The time to decide, and to act, could be short . Have
we had enough now, of that lying? Because, accepting just a little bit more of it, could mean
the end of everything. If it's not going to be the end of the liars, it will probably soon be
the end of everything. Because that's the path we now are on.
"... Speaking in Moscow, Lavrov said there was "a lot of talk about a 'cold war', about the situation being worse than it was during the classic cold war, because then there were some rules, and some decency was observed". ..."
"... It came as a former Russian military official Lt-Gen Evgeny Buzhinsky warned that the conflict could even end up as "the last war in the history of mankind". In a thinly veiled threat, he said the diplomatic crisis could result in a "very, very bad outcome" and accused the west of "cornering Russia" which, he argued, was a "very dangerous thing". ..."
"... The deputy foreign minister, Alexander Grushko, called the poisoning of Sergei Skripal a "provocation arranged by Britain" in order to justify high military spending because "they need a major enemy". ..."
"... Russia is also keeping up the pressure on the UK to provide consular access to Skripal's daughter, Yulia, now she is recovering in a Salisbury hospital. ..."
"... Lavrov said it was outrageous that the UK was not letting diplomatic staff see Yulia Skripal . The Russian embassy in London claims the UK is in breach of article 36 of the Vienna convention by refusing consular access to a Russian national. ..."
"... Russia also warned it would not accept any international scientific findings on the nerve agent used to poison the Skripals unless its scientists were involved in testing the nerve agent samples. Moscow spelt out its conditions for cooperation before an emergency meeting it has convened for Wednesday of the executive of the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. ..."
"... Alexander Shulgin, Russia's permanent representative to the OPCW, complained that Russian scientists have been barred from the tests owing to British objections. ..."
Russian ministers suggest that British secret services carried out Skripal poisoning to
distract from Brexit
Tue 3 Apr 2018 10.03 EDT Last modified on Tue 3 Apr 2018 12.34 EDT Downing Street has issued
a plea for "proportionate" action from Russia to the Salisbury poisoning row after its
foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, warned that relations with the west are now worse than during
the cold war.
Theresa May is visiting Scandinavia next week with the international security threat from
Russia expected to be at the top of the agenda.
Speaking in Moscow, Lavrov said there was "a lot of talk about a 'cold war', about the
situation being worse than it was during the classic cold war, because then there were some
rules, and some decency was observed".
He added: "I believe that our western partners, I mean primarily the United Kingdom, the
United States and some countries that blindly follow them, have cast away all decency, they are
resorting to open lies, blatant misinformation."
It came as a former Russian military official Lt-Gen Evgeny Buzhinsky warned that the
conflict could even end up as "the last war in the history of mankind". In a thinly veiled threat, he said the diplomatic crisis could result in a "very, very bad
outcome" and accused the west of "cornering Russia" which, he argued, was a "very dangerous
thing".
The deputy foreign minister, Alexander Grushko, called the poisoning of Sergei Skripal a "provocation
arranged by Britain" in order to justify high military spending because "they need a major
enemy".
However, Downing Street in effect called for calm at its weekly briefing for political
reporters, simply saying it expected the wider dispute with Russia would not be settled for a
long time. A No 10 spokesman said: "We need to respond in a proportionate way to this aggressive
behaviour from Russia and that's what we're doing."
He added: "As the prime minister has made clear, the UK would much rather have in Russia a
constructive partner ready to play by the rules. But this attack in Salisbury was part of a
pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, as well as a new and dangerous phase in
Russian activity within the continent and beyond. As the prime minister has said, we must face
the facts, and the challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come."
Russia is also keeping up the pressure on the UK to provide consular access to Skripal's
daughter, Yulia, now she is recovering in a Salisbury hospital.
Reports from Russia claim that a cousin has contacted the British and Russian authorities to
be given permission to go to the UK to be by her bedside.
Downing Street raised the possibility that the 33-year-old may have requested that consular
access be denied. It said access was based on a number of considerations "including consent
from the individual".
Russia also warned it would not accept any international scientific findings on the nerve
agent used to poison the Skripals unless its scientists were involved in testing the nerve
agent samples. Moscow spelt out its conditions for cooperation before an emergency meeting it has convened
for Wednesday of the executive of the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The
Hague.
The OPCW is the internationally recognised body responsible for overseeing the 1997 chemical
weapons convention and has been testing samples provided by British scientists from the
Skripals.
The first results about the nature of the poison - which the UK believes to be novichok, a
nerve agent of Russian origin – are expected in days. Alexander Shulgin, Russia's
permanent representative to the OPCW, complained that Russian scientists have been barred from
the tests owing to British objections.
"Anders Aslund's deep knowledge of Eastern European politics"
During the 1990's in Russia the illusions of Mr. Aslund and others facilitated the
transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation.
It appears that Mr. Aslund continues to serve a useful purpose.
It was decided in the 1990's not to thank Mr. Aslund, Mr. Sachs and others for their
complicity since such was deemed to be indelicate, so perhaps now this should be
rectified.
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
Those companies are way too connected with intelligence agencies (some of then are
essentially an extension of intelligence agencies) and as such they will be saved in any case.
That means that chances that it will be dot com bubble burst No.2 exist. but how high they are is
unclear.
Trump is after Amazon, Congress is after Facebook, and Apple and Google have their problems
too. Should the world's top tech firms be worried?
rump is going after Amazon; Congress is after Facebook; Google is too big, and Apple is
short of new products. Is it any surprise that sentiment toward the tech industry giants is
turning sour? The consequences of such a readjustment, however, may be dire.
Trump lashes out at Amazon and sends stocks tumbling
Read more
The past two weeks have been difficult for the tech sector by every measure. Tech stocks
have largely driven the year's stock market decline, the largest quarterly drop since 2015.
Facebook saw more than $50bn shaved off its value after the Observer revealed that Cambridge
Analytica had harvested millions of people's user data for political profiling. Now users are
deleting accounts, and regulators may seek to limit how the company monetizes data, threatening
Facebook's business model.
On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission confirmed it was investigating the company's data
practices. Additionally, Facebook said it would send a top executive to London to appear in
front of UK lawmakers, but it would not send the chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, who is
increasingly seen as isolated and aloof.
Shares of Facebook have declined more than 17% from the close on Friday 16 March to the
close on Thursday before the Easter break.
Amazon, meanwhile, long the target of President Trump's ire, saw more than $30bn, or 5%,
shaved off its $693bn market capitalization after it was reported that the president was
"obsessed" with the company and that he "wondered aloud if there may be any way to go after
Amazon with antitrust or competition law".
Shares of Apple, and Google's parent company Alphabet, are also down, dropping on concerns
that tech firms now face tighter regulation across the board.
For Apple, there's an additional concern that following poor sales of its $1,000 iPhone X.
For Google, there's the prospect not only of tighter regulation on how it sells user date to
advertisers, but also the fear of losing an important Android software patent case with the
Oracle.
Big tech's critics may be forgiven a moment of schadenfreude. But for shareholders and
pension plans, the tarnishing of tech could have serious consequences.
Apple, Amazon and Alphabet make up 10% of the S&P 500 with a combined market
capitalization market cap of $2.3tn. Add Microsoft and Facebook, with a combined market value
of $1.1tn, and the big five make up 15% of the index.
Overall, technology makes up 25% of the S&P. If tech pops, the thinking goes, so pops
the market.
"We're one week into a sell-off after a multi-year run-up," says Eric Kuby of North Star
Investment Management. "The big picture is that over the past five years a group of mega cap
tech stocks like Nvidia, Netflix, Facebook have gone up anywhere from 260% to 1,800%."
The post office is a service for citizens. It operates at a loss. Being able to send a letter
across the country in two days for fifty cents is a service our government provides. Amazon
is abusing that service. It's whole business model requires government support.
Amazon's spending power is garnered simply from its massively overalued stock price. If that
falls, down goes Amazon. Facebook is entirely dependent on the postive opinion of active
users. If users stop using, down goes Facebook's stock price, and so goes the company. It's
extremely fragile. Apple has a short product cycle. If people lose interest in its newest
versions, its stock price can tank in one year or so. Google and Microsoft seem quite solid,
but are likely overvalued. (Tesla will most likwly go bankrupt, along with many others.) If
these stocks continue to lose value, rwtirement funds will get scary, and we could enter
recession again almost immediately. Since companies such as Amazon have already degraded the
eatablished infrastructure of the economy, there may be no actual recovery. We will need to
change drastically in some way. It seems that thw wheels are already turning, and this is
where we are going now - with Trump as our leader.
'Deutsche Bank analyst Lloyd Walmsley said: "We do not think attacking Amazon will be
popular."'
Lloyd Walmsley hasn't spent much time in Seattle, apparently. The activities of Amazon and
Google (but especially Amazon) have all contributed to traffic problems, rising rents and
property prices, and gentrification (among other things) that are all making Seattle a less
affordable, less attractive place to live. That's why Amazon is looking to establish a
'second headquarters' in another city: they've upset too many people here to be able to
expand further in this area without at least encountering significant resistance. People here
used to refer to Microsoft as 'the evil empire'; now we use it to refer to Amazon. And when
it comes to their original business, books, I and most people I know actively avoid buying
from Amazon, choosing instead to shop at the area's many independent book stores.
Dear Guardian,
why do you still sport the FB, Twitter, Google+, Instagramm, Pinterest etc. buttons below
every single article? Why do you have to do their dirty work? I don't do that on my webpages,
you don't need to do neither. Please stop it.
Not being a Trump supporter, however there is a lot of sense in some of the comments coming
from Trump,. Whether he carries through with them , is another subject.
His comment on Amazon:- " Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state or local
governments, use our postal system as their delivery boy (causing tremendous loss to the US)
and putting many thousands of retailers out of business."
Who can argue against that? Furthermore, the retailers would have paid some
tax!
Talk about elephants in the room. What about the elephants who were let out of the room
to run amuck ? Should it not have been the case of being wise before the event , rather than
after the event?
A quasi-battle of the billionaires. With Bezos, there's the immediate political element in
Bezos' ownership of the clearly anti-Trump Washington Post, which has gone so far as to
become lax in editorial oversight (eg, misspelling and even occasional incomplete articles
published in an obvious rush to be first to trash POTUS), but there are other issues.
Amazon's impact on physical retail is well-documented, and not so long ago (ie, before Trump
"attacked" Amazon"), it was sometimes lamented by those on the American left, and Trump is
correct in that critique, provided one believes it is valid in the first place. Amazon does
have a lot of data on its customers, including immense expenditure information on huge
numbers of people. What kinds of constraints are there in place to protect this data, aside
from lawyer-enriching class action suits? Beyond that, there's also online defense
procurement, worth hundreds of billions in revenue to Amazon in the years to come, that was
included in the modified NDAA last year. Maybe that is on Trump's mind, maybe not, but it
should probably be on everyone's mind. Maybe the Sherman Antitrust Act needs to be
reinvigorated. It would seem that even Trump's foes should be willing to admit that he gets
some things right, but that now seems unacceptable. I mean, look at the almost knee-jerk
defense of NAFTA, which way back when used to be criticized by Democrats and unions, but now
must be lionized.
If Amazon can get cheaper shipping than anyone else and enable manufactuers to sell direct,
they can sell more than anyone else as long as consumers only buy according to total price.
This means two things. One, all retailers as well as distributors may be put out of business.
Two, the success of Amazon may rely almost entirely on shipping costs. American consumers
also will need to forego the shopping experience, but if they may do so if they're sarisfied
with remaining in their residences, workplaces, and cars most of the time. This is the case
in many places. People visit Starbucks drive thrus and eat and drink in their cars. If Amazon
owns the food stores such as Whole Foods and Starbucks, it's a done deal. Except for one
thing. If this happens, the economy will collapse. That may have already happened. Bezos is
no rocket scientist.
This is definitely cancer stage of neoliberalism, but I doubt that there is connection
between Skripal poisoning and Ukraine.
Also why the USA served as the catalyst for coming nationalists to power in 2014 the process
started long ago with Yushchenko and to a certain extent is typical for all post Soviet
republics, including Kazakhstan and Belorussia. they all try to distance themselves from Russia
to prove their sovereignty. The low intensity warfare in Donetsk is the only differentiator, but
even this remind attempt of Georgia to subdue South Ossetia in the past and Karabah conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Still the author is definitely a brilliant writer and thinker he describes geopolitical
tensions really well
Notable quotes:
"... has to have such a war-drum distraction to survive. ..."
"... Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee of the UN General Assembly ..."
As usual there is amnesia of the ever-recurring big-lie pretext, the need for another crisis
to keep the two-billion-dollar a day NATO war machine going, the baleful puppet moves of Canada
in the process, the crisis of legitimacy of the lead attacker's government, and the silent
diversion from the whole nightmare scenario unfolding by all NATO-member governments, mass
media and even 'peace activist' organisations.
This time the big-lie pretext is about the alleged poisoning by the Kremlin/Putin of a
double-agent, usually a stock move in the espionage entertainments, but here with no evidence
of the claimed origin of the lethal nerve-agent, but rather expert denial within British
defence and weapons research itself, with devious political word games to get around the
absence of any corroborated evidence in familiar denuciations of Russia full of aggression and
hate. Not even a death is recorded while US-led nd UK-armed ally forces are still
mass-murdering poor civilian Yeminis, drone-murdering endless targets and civilians abroad,
continuing on unblamed for the ongoing NATO-executed eco-genocides of Iraq and Libya societies,
and on the 19-years anniversary of the mass bombing of, once again a society, Yugoslavia, with
the most evolved social infrastructures of health, education, housing and life security in the
region.
What this latest war pretext for US and NATO-backed aggression is really about is justifying
more war in the Ukraine now that the massive war preparations along all of Russia's
Western borders following the self-declared Nazi-led and proven US- orchestrated and commanded
mass-murder coup d'etat in February 2014 . As usual there is amnesia of the ever-recurring
big-lie pretext, the need for another crisis to keep the two-billion-dollar a day NATO war
machine going, the baleful puppet moves of Canada in the process, the crisis of legitimacy of
the lead attacker's government, and the silent diversion from the whole nightmare scenario
unfolding by all NATO-member governments, mass media and even 'peace activist'
organisations.
This time the big-lie pretext is about the alleged poisoning by the Kremlin/Putin of a
double-agent traitor, usually a stock move in the espionage entertainments. Yet here there is
no confirmed evidence whatever of the claimed origin of the lethal nerve-agent, but rather
expert denial within British defence and weapons research itself that is silence in the press,
with devious political word games crafted to get around the absence of any corroborated facts
in the familiar denuciations of Russia full of team aggression and hate. Not even a death is
recorded while US-led nd UK-armed ally forces are still mass-murdering poor civilian Yeminis,
drone-murdering endless targets and civilians abroad, continuing on unblamed for the ongoing
NATO-executed eco-genocides of Iraq and Libya societies, and on the 19-years anniversary of the
mass bombing of Yugoslavia -- once again a socialist society with the most evolved social
infrastructures of health, education, housing and life security in the region.
What this latest war pretext for US and NATO-backed aggression is really about is justifying
more war in Ukraine now that the massive war preparations along all of Russia's Western borders
following the self-declared Nazi-led and proven US- orchestrated and commanded mass-murder coup
d'etat in February 2014 . As always, this US-directed mass murder was reverse-blamed on the
ever shifting Enemy face -- Russia's allied but duly elected government of the Ukraine. It was
only after this violent-coup Nazi-led and US directed overthrow of the elected
government of the very resource-rich Ukraine -- "the breadbasket of Europe" and sitting on
newly discovered rich fossil fuel deposits -- that Russia annexed its traditional territory of
the Crimea next to Eastern Ukraine, the latter after the violent coup put under the rule of a
US-Nazi-led government until its people fought back with Russia assistance for the now
NATO-targeted zones of the new Donetsk and Lugansk republics.
What is new now is that we are about to enter yet another NATO-member war build-up against
the cornerstone of Western ideology, the designated Enemy Russia. As usual there is amnesia of
the ever-recurring big-lie pretext, the need for another crisis to keep the two-billion-dollar
a day US-led NATO war machine going, the baleful puppet moves of Canada in the process, the
crisis of legitimacy of the lead attacker's UK government, and silent diversion from the whole
nightmare scenario unfolding in NATO-member states, mass media and even 'peace activist'
organisations.
Cui Bono?
The UK and the US followed by Canada and some of the EU have by expulsion of Russia
diplomats prepared the diplomatic way for war in the Ukraine to seize back these lost
coup-territories, and it will be in the name of "freedom", "human rights" and "the rules of
civilised nations". But there is much officially suppressed colour to the warring parties
political conflict which reveals who the truly heinous suppressor of human rights is.
Under mass media and corporate-state cover, the US-UK-NATO axis about to make war in Ukraine is
doing so under the factually absurd but non-stop pretext of "Russia aggression" constructed out
of the double-agent poisoning affair, with the guilty agents and poison having no proof but the
ever louder UK-led and NATO-state assertion of it in unison. Yet there is a clear answer to the
cui bono question -- which party does all this benefit? Clearly once the question is
posed, as opposed to completely gagged in the corporate press, Theresa May's slow-motion
collapsing Tory government -- now even challenged for its fraudulent Brexit referendum
protecting the big London banks from EU regulation -- has to have such a war-drum
distraction to survive. The old war of aggression pattern reverse-blamed on the official
enemy unwinds yet again.
It is revealing in this context how Canada's government has no such ruler need of war --
unless it be its Ukraine-descendent Foreign Minister up front and the very powerful and widely
Nazi-sympathizing Ukraine Liberal vote bank and leadership brought to Canada after 1945 to
overwhelm the preceding active socialist Ukrainian community in Canada. Canada's government --
not its people -- is in any case used to being a puppet regime in foreign affairs as a
twice-colonized rule by big business (why the NDP is not allowed to govern unless so
subjugated).
The Human Rights Question
In light of all of this suppressed factual background and motive for more war in Ukraine
which is unspeakable in the official news, interaction with the United Nations is of revealing
interest. While it has been the cover for US-led NATO executed genocidal wars of aggression in
the past as in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Korea, the pretexts of 'human rights',
'responsibility to protect' and 'stopping communist aggression', which are in fact always been
the spectacular opposite on the ground in terms of diseased, mass-murdered and destituted
bodies, these pretexts may not sell well when the background facts are no longer suppressed
from public view.
It is worthwhile recalling how Science for Peace leadership used to be against but has since
Afghanistan collaborated with these false-pretext wars in sustaining their illusions and thus
the war crimes and crimes against proceeding underneath them.
The NATO-executed Ukraine war now being orchestrated is especially revealing in its actual
record of 'protecting human rights' through 'international law' and 'norms of civilised
nations'. Completely buried in official records is a United Nations resolution n on Ukraine
that the US and Canada repudiated on November 20 2015 after the US-led bloody coup d'etat in
Ukraine was in full motion of claiming all the vast tracts of land and resources that were
Russia-speaking territory in the past.
The resolution was straightforwardly against "Nazi symbols and regalia" as well as
"holocaust denial". The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee of the UN
General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to enable measures against "the
glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that facilitate the escalation of
modern forms of racism, xenophobia and intolerance". A total of 126 member-states of the UN
voted for it for the second time. Over 100 countries voted for a similar resolution in 2014
including "denial of the holocaust and glorification of the Nazi movement, former members of
the Waffen SS organization, including the installation of memorials to them, and post-coup
attempts to desecrate or destroy the monuments to those who fought against Nazism in Ukraine
during World War II".
How could any civilised state vote against these United Nations Resolutions for human rights
as Canada and the US have done and stood by ever since? Well instituted group hatred of the
officially designated enemy can justify anything whatsoever, and does so right into next
NATO-executed orgy of war crime and crimes against humanity, again inside Europe itself
flaunting reverse-blame lies and slogans as red meat for psychotically trained masses. It is
not by accident that Canada's Foreign Minister is in this near century-old Nazi loyalist vs
Russia-speaking conflict was before her appointment the "proud "granddaughter of a leading Nazi
war propagandist during its occupation of Poland and Ukraine described as a "fighter for
freedom".
Yet on the other hand, we must not lose ourselves in ad hominem responsibility.
Crystina Freeland, her Canada name, is interestingly propagandist in itself from her birth --
Christian Free Land -- but not observed in the corporate press. Minister Freeland is only a
symptom of something far deeper and more systemically murderous and evil in state-executed
unlimited greed and immiserization of innocent millions of people masked as 'human rights' ,
'freedom' and 'rule of law' . Her more sinister double in the US is also a renamed person of
the region, Victoria Nuland (read New Land) who orchestrated the whole 2014 mass-murder coup in
Ukraine and now tub-thumps on public television for the 'need to teach Putin and Russia a hard
lesson', aka another war attack by US-led NATO on Russia's borders.
The difference now is that the absurd pretext and geostrategic mechanisms now in motion
beforehand can be seen in front of our eyes -- that is, if we can still see through the
engineered prism of the US-UK led NATO war machine. This alone will stop it.
Across the country, correctional facilities are struggling with the reality that they have
become the nation's de facto mental healthcare providers, although they are hopelessly
ill-equipped for the job. They are now contending with tens of thousands of people with mental
illness who, by some counts, make up as much as half
of their populations .
Little acknowledged in public debate, this situation is readily apparent in almost every
correctional facility in the country. In Michigan, roughly half of all people in county jails
have a mental illness, and nearly a quarter of people in state prisons do. In 2016, the state
spent nearly $4m on psychiatric medication for state prisoners. In Iowa about a third of people
in prison have a serious mental illness; another quarter have a chronic mental health
diagnosis.
Meanwhile, nearly half of the people executed nationwide between 2000 and 2015 had been
diagnosed with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder in their adult lives. When a
legal settlement required California to build a psychiatric unit on its death row at San
Quentin the 40 beds were filled immediately.
The
mental health crisis is especially pronounced among women prisoners: one study by the US
Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 75% of women incarcerated in jails and prisons had a
mental illness, as compared with just over 60% and 55% of men, respectively. A more recent
study showed that 20% of women in jail and 30% in prison had experienced "serious psychological
distress" in the month before the survey, compared with 14% and 26% of men, respectively.
Although the overall number of people behind bars in the US has decreased in recent years,
the proportion of prisoners with mental illness has continued to go up. In 2010, about 30% of
people at New York's Rikers Island jail had a mental illness; in 2014, the figure rose to 40% ,
and by 2017, it had gone up to 43%. Studies of the most frequently arrested people in New York,
Los Angeles and elsewhere have found that they are far more likely than others to have mental
illness, to require antipsychotic medications while incarcerated and to have a substance use
problem.
That there are so many people with mental illness locked in our jails and prisons is but one
piece of the crisis. Along with race and poverty, mental illness has become a salient feature
of mass incarceration, one that must be accounted for in any discussion about criminal justice
reform.
Mental illness affects every aspect of the criminal justice system, from policing to the
courts to prisons and beyond. Nor are the effects limited to the criminal justice system; many
people with mental illness cycle back and forth between jail or prison and living in the
community.
The racial inequity of the criminal justice system has been widely noted: it is estimated
that one out of every three African American men and one of every six Hispanic men born in 2001
will be arrested in their lifetimes.
But for Americans with serious mental illness, it is estimated that as many as one in two
will be arrested at some point in their lives. It's not just arrests. One in four of the nearly
1,000 fatal police shootings in 2016 involved a person with mental illness, according to a
study by the Washington Post. The Post estimated that mental illness was a factor in a quarter
of fatal police shootings in 2017, too.
People with mental illness are among the most disadvantaged members of our society, and when
they end up in the criminal justice system, they tend to fare worse than others. People with
mental illness are less likely to make bail and more likely to face longer sentences. They are
more likely to end up in solitary confinement, less likely to make parole and more likely to
commit suicide.
Yet jail and prison have become, for many people, their primary means of getting mental
healthcare. Their experiences offer an especially eye-opening view of a criminal justice system
that today houses more than two million people and costs us hundreds of billions of dollars a
year.
The problems with Germany is that it does not have any independent press... German MSM are
probably worse then the USA MSM in being neoliberal stooges, if not to say prostitutes.
Also Merkel is a staunch neoliberal politician hell bent on neoliberal globalization and who
still cling to power and tried to use the USA as a leverage to stay in power
Notable quotes:
"... So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed. ..."
"... Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that? ..."
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the case of France is a little bit more complicated, because Macron,
who had a slightly different emphasis on the cooperation with the New Silk Road and China, than
Merkel, for example; the French Foreign Minister Yves Le Drian just announced that Macron will
go to Moscow in May. So I think that that looks a little bit different than Mrs. Merkel, who --
really, I mean, it's a complete shame, and obviously this new "Grand Coalition" government,
which is not so grand, given the fact that they are all falling in the polls like a stone; I
think this is really a reflection of the fact that there is presently no German elite worth
being called the name.
And I think that people in Germany should really not accept that. The history of the
German-Russian relationship, given the fact that there were two world wars, the Second World
War being an unbelievable memory in every Russian person; and then the fact that Russia agreed
to the German unification, without any shots being fired or tanks being deployed, -- you know,
in a peaceful way. Russia gave up East Germany and agreed to the unification, and received
promises at that time that NATO would never be expanded to the borders of Russia, a promise
which was broken. And then you had all these escalations.
So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind
of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always
asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in
any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed.
And I think the German people should go back to the kind of Ostpolitik, at minimum, which
was characteristic for German attitude for a very long time, to have a policy of
good-neighborliness, of peaceful dialogue, of cooperation. And I think this is really, really
important that the population in Germany does not fall in line with this aggressive British
policy which Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are
cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people
should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of
control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that?
Russian elite already views May's government as bandits, who staged this despicable provocation. So stakes for British elite are
very high.
And the way May government tried to capitalize on this "poisoning" is really like going "all in". May clearly went what French call
"va bank". Reckless statement of Johnson, who is a very weak diplomat, but no fool, if a clear testament that they expect to prevail
with pretty weak cards. With ultimate reliance on power of the USA to secure favorable outcome.
Looks more and more that this is a part of Russiagate, or color revolution against Trump, however you want to call the effort: the
collusion between the intelligence heads of the Obama administration with British intelligence to oust President Trump.
The Russian Foreign Ministry is now openly pointing the possibility of a UK intelligence involvement. That sheds a very bad light
on EU vassals who without any questioning and with any proof immediately fell into line behind Theresa May.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry even said this was a tool used by the Europeans and the United States to try to get unity at a point
when they were completely disunified. And this is the old geopolitical game, that in order to create unity you create a war, and then
everybody has to fall into line before attacking Iran.
Compare with Ron Paul views on this incident: www.youtube.com
Notable quotes:
"... The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, in a speech late on Wednesday waxed lyrical about how the Skripal episode represented a turning point in the west's approach to Russia, but his officials are aware that this mood can easily dissipate as other considerations, such as commerce, energy security or the Middle East come into play. ..."
"... The UK will try to push for further measures against Russia at the June meeting of the EU heads of state. If it is ambitious, it may may challenge German support for Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia that could put European energy demand at the mercy of Moscow. ..."
That does not mean the crisis will necessarily end there, or that the crisis is contained.
Russia, whose standing among the international community
is badly damaged, is determined to do go further to clear its name, or at least throw up enough chaff so that a chunk of western
public opinion doubts the British intelligence service's account of Skripal's poisoning. Moscow has already suggested a meeting on
Monday of the executive of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to have "an honest conversation" about
the poisoning.
The OPCW is studying samples – provided by the UK – of the novichok nerve agent allegedly used, but does not have the ability
to judge the identity of the person that
placed the agent by the door of Skripal's house . But the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, is determined to put the UK
on the defensive and has already claimed that "if our western partners dodge the meeting then it will be further evidence that every
thing that is happened is a provocation".
Russia has also responded to the apparent recovery of Yulia Skripal, who was poisoned alongside her father. She may be able to
provide insights into how the poisoning occurred, or even reveal whether she knows of some other motive by some other non-state actor.
The British intelligence services will be debriefing her as soon as her health permits. It would clearly be a huge embarrassment
for the UK government if it emerged she believed the Russian state was not involved.
As it is, the UK government is aware that some allied leaders, despite the public show of solidarity, face skeptical voters at
home who are either against a confrontation with Vladimir Putin, or expect more convincing proof to be provided.
The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson,
in a speech late on Wednesday waxed lyrical about how the Skripal episode represented a turning point in the west's approach
to Russia, but his officials are aware that this mood can easily dissipate as other considerations, such as commerce, energy security
or the Middle East come into play.
The UK will try to push for further measures against Russia at the June meeting of the EU heads of state. If it is ambitious,
it may may challenge German support for Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia that could put European energy demand at the
mercy of Moscow.
Russia now openly accused Britain in the attempt to kill Skripals. Also each new British
version of poisoning have larger and larger holes in it. Britain tries to deflect
accusations
Many people now view May Skripals gambit (in which Skripals were just pawns -- unclear
winning or unwilling) as an attempt to save Russiagate in the USA -- operation conduction jointly
with rogue elements of the USA intelligence agencies against Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Mikhailov said Theresa May should resign for misleading world opinion. ..."
Zakharova said nobody had cancelled the agreement, which she said still had force in
international law. The UK is likely to argue that an agreement between the UK and the Soviet
Union is not enforceable in court and there is no reason to give Russia access to a woman it
apparently tried to kill. Russia challenged claims made by Dean Haydon, Britain's
counter-terror police chief, that the Skripals
first came into contact with the nerve agent from their front door .
... ... ...
"Traces of the nerve agent have been found at some of the other scenes detectives have been
working at over the past few weeks, but at lower concentrations to that found at the home
address," Haydon said on Wednesday.
Maj-Gen Alexander Mikhailov, from the Russian security agency FSB, claimed that if it was
true the poisoning had happened on the doorstep then the Skripals would have died instantly and
would not made it as far as the park where they were found slumped on a bench.
Mikhailov said Theresa May should resign for misleading world opinion.
Both sides are waiting for a report from the OPCW, which sent experts to visit the scene in
Salisbury and is studying samples of the nerve agent.
Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of Russian president Vladimir Putin, said it was
difficult to guess what other options for anti-Russian measures Britain could take.
"As for the UK, due to the fact that now it is a fairly unpredictable country in relations
with the Russian Federation, it is difficult for us to judge what other options can be
considered, and what can be the basis for this," Peskov said.
Neoliberalism bites Russia hard. Although number of victims is much smaller that from car
incidents in one year.
Hopefully there will be some pushback against neoliberalism in Russia after this
insdent.
Notable quotes:
"... According to data by the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services from 2014, 10,069 people a year die in fires in Russia, which has a population of 140 million. By contrast, in the United States, which has a population of 320 million, the annual death toll for fires is 3,275. ..."
"... Workers are also faced with dangerous conditions at their work places, with the annual death toll in workplace accidents estimated to be at least 15,000. One particularly deadly disaster occurred near Kemerovo, which is a major industrial and coal mining center in Siberia, in 2010 when at least 66 workers were killed and 99 injured in an explosion at the Raspadskaya mine. ..."
The horrific fire at the Kemerovo "Winter Cherry" shopping mall and entertainment center on
Sunday, March 25, has brought social and political tensions in Russia to a boiling point.
On Tuesday, March 27, several thousand people in Kemerovo protested in the city center,
calling for the resignation of local authorities. Throughout the country, people are outraged
over the obvious criminality that lay behind the total disregard of fire regulations at the
mall, and the attempts by officials to cover-up the magnitude of the disaster.
The mall, which is co-owned by the billionaire Denis Shtengelov, had no functioning fire
alarm and sprinkling system. Exits were blocked as fire and toxic smoke were filling the
building. People had to evacuate on their own, with some jumping out of the windows to escape
(see also: " At least 64 dead, including many
children, in horrific shopping mall fire ").
The fire spread to over 1,000 square meters and was not extinguished for well over 12 hours.
Not a single major local official appeared at the scene of the tragedy as it was evolving.
Parents had to wait for over six hours before receiving any information from the police.
Residents have also reported that the police seized phones from eyewitnesses trying to record
footage and take pictures of the fire.
There has been an enormous outpouring of solidarity from local residents, with hundreds
volunteering to donate blood, groceries or otherwise help the families of the victims.
The causes of the fire remain unclear. The TV channel Rossiya 24 reported the most likely
cause was an electrical fault, as is the case in the majority of deadly fires in Russia. Five
officials have been arrested, including the director of the mall, and might be charged with
involuntary homicide by the Investigation Committee.
So far, 64 dead have been confirmed, among them 41 children. Only 25 of them have been
identified. According to officials, 69 people were hospitalized and 38 are reported missing.
About two thirds of these are youth and children under 18 -- dozens were under 10 and several
were under 5.
... ... ...
On Tuesday, Putin flew to Kemerovo to visit some of the victims, lay flowers at the
memorial, and publicly discipline and chide the regional authorities -- his usual procedure in
every emergency that threatens an eruption of social tensions in Russia. In a televised meeting
with local ministers, Putin, forced to state the obvious, grumbled that the fire was due to
"some criminal negligence". He declared Wednesday, March 28, a national day of mourning, and
urged people to only trust official information about the fire.
... ... ...
Mayor Seredyuk agreed to go to the morgue with a number of protesters so that they could see
for themselves the number of bodies which turned out to be less than 64...
One relative of victims of the fire said: "We know for sure that there are more victims Have
you seen how the fire was extinguished? They didn't extinguish it. ...Why were there no
helicopters?... All of this because of negligence and corruption I want the truth!"
The demonstration, which had not been allowed by the authorities, lasted for over ten hours.
Toward the end, deputy governor Tsviliev got on his knees to beg the crowd for forgiveness.
Other spontaneous memorial gatherings, attracting thousands of people, took place on Tuesday
in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Smaller memorial meetings have taken place throughout the
world.
The memorial meeting in Moscow proceeded largely in silence, but here too calls for the
resignation of Tuleev as well as Putin were voiced. In a cynical maneuver, the right-wing
liberal politician Alexei Navalny, who, despite his social-Darwinist, anti-immigrant and
far-right nationalist views, has been heavily promoted by the Western media over the past
years, joined the meeting with his wife.
For Navalny and other liberal oppositionists to denounce the government over the Kemerovo
fire and decry "corruption" is entirely hypocritical. It is the kind of predatory capitalist
policies that the liberal opposition advocates and helped implement in the 1990s that have
created the conditions for disasters like the Kemerovo fire. Their response is shaped by a
mixture of fear of a broader movement by the working class outside their control, on the one
hand, and, on the other, the hope to exploit popular dissatisfaction to advance their own
reactionary agenda and pressure the Kremlin.
The situation in Kemerovo and Russia as a whole remains extremely tense. YouTube videos
about the protest in Kemerovo reached up to two and a half million viewers within just a few
hours. In hundreds of commentaries on video and news reports, people are voicing their outrage
at local officials and the Kremlin.
Anger about the Kemerovo Tragedy is so great not least because the fire, while particularly
horrific, was not unique. Workers in Kemerovo and throughout the country understand the fire to
be symptomatic of the disastrous and life-threatening state of the country's infrastructure
that they and their families face on a daily basis.
Multiple fires have taken the lives of hundreds of people over the past two decades.
According to data by the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services from 2014,
10,069 people a year die in fires in Russia, which has a population of 140 million. By
contrast, in the United States, which has a population of 320 million, the annual death toll
for fires is 3,275.
Workers are also faced with dangerous conditions at their work places, with the annual
death toll in workplace accidents estimated to be at least 15,000. One particularly deadly
disaster occurred near Kemerovo, which is a major industrial and coal mining center in Siberia,
in 2010 when at least 66 workers were killed and 99 injured in an explosion at the Raspadskaya
mine.
These conditions are not just the result of corruption. Rather, the all-pervasive corruption
is itself only a symptom of the degenerate and criminal state of capitalism as it was restored
by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The restoration of capitalism
not only did not bring "democracy", it was also accompanied by the systematic destruction of
the productive relations and forces created by the October Revolution and decades of work by
the Soviet working class. This process was accompanied by the dismantling of the cultural and
social infrastructure, including cultural palaces, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, etc.
In industrial cities like Kemerovo, which was a center of the USSR-wide miners' strike in
the late 1980s, the social devastation has been particularly severe.
The oligarchy, which has emerged out of this orgy of plunder and social devastation, as well
as aspiring smaller businessmen, have been allowed to run loose. Safety regulations in
factories, schools and public spaces are constantly and systematically disregarded, with the
"businessmen" working hand in glove with local authorities.
While Russia is a particularly stark example, similar conditions exist and endanger the
lives of workers throughout the world, as the deadly Grenfell Fire in the middle of London last
summer, and factory fires in Bangladesh in recent years have shown. Everywhere, the lives and
interests of working people are subordinated to an ever-more reckless and criminal bourgeoisie
in pursuit of private profit. Only a united struggle by workers internationally against the
capitalist system can prevent the reoccurrence of deadly disasters like the Kemerovo fire.
This post is clumsy but it raises several important question.
Neither Assad, nor Kaddafi are/were saints, but illusions about the USA, France and "European
allies" (a pack of predators which decided to devour Lybia ) were really a disaster. Why Medvedev
did that ? Is he really that stupid ? Or so brainwashed by neoliberal ideology ?
Notable quotes:
"... Just to remind people's that in 2011 it was Medvedev representative of Russian western oligarchic lobby (friendly with Obama and neocons) in Kremlin who was in charge during Arab Spring. ..."
"... It is well documented fact that Assad pleaded with Medvedev in March 2011 for Moscow to deliver already ordered and paid for in 2008 dozens of new combat helicopters as well as massive amount of parts to refurbish and upgrade Russian made warplanes that were also withheld not to upset Israel and US at that time. ..."
"... None of that happened at that time, while at the same time Quadaffi was thrown under the bus by Russians and Chinese UN non veto of the planned NATO agression on Libya, appeasement or coincidence? ..."
Just seven years past and despite unquestioned positive role that Russian played in Syria
mostly to reduce pain and suffering of Syrian people what I read here is unnecessary
whitewashing of Russian initial stand that did nothing but encouraged US and NATO gangsters to
reek chaos that caused tens of thousands dead and injured
Just to remind people's that in 2011 it was Medvedev representative of Russian western
oligarchic lobby (friendly with Obama and neocons) in Kremlin who was in charge during Arab
Spring.
It is well documented fact that Assad pleaded with Medvedev in March 2011 for Moscow to
deliver already ordered and paid for in 2008 dozens of new combat helicopters as well as
massive amount of parts to refurbish and upgrade Russian made warplanes that were also withheld
not to upset Israel and US at that time.
Assad was not invited to Moscow at that time while he repeatedly declared that his military
will be able to defeat terrorist insurgence financed by the CIA in a matter of weeks if Syrian
Army is resupplied and paid for already contracts executed.
None of that happened at that time, while at the same time Quadaffi was thrown under the
bus by Russians and Chinese UN non veto of the planned NATO agression on Libya, appeasement or
coincidence?
Russian got their pay off for playing western game in MENA when in 2012 Putin was barely
elected in a quite ridiculous political charade facing CIA/Soros funded failed Moscow Spring
which actually started slippery slope of open western anti-Russian hysterical
embellishments.
What was even more puzzling for those not so sophisticated political analysts was Putin
inconsistent actions and declarations especially in regard to Syria between 2012 and 2014 when
he joined US phony peace talks and calling on Assad removal from his post in a some sort of
democratic process only to find out that US do not want peace in Syria but some Saudi run
fiefdom friendly to Israel.
The same appeasement to the west was in Putin attitude to Ukraine until 2014 and its 23
millions of ethnic Russians tolerating rapidly growing western financed Nazism as well his
tolerance of Russia connected Ukrainian oligarchic theft that plunged the country into economic
depression enabling political instability.
At that time Russian minorities in Baltic States were also viciously attacked by security
forces as well by discriminating Nuremberg-like laws making them, most born there, second class
citizen restricted in ownership and civil rights to organize and to maintain their culture and
language.
All those Putin foreign policies of weakness and submission to the west and that included
reluctance in approach to alliances with China were in sharp contrast to his extreme push to
revamp entire military of Russian with enormous for Russia military investments and extremely
rationalizing it giving them 5 year term to accomplish massive changes while dropping hype
about future fancy technologies for simple solutions that effectively will defend the country
from western aggression.
Putin knew what was coming so why Kremlin policies of appeasement and hence encouragement of
bullying and aggression. Who was really in charge?
In fact Putin reacted only when Russian vital national security was directly threatened in
2014 in Crimea where navy bases are located and in 2015 when he realized that western trained
and funded terrorist army commanded by Chechnya Russian speaking terrorists is being prepared
to invade Chechnya after Assad was deposed and the only Mediterranean navy base was
threatened.
As always in history policy of appeasement of a bully leads to the same thing ultimate
confrontation, more delayed more costly it is.
So is Putin as Xi for that matter is about to submit their nations to the western oligarchy
even more for their personal advancement at the global oligarchic table or they split which
means war.
I do not think war is coming they have too good thing going and their power is not
threatened by the enslaved people.
The US has been cracking down on protected First Amendment rights for years now. Just heard
that someone was kicked off the post office lawn last week for protesting, so FIrday's peace
vigil may be at risk again.We haven't had any problems with the police harassing us for
probably 12 years, but that may be raising its head again.
The US government has a lot to answer for in terms of press freedom and its reaction to
organized protest. One only need remember the clusterfuck at Standing Rock during the final
months of Obama's presidency to see that this country has major problems with racism,
violence, liberty, equality, fraternity. The US is by no means a "functioning democracy with
proper rule of law". More like a corrupt plutocracy riding full-speed into overt fascism,
where who you know and who you blow makes the most difference if you wind up in trouble with
the law.
I never take First Amendment rights for granted. I am totally aware that if you don't use
your rights, and often, you lose them. I have never had an account on Facebook, but sometimes
I cruise other people's pages to the extent that Zuckerburg will allow without gathering my
information(or maybe they can get it if you just look at a page). Always thought it was a
supremely wrong idea to allow your identity to be taken away by some fat cat with a clever
idea.
Germany - if I remember correctly - was instrumental on behalf of her client state Croatia
in persuading the U S to acquise in the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Many could see at the time that this would unravel all the balances put into place after the
travail of World War 2 . So it is proving to be . The German peoples' for whatever reasons have
a history of 'overeach'. On one hand the Germans are now - after millennium - within settled
borders but the political and economic wisdom and patience still seems lacking .
It has nothing to do with marxism. I think "cultural marxism" is used in the same context.
It's basically just a label used by right-wingers to describe all the identity politics
etc that faux lefties like the neoliberal democrats engage in to distract their voters from
looking at actual leftist economic policies. So instead of trying to narrow the gaps between
economic classes it's focuses on giving all identities, cultures and subcultures equal
worth.
If that makes sense.. My vocabulary kind of lacked the words I was looking for to try to
give a good description just now.. (English being my 2nd language an all)
speaking of "smart toasters" this 'daily show' clip from 15 years ago is a gut-busting
hoot.
i rarely if ever post links in comment sections, but this ties in quite nicely with this
article!!
I have fuzzy feeling is that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." (Hamlet, Act 1,
Scene 4). Looks like Brennan machinations as a part of a larger trend.
So while those fears might look exaggerated, in no way they represent outlier in the spectrum
of the opinion of the commentarial. There are also people like Kevin Shipp who might agree with
me more then you do.
Moreover, the gradual shift toward some kind of "MIC leadership" was really noticeable in
Trump administration just my the number of retired generals inhis administration. It might be
just a beginning of the process of shifting the power, as military now are respected more then
elected representatives. And CIA will be the key player is any such shift.
Existence of almost five million people with security clearance creates kind of "state within
the state" situation. This is the point when quantity turns into quality.
Shipp expressed that the CIA was created through the Council on Foreign relations with no
congressional approval, and historically the CFR is also tied into the mainstream media (MSM.)
He elaborated that the CIA was the "central node" of the shadow government and controlled all
of other 16 intelligence agencies despite the existence of the DNI. The agency also controls
defense and intelligence contractors, can manipulate the president and political decisions, has
the power to start wars, torture, initiate coups, and commit false flag attacks he said.
As Shipp stated, the CIA was created through executive order by then President Harry Truman
by the signing of the
National Security Act of 1947.
According to Shipp, the deep state is comprised of the military industrial complex,
intelligence contractors, defense contractors, MIC lobbyist, Wall St (offshore accounts),
Federal Reserve, IMF/World Bank, Treasury, Foreign lobbyists, and Central Banks.
In the shocking, explosive presentation, Shipp went on to express that there are "over
10,000 secret sites in the U.S." that formed after 9/11. There are "1,291 secret government
agencies, 1,931 large private corporations and over 4,800,000 Americans that he knows of who
have a secrecy clearance, and 854,000 who have Top Secret clearance, explaining they signed
their lives away bound by an agreement.
"... The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm Langley and take the files, problem solved. ..."
This article is a tour de force of beating around the bush. It relates a campaign initiated
and led by CIA DCI John Brennan, prosecuted with illegal secret government surveillance,
coerced confessions, and suppressed investigation of the murder of Seth Rich. And it blames
the Plutocrat Class.
How many divisions does the Plutocrat Class have? Does the Plutocrat Class have impunity
for murder, torture, and denial of the rights of trial? Does the Plutocrat Class have
anything like these get-out-jail-free cards?
The Central Intelligence Agency Act, which
put CIA covert crime beyond the reach of any court. The Rogers-Houston MOU permitting the DCI
to abort DoJ investigations with the magic words 'national security.'
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes the identity of CIA criminals a
state secret. The operational files exemption to FOIA, which prohibits public scrutiny of
evidence of CIA crime.
The 'political questions' judicial doctrine which stops judicial review of CIA crimes
condoned, however vaguely or unwittingly, by Congress.
The article outlines criminal coup de main by domestic enemies, and sics us on cartoon
Rich Uncle Pennybags.
Don't get wrapped around the axle overthinking some rock-paper-scissors transitivity
relations of abstract political and economic power -- that's CIA-infiltrated Paris Review
bullshit. Impunity beats money every time. To understand this, just watch what happens when a
plutocrat gets in CIA's way. You see right away who's in charge. Plutocrat Ralph Nacchio
learned his lesson, didn't he?
Plutocrat Elliot Spitzer learned his lesson. Dynastic plutocrats John and Bobby Kennedy
didn't learn their lesson fast enough, but everybody else got the message.
The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and
keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm
Langley and take the files, problem solved.
As the porn star's allegations show, discourse in Washington is shifting to something more
tawdry and celebrity-oriented
... The idea of a porn star appearing on network television to share details of a sexual
encounter with the US commander in chief would have been intellectually confounding at any
other moment in time. Instead, the interview, which took place only few days after
a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal , talked about her affair with Trump, seemed a
part of the everyday political landscape in 2018.
... Trump may seem like an aberration but instead he may be an inflection point. It's
possible that after over two centuries of presidential campaigns with governors, senators and
the occasional general, American politics is shifting to something more tawdry and more
celebrity-oriented. The often spoken and rarely met ideal in the United States is that
political debates should be about issues. But, after a political campaign where candidates
debated penis size on a debate stage, it may be the legacy of Trump that politics has
permanently descended to locker-room talk.
You are quite right, Power Elite is more accurate description, but now that the
term Deep State has reached common parlance, is it useful to try to rebrand them?
Well, perhaps, because what we have now is a general misidentification (misdirection!) of
defining the Deep State. Some single out the Intel agencies, others blame think-tanks, some
even blame career civil servants (the 'bureaucrat' smear). Are these accusers really
gatekeepers for the deep money interests?
All the same, how would you do it, and is it worthwhile? We've had the same chatter about
the Fake News, i.e. MSM vs. Legacy News vs. Corporate News vs. Big News, etc. Some good work
is coming out under Deep State -
Misunderstanding the Deep State
CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government
The 'deep state' is not a 'conspiracy theory', it is a basic fact beyond debating. The deep
state by definition means the USA's military industrial complex, i.e. all of the massive
security agencies (Dept of Defense; CIA; State Dept; Pentagon; US Army; CentComm; Navy;
Marines; NSA; NSC; etc) combined with their partners in the corporate sector who sell them
the equipment: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, General
Electric, SAIC, Huntington Ingalls, etc. The 'revolving door' between these two sectors is a
key aspect of the deep state: top ranking brass leave public service to take top positions at
these defense corporations, or become lobbyists for them to continue their multi-billion
dollar contracts at the government trough. The top officials at the security agencies often
have careers spanning decades: these people are 'the deep state' personified. Presidents come
and go, they are window dressing. The deep state calls the shots.
Maybe better to say 'Deep State shoots, and wants far more shooting'.
Just this day a former member of the EU Commission, he did Foreign Affairs, retired, appeared
on the leading German tv channel, with deep doubts about May's assertions, and deep concern
where the anti Russia propaganda will lead to.
He had negotiated with Putin, who he described a very rational man.
He still was quite emotional about the western lies that lead to the attack on Iraq.
BBC, or BBCW, did not watch it myself, broadcast the same interview, also, today.
One cannot fool all people for all times.
BS. The "power elite" in the US is associated with a clearly identifiable group, which
doesn't even hide its own tribal interest and allegiances. A parasite lodged in a host. Its
messianic DNA slowly unfolds and takes over the host's vital functions. Loss of identity and
cognitive ability are only phases preceding total destruction. The complicit host is
apparently fully and gleefully embracing its fate.
Yeah. Distract them with the race issue. Kill extra couple of blacks. Provoke riots. Seen
some money to BLM. And have the right and alt-right and all Sailers write about race , IQ
until they dissipate all energy they got.
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people.
How far-off it it to naming the Jews as the powerbrokers?
How far-off is the JQ – one year – two, three, four?
Lol yep here we go again it must be Russia and Putin,I sure hope nothing happens to
either, for if it did you would have nothing to live for,that grand place you live in would
be awful lonesome with out either to whine about ,.
It seems you may have missed the main thrust of the article. It is that the Deep State is
directing what Trump does or doesn't do. Trump may not like what he is doing but he has
little choice but to eat crap and comfort himself with vacuous bluster on Twitter.
Deep state?
Sounds like what they called "corporate state" a century ago, especially since there's
little hidden and nothing profound about it. Should be called "mafia state."
The Deep State wielded preponderant power over this nation at least by the time Lincoln
was buried, and its main actors then were virtually all pure WASPs (the non-Wasps were all
Protestants of Continental Germanic ancestry, some of them Saxons, as was Martin Luther).
Jews didn't become the major power in the US Deep State until well after WW2. Probably
after the assassination of JFK. Of course, you also need to face the many implications of the facts that Anglo-Saxon
Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy and that archetypal Mr. WASP himself Oliver Cromwell made
the alliance with Jews concrete.
WASP culture is doing what it always was meant to do.
The Deep State was called The Shadow Government in the 9o's.
And its the same thing it always was people and groups with ideologies or money
interest or power interest or foreign interest ..all trying to direct the government to serve
their interest.
And for the most part they have been successful in doing that.
"... "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a 'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry." ..."
The Iraq War architects have been thoroughly rehabilitated and are planning
their next adventure, even as the catastrophic ramifications of their crimes continue to
reverberate around the world. Last week marked the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of
Iraq in 2003. April 9 will be the 15th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The consequences of
these events are still playing out today, from Mali to Niger, to the Philippines. Iraq has
never recovered and is only beginning to emerge from the trauma, while American officials plan
the next military adventure.
Writing in the New York Times, Iraqi novelist Sinan Antoon
observed : "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a
'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at
large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly
amnesiac citizenry."
The rehabilitation of the neocons
Indeed, the rise of Trump has provided the cabal of Iraq War architects with a rebranding
opportunity. After their utter failure in Iraq, these people were largely disgraced and no
longer taken seriously outside of right-wing circles. But Trumpism, and the desire of liberals
to oust the current president, has led to an anti-Trump coalition which includes at its helm
many of the instrumental figures behind the Iraq invasion. The list includes David
"axis
of evil" Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush and now a senior editor
at the Atlantic, as well as neoconservative think tanker Bill Kristol, and
George W. Bush , who is now celebrated as a pragmatic leader – even by nostalgic
Democrats who contrast him with Trump.
Trump's victory in the Republican primary on a seemingly isolationist platform, which was
obviously a facade, sent many of these neoconservatives running toward Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic nominee. Those who lined
up behind Clinton have since been embraced by the Democratic establishment, while the more
extreme neoconservative hawks who stuck by the Republican Party have effectively inserted
themselves into the Trump administration. The most recent and terrifying of these is John
Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the
intelligence that was used to mislead the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And
now he is Trump's national security advisor.
Bolton is a neoconservative extremist who has never seen a country he didn't want to bomb.
On the top of his hit list is Iran and North Korea, though Bolton has expended most of his
energy
agitating for the US to bomb Iran , which he seeks to hand over to the Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), a
cultish group of Iranian exiles that has received backing from Israeli intelligence and was
formerly classified as a terrorist organization by the United States.
In light of the Iraq war anniversary and the recent appointment of Bolton, it's a good time
to survey the damage that neocons such as Bolton caused in Iraq. The war left an estimated
1 million Iraqis
dead , 4.5 million displaced, 5 million orphaned, some 2 million widowed, and caused
birth
defects and cancer rates in some
Iraqi cities that are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of the Second World War.
The irony is that Trump's rise to the presidency is in many ways the fault of the Iraq War
architects. Their policies in Iraq, which were recycled in Libya and Syria, led to
the rise of Islamic State and the refugee crisis that fueled right-wing populists such as
Trump and his counterparts in Europe. The war in Iraq revived a jihadist movement that was dead
after the first few months of the war on Afghanistan, opening the floodgates to jihadists and
their supporters from around the world.
When the US dismantled the Iraqi state in 2003, instead of replacing it with a functioning
government it punished Sunni areas and installed a sectarian Shiite regime comprised of exiles
with no popular support in the country. The US essentially created a new category known as the
Sunni Arab and, where the state collapsed, it was Al-Qaeda who would fight on their behalf. The
inflammation of sectarian fears and lack of security resulted in a power vacuum that opened the
floodgates to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ignited a gruesome civil war . AQI eventually morphed into
the Islamic State of Iraq. Before morphing into ISIS, ISI established an Al-Qaeda
offshoot in Syria called Jabhat al-Nusra, the strongest and most disciplined armed opposition
group in the country.
ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups cultivate and thrive off of stateless zones as well as a Sunni
Arab victimhood narrative , which started with the execution of Saddam Hussein and has been
propagated throughout the region by popular gulf-funded
religious figures and media outlets such as Al Jazeera Arabic .
Beheadings became a hallmark of the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who,
unlike Osama bin Laden began to focus on fighting the near enemy -- the Arab dictatorships,
secular people and minorities -- as opposed to the far enemy of the infidel west. We would
later see these beheadings in ISIS propaganda videos aimed at terrifying the west. There was a
theory in the past in bin Laden's era that you should fight the far enemy, the west, before the
near enemy. But under this new and evolved Al Qaeda, whether in Iraq or Yemen or Mali, we saw
local franchises focused on slaughtering their fellow countrymen, with particular genocidal
hatred for Shias.
The American occupation of an Arab country fueled this Salafi jihadist movement on a global
scale. The occupation led to sympathy for this Iraqi jihad throughout the Muslim world, which
meant foreign fighters coming in and a huge amount of funding from the gulf.
This global war on terror framework was also implemented by the US in countries such as
Somalia and Yemen and across North Africa as well.
The Iraq War gave us Donald Trump
In spite of America's criminal disaster in Iraq, Barack Obama continued to implement regime
change policies in both Libya and Syria by funding and arming right-wing insurgencies made up
of none other than Al-Qaeda affiliates, the very ideology the US was supposedly fighting in its
global war on terror. Like in Iraq, US intervention led to the rise of a failed state in Libya
and in much of Syria.
In Syria, these failed state zones were then filled by thousands of foreign fighters coming
in from the Turkish border, which the US tolerated as a means to put pressure on the Syrian
regime, hoping the regime would offer concessions, which of course it never did. ISIS
eventually took over many of these failed state areas and began kidnapping westerners and the
group made millions of dollars in ransom money
as a result.
The massive refugee flows which resulted from the US encouraging war and regime change in
the Middle East led to the destabilization of much of Europe and to some extent, the rise of
Donald Trump, who campaigned on the fear-mongering of ISIS, refugees and Muslims. You can trace
all these and other terrible consequences to the US decision to encourage war and state
collapse rather than to prioritize stability and order in the Middle East. It all started with
the Iraq War.
The gift that keeps on giving
The ramifications of the Iraq War are still playing out today, having inspired Salafi
jihadist movements from the
Philippines to Mali and even
Niger , where US soldiers were recently killed by jihadists.
Moreover, the war in Iraq, according to the very people who architected it, has strengthened
Iran in the region. That isn't necessarily a bad thing given that Iran and its partners, such
as Hezbollah and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), were crucial to defeating ISIS in
Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But a strengthened Iran is a nightmare for the US as it threatens
American, Saudi and Israeli hegemony in the region. So, the Iraq war planners are using the
strong position of Iran – created by neoconservative policies – to push for a war
with Iran. They've also expanded their hit list to include Russia, who they're still hoping to
escalate against in Syria.
With Bolton as Trump's national security advisor, a war with Iran is now much more likely.
For the war industry and the neocons who lobby for it, the Iraq war they started is the gift
that keeps on giving.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Rania Khalek is an American journalist, writer and political commentator based in the Middle East.
"... It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is. ..."
"... So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. ..."
"... There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats ..."
"... Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office. ..."
"... Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement. ..."
"... And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about ..."
On Monday, the Monmouth University Polling Institute released the results of a survey that
found that "a large bipartisan majority feel that national policy is being manipulated or
directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials ..
[1] Public Troubled By Deep State, Monmouth University Polling Institute
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from March 2 to 5, 2018
with 803 adults in the United States. The results in this release have a margin of error of +/-
3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long
Branch, NJ.
According to the survey:" 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed
government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the
right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy.
Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold
too much sway in the federal government. ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)
The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our
elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast bureaucratic
machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and banks.
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about
elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who
ultimately benefits from it. Check it out:
" Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State ;" another 24%
are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when
the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly
manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of
apparatus exists in Washington. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist." Belief in the
probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan
group "
So while the cable news channels dismiss anyone who believes in the "Deep State" as a
conspiracy theorist, it's clear that the majority of people think that's how the system really
works, that is, "a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate or
direct national policy."
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication
of how corrupt the system really is.
The Monmouth survey also found that "A majority of the American public believe that the U.S.
government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S.
government could be invading their own privacy." .
"Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the
activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%)who say this activity is
widespread Few Americans (18%) say government monitoring or spying on U.S. citizens is
usually justified, with most (53%) saying it is only sometimes justified. Another 28% say
this activity is rarely or never justified ." ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State",
Monmouth.edu)
So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear
majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state
in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without
the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. Once again, the data suggests that the American people
know what is going on, know that the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil
liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by
invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions–but
their awareness has not evolved into an organized movement for change. In any event, the public
seems to understand that the USG is not as committed to human rights and civil liberties as the
media would have one believe. That's a start.
There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the
public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in
the bureaucracy follow their diktats. From the time Trump became the GOP presidential nominee
more than 18 months ago, a powerful faction of the Intelligence Community, law enforcement
(FBI) and even elements form the Obama DOJ, have vigorously tried to sabotage his presidency,
his credibility and his agenda. Without a scintilla of hard evidence to make their case, this
same group and their dissembling allies in the media, have cast Trump as a disloyal
collaborator who conspired to win the election by colluding with a foreign government. The
magnitude of this fabrication is beyond anything we've seen before in American political
history, and the absence of any verifiable proof makes it all the more alarming. As it happens,
the Deep State is so powerful it can wage a full-blown assault on the highest elected office in
the country without even showing probable cause. In other words, the president of the United
States is not even accorded the same rights as a common crook. How does that happen?
Over the weekend, former CIA Director and "Russia-gate" ringleader John Brennan fired off an
angry salvo at Trump on his Twitter account. Here's what he said:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over
you."
Doesn't Brennan's statement help to reinforce the public's belief in the Deep State? How
does a career bureaucrat who has never been elected to public office decide that it is
appropriate to use the credibility of his former office to conduct a pitch-battle with the
President of the United States?
Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The
American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people
may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office.
Not so, Brennan. Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since
Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the
outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even
admits as much in his statement.
And Brennan has been given a platform on the cable news channels so he can continue his
assault on the presidency, not because he can prove that Trump is guilty of collusion or
obstruction or whatever, but because the people who own the media have mobilized their deep
state agents to carry out their vendetta to remove Trump from office by any means possible.
This is the "America" of which Brennan speaks. Not my America, but deep state America.
And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat
Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they
are taking it back. That's what this is all about
Two reasons for the descent of 'the West' into neo-Nazism stand out. First, the West was
ALWAYS fascistic, racist, hyper-aggressive, destructive, parasitical and genocidal. Just
summon up the shades of the hundreds of millions killed, directly or indirectly, through
Western Imperialism, colonialism, settler genocide and economic exploitation even to the
extent of causing Holocausts of mass death through famine, as in India, and ask them about
the great and glorious West and its stinking 'Moral Values'. Not to forget the tens of
millions of Westerners themselves killed in Western internecine wars, or through class
hatred, or herded into gas-chambers or made to lie in mass graves then be shot along with
their children because they were of the wrong religion, or the same, but they crossed
themselves in the wrong direction. German Nazism simply expressed a rather pure essence of
true 'Western' moral values, and its mission, and many of its personnel and methods, were
simply taken over the USA after WW2.
Of course, the non-Western world was not a collection of lands of milk and honey, but by any
rational calculus Western ideology involves a qualitatively different and incessant
aggression and cancerous expansion, as manifest in that prototypical Western
creation-capitalism. There the lust and capacity for total destruction, as EVERYTHING, living
and inanimate is transmuted into the dead stuff of money, is unbounded, but this planet being
finite, and the exploiters not having yet escaped to bleed alien worlds anew white and
lifeless, capitalism has only succeeded in drowning us on this planet in the waste and filth
of its excesses, of which poisoning we will shortly succumb.
And, second, the rise to global dominance through control of Western politics, fakestream
media and the other brainwashing mechanisms and finance, of the Zionazi elite centred in
Israel, and in the Jewish Diaspora elites, has delivered a final coup de grace to the West,
and hence, the world that the West is now in the process of attacking, everywhere, for the
crimes of not obeying orders from the likes of vermin like Theresa May, John Bolton and the
execrable Macron.
These Zionazi elites are pretty unprecedented in their absolute arrogance and never-ending
demands. Currently they have embarked on a veritable firestorm of hatred, invective and false
accusations in order to destroy Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. If they cannot destroy Corbyn, they
are very happy to destroy UK Labour, because they no longer control it as they did under
their stooge, Blair. The whole stinking process is operating in open collusion with the UK
fakestream media hate-machine, the reeking corpse of the late UK Guardian leading the way.
The Jewish elite grandees leading the onslaught openly declare that it is UK Labour support
for the Palestinians and 'Leftwing policies' and criticism of Israel that is motivating their
typical exercise in Talmudic hatred. So, the work of hundreds of thousands of Labour
supporters invigorated by Corbyn, who have worked, honestly and determinedly, over years and
decades, to attempt to make the UK a better, more decent, society that the filthy dystopia
created by the Tories and Blairites, is to all be destroyed by a tiny cabal of racist
supremacists who see all goyim as their inferiors. A cabal that does not even represent all
Jews, although they typically claim that they do, a favourite tactic of these anti-goyite
thugs. Many Jews support Corbyn, knowing full well that he is a life-long anti-racist, unlike
the Zionazi thugs who traduce him, who are among the vilest racists extant.
This Zionazi thuggery, and numerous other examples like the criminalisation of the BDS
Movement or ANY criticism of Israel or Zionazism, as 'antisemitic', is bound to create a good
deal of hatred in return. But that is PRECISELY what the Zionazi elites WANT-hatred is the
very essence of their existence. Hatred of the Palestinians. Hatred of Arabs. Hatred of
Moslems. Hatred of any goyim that do not share these hatreds, or dare to oppose Zionazism.
These people, and they do only represent a fraction of Jewry, just as the worst of any
community are only a generally small fraction, are the most dangerous and destructive
creatures in existence, in my opinion. They hate Russia for thwarting their ambitions to
destroy Syria as they did Iraq and Libya. They hate China for not ever going to become supine
stooges like the Western kakastocrats. And, as Bibi, Bennett, Sharon, Begin and scores of
other hideous Zionazi psychopaths show, they mix a series of ancient and modern psychoses
into a maelstrom of hatred and destructiveness seen in policies like the Samson Option, the
Oded Yinon Plan and the drive for endless war against their myriad goy enemies, that simply
guarantees Israel's eventual destruction, and that, so they often promise, of us all.
Look beyond the superficial details of the West's hostile actions, and take heart. NOTHING
has changed about the West's intentions to Russia, other than that the pretence is over. West
is full of good people, but the leaderships kneel to a hidden power. It has been that way for
a long time.
The worst possible strategic position was for Russia not to know that, or to be divided by
an enduring pro-west movement.
Russia is now besieged, but it always was, without really knowing it. Now there is
clarity, and the country can unite.
So take heart. Even on this blog, some will not be able to come to terms today, with
West's treachery. As a Serb, I saw it all before, it is not new, it was always there. Russia
was always in the cross-hairs, and now it is their turn again.
There is one chain of command in the west, and it is indeed an empire. If Russia has
awoken from it's naivety, slumber, and need to believe in an imaginary friend, who always had
a hidden knife, then we are good.
I expect every effort will now be made to derail the world cup. Pardon the pun, but it
will be another own goal. Zog showed itself, and we can see its true intentions.
Yes, Russia was naive in it's belief that the US was their 'partner'. I cringe every time I
hear Putin say that. US is NOT their partner, does NOT want Russia to be sovereign, wants
only a vassal Russia, where everything is open to their taking. I'm glad that Putin and many
Russians are now losing some of their naivety and are finally realizing that US does NOT have
Russia's interests at heart at all, but is, in reality, a treacherous, envious rival that
would love to see all Russians bleed and die, if that meant US could take over the land and
assets. The vassal EU and the totally repugnant UK are willing to follow US lead anywhere it
takes them – even like lemmings over a cliff, which is what's happening now. The cliff
is WWIII of which there will be NO winners.
Putin was making an offer when he referred to the 'west' as partners. Take it in that regard.
Putin does not seem to be silly nor naive. But by referring to the west as partners, he was
extending an olive branch and make an offer to the west. That offer has by now obviously been
declined.
I knew the world cup was unlikely when the US was knocked out from qualifying by ..
Guatemala. It was the biggest dive ever in football. No complaints back home from a
cancellation, I thought.
The world cup is proceding as planned. A nuclear war might prevent it, but otherwise its
still on.
Notice that all that's been done is 'diplomatic boycotts'. That's a purely symbolic
measure, and all it means is that Russia won't have to host a group of government officials
who otherwise would take an all expense paid vacation to a futbol tourney.
The English football coach said very openly that he doesn't care what BoJoke says or
thinks. And there is no way the English would withdraw their futbol team. Germany is also
very unlikely to refuse to defend their championship. German fans are highly unlikely to pass
up a short trip to see their team play. And so far even German politicians aren't going the
symbolic diplomatic boycott route. Same with most other EU countries.
What is going on against Corbyn is disgusting, it seems they have gone now in a frontal
attack on all fronts.
It is a sign that something is nearing it's end phase.
The west funded and supported the Russian revolution and installed the communists. Those
communists were also harbored in the west before the revolution. Germany and the U.S. were
financially backing that coup.
So how do you reform the Secret Police? It is an interesting idea. The National Security
State has locked out any outside criticism and made reform almost impossible.
Then, there is also the whole indoctrination process. From hire to retire, these three
letter agencies indoctrinate their employees with esprit de corps and being a team player
with the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.
Claim made by high level persons in the link, suggest need for deep investigation into who in
the USA is getting paid to deliver or make available American taxpayer paid for resources to
foreign payee governments conducting terrorism and destabilization programs?
John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I
would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I
don't dare speculate what their real name is.
Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I
don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run
it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either.
President Trump should have declared war on the corporate propaganda apparatus and the
Deep State on day number one of his administration. Trump let the shysters who run the
corporate media and the treasonous rats in the Deep State off the hook.
President Trump won the GOP presidential primary and the presidency itself because Trump
promised to put the safety, security and sovereignty of America first. The largest vote
getter in terms of specific issues was the IMMIGRATION issue. Trump had the chance to fire
every damn treasonous rat in the Deep State and he didn't do it. Trump betrayed his voters
who wanted immigration reduced and illegal aliens deported.
President Trump should face a GOP presidential primary challenger. Maybe that will force
Trump to remove the Deep State, remove the current controllers of the corporate media and put
America first.
Trump should also call for an immigration moratorium and begin deporting all illegal
aliens immediately.
Trump's problems with the corporate media and the Deep State stem from the fact that Trump
didn't immediately remove them when he had the chance. Trump's voter base was more than ready
for a "burn the boats on the beach" battle plan to defend the United States against the
treasonous rats in the Deep State and the anti-White, anti-Christian shyster rats in the
corporate media.
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
Brennan is PROJECTING.
They have the goods on HIM, and will squeeze out of him every last second of influence
operations as long as he draws breath. Brennan will never be able to get off the HAMSTER
WHEEL alive.
More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."
Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal"
because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas
won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for
the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest.
I would suggest that John Brennan could be politically damaged the most by stating that
John Brennan supports open borders mass immigration. John Brennan and the rest of the Deep
State are dangerous to Americans because they all support open borders mass immigration. The
corporate media all supports mass immigration.
Over 60 million of us voted for Trump because Trump said he would stop the unnecessary
overseas wars, reduce immigration and scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams. We
voted for Trump to make the American Empire act more like a republic. We're stuck with the
American Empire until it croaks or is croaked in turn. And the empires all turn into rust
again.
The treasonous rats in the American Empire's Deep State all push nation-wrecking mass
immigration.
But was it CIA or DIA that helped to count Trump votes?
Hmmm, let's see here.
Counted Trump votes but not Clinton's?
Counted but reduced the number of Trump votes?
Counted all of the votes, but inflated Clinton's?
Successfully hacked the voting machines in some states to inflate Clinton votes and deflate
Trump votes?
How Brennon came to power, should draw questions. Was the dethroning of Gen. David Petraeus,
as CIA chief, a palace coup? Was Brennen spying on Petraeus? Was the NSA tapping his phones?
Did the idea that a military man was heading the CIA, anathema to the institution – so
they got rid of him?
Just how much actual power does the CIA have in the American permanent Deep State?
Congress is NO check on the CIA – all the politicians on the intel security
committees are handpicked dedicated worshipers.
The CIA is the most anti democracy organization on the planet. From its beginning, it has
played with, subverted, and toppled democracies and sovereign governments. Today it
assonates, tortures, and bombs people around the world. (Has Trump given them a free
hand?)
The commie cold war is over – let's not start another one. The CIA's covert
activities must stop.
"... My short visit only confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. ..."
"... Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, announced the formation of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each followed by their sect and ethnicity . Many of the Iraqis we spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade, went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world. ..."
"... The next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis. ..."
"... I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale, dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. ..."
"... Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter . ..."
Photo
A statue of Saddam Hussein
in front of the burning National Olympic Committee in Baghdad in 2003.
Credit
Tyler Hicks/The New
York Times
When I was 12, Saddam
Hussein, vice president of Iraq at the time, carried out a huge purge and officially usurped total power. I was
living in Baghdad then, and I developed an intuitive, visceral hatred of the dictator early on. That feeling only
intensified and matured as I did. In the late 1990s, I wrote my first novel, "I'jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody," about
daily life under Saddam's authoritarian regime. Furat, the narrator
,
was a young college student
studying English literature at Baghdad University, as I had. He ends up in prison for cracking a joke about the
dictator. Furat hallucinates and imagines Saddam's fall, just as I often did. I hoped I would witness that
moment, whether in Iraq or from afar.
I left Iraq a few months
after the 1991 Gulf War and went to graduate school in the United States, where I've been ever since. In 2002,
when the cheerleading for the Iraq war started, I was vehemently against the proposed invasion. The United States
had consistently supported dictators in the Arab world and was not in the business of exporting democracy,
irrespective of the Bush administration's slogans. I recalled sitting in my family's living room with my aunt
when I was a teenager, watching Iraqi television and seeing Donald Rumsfeld visiting Baghdad as an emissary from
Ronald Reagan and
shaking hands with Saddam
. That
memory made Mr. Rumsfeld's words in 2002 about freedom and democracy for Iraqis seem hollow. Moreover, having
lived through two previous wars (the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War of 1991), I knew that the
actual objectives of war were always camouflaged by well-designed lies that exploit collective fear and
perpetuate national myths.
I was one of about 500
Iraqis in the diaspora -- of various ethnic and political backgrounds, many of whom were dissidents and victims of
Saddam's regime -- who signed a petition: "No to war on Iraq. No to dictatorship." While condemning Saddam's reign
of terror, we were against a "war that would cause more death and suffering" for innocent Iraqis and one that
threatened to push the entire region into violent chaos. Our voices were not welcomed in mainstream media in the
United States, which preferred the pro-war Iraqi-American who promised cheering crowds that would welcome
invaders with "sweets and flowers." There were none.
The petition didn't make
much of an impact. Fifteen years ago today, the invasion of Iraq began.
Three months later, I
returned to Iraq for the first time since 1991 as part of a collective to film a documentary about Iraqis in a
post-Saddam Iraq. We wanted to show my countrymen as three-dimensional beings, beyond the binary of Saddam versus
the United States. In American media, Iraqis had been reduced to either victims of Saddam who longed for
occupation or supporters and defenders of dictatorship who opposed the war. We wanted Iraqis to speak for
themselves. For two weeks, we drove around Baghdad and spoke to many of its residents. Some were still hopeful,
despite being drained by years of sanctions and dictatorship. But many were furious and worried about what was to
come. The signs were already there: the typical arrogance and violence of a colonial occupying power.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial
board and contributing writers from around the world.
My short visit only
confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a
byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a
dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. We were still filming in Baghdad when L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the
Coalition Provisional Authority,
announced the formation
of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each
followed by their
sect and ethnicity
. Many of the Iraqis we
spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and
sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory
characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade,
went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world.
We
were fortunate to have been able to shoot our film in that brief period during which there was relative public
security. Shortly after our visit, Iraq descended into violence; suicide bombings became the norm. The invasion
made my country a magnet for terrorists ("We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," President
George W. Bush had said), and Iraq later descended into a sectarian civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds
of thousands of civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands more, irrevocably changing the country's
demography.
The
next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were
everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and
horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis.
My last visit was in April
2017. I flew from New York, where I now live, to Kuwait, where I was giving a lecture. An Iraqi friend and I crossed
the border by land. I was going to the city of Basra, in the south of Iraq. Basra was the only major Iraqi city I had
not visited before. I was going to sign my books at the Friday book market of al-Farahidi Street, a weekly gathering
for bibliophiles modeled after the famous
Mutanabbi Street book market
in Baghdad. I was driven around by friends. I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd
seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city
had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale,
dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. Nonetheless, I made a
pilgrimage to the famous statue of Iraq's greatest poet, Badr Shakir al-Sayyab.
One of the few sources of joy
for me during these short visits were the encounters with Iraqis who had read my novels and were moved by them. These
were novels I had written from afar, and through them, I tried to grapple with the painful disintegration of an
entire country and the destruction of its social fabric. These texts are haunted by the ghosts of the dead, just as
their author is.
No one knows for certain how
many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion 15 years ago. Some credible estimates put the number at more than
one million. You can read that sentence again. The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a
"blunder," or even a "colossal mistake." It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them
have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry. (A year ago, I
watched Mr. Bush on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," dancing and talking about his paintings.) The pundits and "experts"
who sold us the war still go on doing what they do. I never thought that Iraq could ever be worse than it was during
Saddam's reign, but that is what America's war achieved and bequeathed to Iraqis.
Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian army
launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end of
February 2014.
The Russian government called the expulsions "a provocative gesture" and said it would
retaliate in kind, raising the prospect of further tit-for-tat expulsions, as the US and Europe
left the door open for additional measures. The Kremlin said Vladimir Putin would make the
final decision, and the Russian embassy in the US launched a poll on Twitter asking which US
consulate in Russia should be closed.
The US has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian officials who Washington says are spies,
including a dozen based at the United Nations, and told Moscow to shut down its consulate in
Seattle, which would end Russian diplomatic representation on the west coast.
The EU members Germany, France and Poland are each to expel four Russian diplomats with
intelligence agency backgrounds. Lithuania and the Czech Republic said they would expel three,
and Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands two each. Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, Finland, Hungary,
Sweden and Romania each expelled one Russian. Iceland announced it would not be sending
officials to the World Cup in Russia .
Ukraine, which is not an EU member, is to expel 13 Russian diplomats, while Albania, an EU
candidate member, ordered the departure of two Russians from the embassy in Tirana. Macedonia,
another EU candidate, expelled one Russian official.
Canada announced it was expelling four diplomatic staff serving in Ottawa and Montreal who
the Canadian government said were spies. A pending application from Moscow for three more
diplomatic posts in Canada is being denied.
Raj Shah, a White House spokesperson, told reporters Monday that the US expulsions were part
of "a coordinated effort".
He added that Donald Trump "spoke with many foreign leaders, European allies and others and
encouraged them to join with the United States in this announcement".
What is interesting is that Trump not only folded, but seeking self-preservation he voluntarily appointed
neocons to the top layer of his administration
Notable quotes:
"... This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state. ..."
"... But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding." ..."
"... his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren't looking? ..."
"... On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors. ..."
On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus
spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the
biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading Congressional Democrats
Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted -- and then some
-- will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will
deserve it.
Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony,
"there are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense,
forced -- if we want to build our military "
This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a
second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the
military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare
state.
But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of
Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing
to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost. And about the
militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference
that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history,
reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding."
He's right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is another big increase in military spending.
In fact the US continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries
combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we
somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last
Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we
weren't looking?
Of course not.
On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration,
which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. And so on. The
military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The
mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the
think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep
Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar.
That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.
While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president
announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become
his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man
who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined
conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.
Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a
senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies
of pre-emptive war.
Make no mistake: the neocons are back and looking for another war. They've got the
president's ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who's next for the warmongers?
... US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq
"to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it.
...who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles
Krauthammer, columnist and author.
Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to
acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is
going on ."
Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically
support Israel and its policies.
Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record -- Senate, May 20, 2004,
pages S5921-S5925. Also ""Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel
"... The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100% under CIA control ..."
"... yes.... 100% right..... the servility of Germany with Merkel is disgusting and unbearable ..."
"... It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. ..."
I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and
100% under CIA control , has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I
didn't think it would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The
comments of this filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have
been way below any line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when
he talked about other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer)
Winston Churchill.
But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment.
"West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it
denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries
powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of
Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here,
especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may
not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with
the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no
way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain.
I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.
Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily.
In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the
Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What
Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air
defence.
Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the
Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they
are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history
doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to
fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.
This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week.
There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in
all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you
overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now
compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you
can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy
blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted
all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what
low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom
of the barrel.
Has Germany ever had an election without US interference? I would imagine that securing
power for anyone they choose in the EU has been a doddle for the US, even Hitler's daughter.
That would be a sick joke typical of US neocons.
As a former journalist in Germany I agree. All German news and current affairs are
sanitized. People who object to too much power in the hands of the US on German soil or who
are against the wars will be sidelined or blacklisted, depending on what their job is. "They"
prepare for a new war, or they would not need a new billion $ military hospital near
Ramstein. It said in one article that the German government could not prevent it and had to
contribute, too. Pawns.
On the whole, though, what they prepare is NOT a war by the West, it is by the US for Full
Spectrum Dominance. They rope in allies,sure, but I'd like to be optimistic. After the Iraq
and ME experiences the populations (also here in Australia) are not enthusiastic. So maybe
this time it will be US vs .... and they cannot hide behind a coalition.
The governments of Germany and Australia always kowtow of course. Ramstein and Pine Gap
are crucial for the warmongers.
Thank you for recognizing this, but you're wrong about the German alternative scene. I
think it is one of the strongest out there, it is just, well, German. Not so aggressive and
more analytical. If you ask me, what the world needs is German Spirit, but this spirit has
been oppressed (largely voluntarily, I admit) for the past 70 years or so, but it is still
there.
And when I say German, I mean the real meaning of it, so the cultural heritage of the
German language. Switzerland, Austria and others are definitely included. Do you speak
German?
It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been
crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. Most sit
there and view it all as a form of entertainment. Maybe it's the reason why many people in
the west are ambivalent.
"... Woah. What kind of bear is that? That's not on the approved play list. Nope, not a black bear, not a grizly bear, not even a teddy bear. What's that you say, all's fair in love and war? Well that means just one thing America. We have a ...... Bear Gap! Yes, a Bear Gap. ..."
"... I demand we take action to close the Bear Gap! and do it soon. We better look to our best and brightest, in the heart of the defense establishment, bowels of the think tanks the swamp. ..."
"... I suggest you try treating the neocons like bridesmaids at a wedding; because they all know they should be the one to marry the groom. ..."
So Coach Trump has brought in Bombing Bolton to strengthen the shooting line? He never did
win a peace but he sure knows how to leave a nation in pieces. Well, as the saying goes,
sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. I wonder what the opposing coach
is going to do? Say "hold my vodka" and surprise the US? That'll get the right wingers
laughing. Send in your best coach, go ahead, we dare ya.
Woah. What kind of bear is that? That's not on the approved play list. Nope, not a black
bear, not a grizly bear, not even a teddy bear. What's that you say, all's fair in love and
war? Well that means just one thing America. We have a ...... Bear Gap! Yes, a Bear
Gap.
I demand we take action to close the Bear Gap! and do it soon. We better look to our
best and brightest, in the heart of the defense establishment, bowels of the think tanks the
swamp. I'm sure there's something right there in the 1,200 page omni-bulls*&$ spending
bill you can use. Just say you read it in there somewhere - because nobody else read that damn
thing before they voted for it either. What do you think they are, responsible leaders? So take
the kind of action only you can do.
No, not that. This takes real strategy. I suggest you try treating the neocons like
bridesmaids at a wedding; because they all know they should be the one to marry the groom.
So give them just what they deserve:
Yep, that ought to do it. We may still have a Bear Gap, but if there is one thing we have no
shortage of in this age of soy-boys and cat ladies in waiting: it's cats. So toss them a bob.
That'll keep'm busy for awhile.
So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded
with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the
ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?
Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the
21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen!
/sarc
Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to
start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton
is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as
a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin
was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.
Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan
(for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).
Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are
afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power
to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.
Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a
misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping
the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.
Looks like the rules of neoliberal game for Ukraine are as following: Ukraine should be ready
for fight Russia till the last Ukrainian, serving as cannon fodder for EU geopolitical interests
in Eurasia; (2) As a "debt slave" Ukraine should allow the transfer of ownership of all strategic
assets and commodities to EU corporations for pennies on dollar independently of how Donbass
situation is resolved; (3) Ukraine should buy EU products, no matter how poor they are and local
production should be be iether eliminated ("Baltics style deindustrialization"), or outsourced to
transnational corporations with Ukrainian as a cheap labor force (wage slaves).
Notable quotes:
"... And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to Poland after USSR fell. ..."
And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to
Poland after USSR fell.
Very true. Poland was the first Eastern European country which adopted neoliberal model
and thus served to a certain extent as "photo model" of neoliberalism for the rest of Eastern
Europe and xUSSR space. So standard of living did not drop too low. The country was somewhat
supported by EU and by the USA.
Ukraine was royally raped economically in 1991-2000. Probably as bad as Russia, may be
even worse.
In 2014 Ukrainians were lured by unrealistic dream of getting Western European standard of
living as a gift for breaking with Russia. As well as the resentment toward kleptocrat
Yanukovich (which actually was pretty typical neoliberal politician; not much worse then
Poroshenko )
Now they start to understand that the EU will devour the corpse to the bones and they are
stuck at the Central African level poverty of $2 a day or so (on average), but this is too
late.
A very typical story, a very typical outcome. Neoliberalism is a cancer. As Russian prime
minister quipped about economic rape of Russia by local and Western neoliberals in 1991-2000:
"We strived to get the best [economic] outcome, but it turned out like we got even worse then
average. As always." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Chernomyrdin
)
So in a way they stepped on the same rake twice: once in 1991 and the second time in 2014.
That's unforgivable.
On a related note, this article by Prof. Niels Harrit claims that a document declassified
in 2008 was the basis for the ongoing war in Afghanstian, and that the document is as
evidence free as the Novichok claims:
Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for
the invocation of Article 5? Nothing. There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of
the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. Only a small part of the
introductory text deals with 9/11, in the form of summary claims like the citation in Lord
Robertson's press release. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.
On 4 October, NATO officially went to war based on a document that provided only
'talking points' and no evidence to support the key claim.
Sound familiar? Of course, I've no idea if he's right.
The Taliban foreign minister at the time tried to warn the Americans of the attack they
learned about it from a third party that is about as far removed from being behind the attack
as it gets. Didn't help them did it the Americans were after vengeance and wanted to satisfy
their bloodlust by bombing a country which didn't even have a single one of its citizens
involved in the attack. Classic scapegoating.
They had other reasons to want to attack Afghanistan . In fact, they warned the Taliban
that they would if the Taliban did not permit the desired pipeline.
What do you expect from Johnson? A grindingly stupid man who has never got a job on merit
and is now desperately hoping the public don't see through his lies for the Americans. No
wonder the government don't want to bring back grammar schools.
New Viz character; Boris the Bullshitter. Textbook bullshitting:
-- "Let me be clear with you" (though what is to follow is as clear as mud,)
" When I look at the evidence, I mean" (not me, actually, I mean) "the people
from Porton Down, the laboratory So they have the samples They do." (believe me)
"And they were absolutely categorical" (about what?) "and I asked the guy
myself," (what did you ask him, Boris?) "I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's
no doubt" (no doubt of WHAT, Boris?)
Craig, I have to set you straight on this. Boris is as incapable of lying as he is of
telling the truth. As strange as it may seem to rational minds, the concepts of truth and
falsity simply do not exist in minds such as his. To him, everything is merely an
opportunity for achieving his goals, or a threat to his credibility that needs to be bluffed
over, and to those ends every statement he makes will be as vague as he can get away with
under the circumstances.
So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded
with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the
ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?
Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the
21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen!
/sarc
Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to
start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton
is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as
a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin
was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.
Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan
(for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).
Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are
afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power
to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.
Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a
misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping
the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.
"... China, Russia, et. al. realized that the debt-saturated U.S. was propped up by the fact that the U.S. "dollar" was the reserve banking and trading currency of the entire world and that the "Petrodollar" was one of the main pillars of it, and that this system was the main source of U.S. influence and power around the world and allowed the U.S. and friends to impose financial sanctions on other countries. They also saw that the U.S. was not using gold or silver as a type of support or backup for the financial system. Therefore, they developed their own computer servers to route orders between banks and financial companies that will operate outside of the SWIFT system dominated by the U.S. It is now operational and is called CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System)-- ..."
In addition to the common desire of some (or many) human beings to exercise authority over
other groups of people, I think Xi Jinping and his supporters want to complete the large and
complex economic and financial projects they have started. It is not just the road and
railroad and other infrastructure projects tied to the regional trading structure China has
been working on, but a financial structure independent of the existing banking and financial
system that was put together by the U.S. and Britain.
It is my opinion that China, Russia, Iran, and probably additional countries decided to
make a move after the brazen 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and others, and the massive
financial fraud partly exposed in the U.S. and Britain in 2008 and afterwards, which fraud
was not stopped and the perpetrators were bailed out and none were prosecuted.
China, Russia, et. al. realized that the debt-saturated U.S. was propped up by the
fact that the U.S. "dollar" was the reserve banking and trading currency of the entire world
and that the "Petrodollar" was one of the main pillars of it, and that this system was the
main source of U.S. influence and power around the world and allowed the U.S. and friends to
impose financial sanctions on other countries. They also saw that the U.S. was not using gold
or silver as a type of support or backup for the financial system. Therefore, they developed
their own computer servers to route orders between banks and financial companies that will
operate outside of the SWIFT system dominated by the U.S. It is now operational and is called
CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System)--
In addition, they are moving to break the Petrodollar. In the early 1970's, the U.S. made
a non-treaty deal with Saudi Arabia that if they got the rest of OPEC to sell oil and gas to
the whole world only in U.S. dollars and would plough some of the money back into U.S.
government debt and into the stock market casino, the U.S. would protect the Saudi ruling
family so it could run the entire country as its private business. This forced the whole
world to get U.S. dollars in order to buy oil and gas, which further put the dollar in as
banking reserves around the world, which further pushed the dollar into being used to settle
much of the trade between countries.
However, now some contracts are being made to buy and sell oil and gas not in the U.S.
dollar, but in other currencies, especially the Chinese renminbi (a/k/a yuan). Also, both
China and Russia have been buying large amounts of gold for several years. To get around some
of the U.S. sanctions prior to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran sold oil
and gas in exchange for gold. Since gold is not a government created and ordered "fiat"
money, it cannot be choked off by the SWIFT system or controlled through numbers on computer
hard drives in banks.
Russia also remembers what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the U.S.
financial "experts" [sic] went there to set up a "wonderful" market-based economy, but what
happened of course was the creation of a system to loot Mother Russia and establish a new
oligarchy tied in with the U.S., Britain, and Israel.
In the early 1990's when the Soviet Union pulled out of eastern Europe, the U.S. had a
chance to help the world be a safer and more peaceful place. The methods of medical diagnosis
and surgical technology developed in the U.S. could have been the basis of a new foreign
policy that would have voluntarily opened doors across the world.
But it was not to be. The desire of some to be king of the world pushed the chance of
improvement aside. Nevertheless, today even autocratic governments see that having financial
and governmental options can be a beneficial thing.
And to our immediate south, a movement has been going on for a while in Mexico to
establish a money based on silver, promoted by Hugo Salinas Price and others--
For obvious reasons, I am not optimistic about Mexico, the deterioration of which has been
a sad thing to see. It needs a new and real revolution.
Xi's move is not a unilateral thing. He had to have the support of the ruling committees
in China. Keep your eye on the financial structure, gold, and silver.
I've been waiting to see what happens with the SDR (Special Drawing Right). The IMF
(International Monetary Fund) added it to the SDR basket in October 2016 after a lot of foot
dragging by the US. The AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) was setup largely as a
Chinese alternative to the US dominated IMF and World Bank because they were not being given
an appropriate "place at the table" in the IMF, which was founded as part of the Bretton
Woods Agreement at the end of WWII.
I see the global monetary reset currently underway as the slowly moving, but
unstoppable, glacier that is forcing all other events.
"... We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical. The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers. ..."
"... The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and the reasons behind it. ..."
"... To be continued ..."
"... I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the fight. ..."
"... Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war. ..."
We are glad to see you at the Foreign Ministry on this cold wintry day that nevertheless
carries a promise of spring.
We are grateful to you for responding so quickly to our invitation, which we issued only
yesterday.
The situation is indeed unusual. There is an urgent need for a non-politicised and highly
professional discussion of the Skripals' poisoning case. We have distributed a position paper.
We ask you to bring it to the notice of your governments.
The language of this position paper, just as any other such paper, is dry legalese with
technical details.
It would be wrong to invite you here just to say this. I propose that we hold an open
discussion in this closed diplomatic group.
Let us look at hard facts, beginning with the humanitarian aspects of the case at hand.
On March 4, 2018, two people, one of them Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, were attacked in
Salisbury, a flourishing city in the south of England.
Various versions of the circumstances of this tragedy have been voiced in the UK. They
highlight the use of chemical agents, which the British call Novichok, for some reason. All of
these versions do not stand up to any criticism.
In this situation, UK officials have laid the blame on Russia hastily, hysterically and
without presenting any evidence, and demanded explanations from us.
I would like to repeat that it was a Russian citizen who has been attacked in the UK. Logic
suggests two possible variants. Either the British authorities are unable to ensure protection
against such terrorist attacks on their territory, or they were directly or indirectly involved
in the preparation of this attack on a Russian citizen. There is no other alternative.
We are surprised, to put it mildly, that the British authorities had denied even consular
access to the Russian citizen who has been attacked contrary to the elementary norms of
civilised interstate relations. They are prevaricating, but at the same time they distribute
video footage from the hospital where the Skripals are allegedly being treated. But this only
raises more questions.
The British have refused to share the information obtained by their investigators and have
not replied to the Russian requests regarding Yulia Skripal. We have no reliable information
about what happened to this Russian citizen over the past two weeks and why this happened to
her. This is hard to comprehend: these events are unfolding in the 21st century in a country
that is considered civilised.
Naturally, demanding any explanations from Russia in this situation is simply absurd. Russia
does not owe anything to anyone in this context, and it cannot be held accountable for the
activities or inactivity of the British authorities in their national territory.
We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical.
The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to
answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers.
The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and
must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US
movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most
likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and
the reasons behind it.
Doubling down by the Empire. Russia is hardening up fast but still displaying manners and
offering goodwill! I'm afraid that is going nowhere excepting support is offered by the
traditional friends of Russia as usual.
So far, no answer to the question: "And what is next?"
Things on the war front? Well, the Empire wants their war dammit! And how dare Russia
deprive them of it!
I'm afraid tensions were only ratcheted up and the word de-escalation has been removed
from all Empire Dictionaries. Oh Boy!
I listened to all this. The idiot who represented the UK (actually not an idiot, she was just
doing her job and no doubt in private would admit it was stupid) just parroted out May's
previous words and never addressed any of the substantive questions raised; the EU and US
speakers merely talked about solidarity with the UK.
Telling was the fact that the Russian main man referred to the US rep as someone he had
never seen before, and was presumably from the State Dept.
None of the Russian requests for data or access to their citizens were dealt with.
The Russian side were well prepared, and the fact that they are pursuing this in this way
indicates they have nothing to hide and are pissed off.
I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time. It truly does feel
like a game of chess.
"I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time."
But why? IMHO the only possible reason could be gaining sufficient time to clear the
roaches from East Ghouta in Syria -- why? because it would eliminate one more of the possible
false flag locations, and possibly provide more time to beef up the defenses in Syria.
I get the feeling that Russia is adopting a posture, a bit like a boxer puts up his dukes
to guard against his opponents blows.
Kudos to the Venezuelan representative, who 1) stood up in Russia's defense against a
backdrop of "solidarity" with the UK (I guess meaning whatever story they concoct we will
pretend to believe) and 2) seems to be the only foreign diplomat in Moscow who bothered to
learn Russian.
"Concerned that Americans may be watching "foreign propaganda" (or something different
than what is offered on the mainstream media menu) Representatives Seth Moulton (D-MA) and
Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced the Countering Foreign Propaganda Act.
In practice, it would force RT to do even more reporting to the US government than it
currently does under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and will also force it to
broadcast every 30 minutes a message saying it is funded by, and is "under editorial control"
of, a foreign government. Apparently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will also
be the arbiter of who is under editorial control and who is not, because the BBC and France
24 would not be forced to disclose the origins of their funding, according to Foreign Policy
(FP) -- presumably, because their messaging is simply accidentally, sort of, in line with
that of the British and French governments respectively.
RT's stance on a potential crackdown in the US was summarized by its editor-in-chief,
Margarita Simonyan: "When the high from FARA is no longer hard enough, the representatives
switch to even harder legislation."
The US branch of RT came into the focus of the American mainstream public after the
election of Donald Trump as president. The channel starred in a controversial report by the
Office of the Director for National Intelligence, which alleged that RT's coverage of
American problems like fracking or the killings of black people by police amounted to
infringing on US democratic institutions."
Headline story on RT: "Peskov says ex-spy has zero value; no need to poison him."
Implication: "We only poison people of value."
If I were the spokesperson of Russia, I wouldn't even entertain the idea that Russia
poisons people. If I were a pro Russian television network, I wouldn't treat this story as
anything but Milli Vanilli.
Still think Margie "the true liberal" is your friend?
I would like to make an observation regarding the name given by Briton and others of this
lethal nerve agent, "Novichok". It seems to have appeared out of thin air, or the
imaginations of some. As has been pointed out, here in the conference, this was a fictional
name used in a TV show in Briton.
The point is this, "Novichok" is perhaps as to what the "Khorasan Group" was in the waning
days of the Obama regime. Do you remember the "Aboslute Terror!.com"(tm) that was surrounding
this fictional group of terrorists as trumpeted by Obama himself? Similarities are not
inconsequential in that a nefarious political goal is the point of the obfuscation and
lies.
What is that goal? I can't answer that question, but to speculate, I would guess that the
oligarchs of the West have decided that the potential for nuclear annihilation is worth
risking for unrestricted free market economic world domination in the short term.
I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the
ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always
on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the
fight.
In that way, no matter what facts are presented (which is what Russia is doing) Russia
will always start from what they are accused of. Right there, UK is choosing what Russian
reaction would be.
Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot
rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like
the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to
fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war.
A very good point, well made. I've learned myself that conforming to Marquis of Queensbury
rules when engaged in a conflict with a street fighter can be somewhat counter-productive.
You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to truth. I wonder how these mouthpieces
reading their government's lines can truly sleep at night.
its heartbreaking watching this. It reminds me of the poaching of the great animals of Africa
-- Russia does everything right and just -- and the shameful poachers use nothing honorable
or decent in their wish to destroy. There has been nothing but dishonesty and untruth from
Britain (and the west) in this whole affair -- no one even knows where or how the victims of
this 'chemical attack' are -- and that there's only be two victims -- a chemical attack kills
multiple people
I shall listen to the whole thing to get a better grasp of the context of certain speeches,
remarks. TASS yesterday posted a report ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) that represents their
own summary: "Russian Foreign Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga."
While appreciating Russian humor, I dashed off a message to my German friends, as follows
(translated):
Incredible! -- No I believe it. Watch the selected-emphasized sections below. The Russians
have the knife in, and they are turning it, very slowly. Delicious!
"It is likely that this could have been orchestrated from across the pond. [Note
that Yermakov -- and he comes from the MoD, not the MFA -- throws May's "highly probable"
back into her face, but he provides indirect evidence, which May did not do. Note also that
it is indeed "likely". That has been my argument the whole time, except that I told you the
Americans -- the Trump-Americans -- set a trap for May and she walked into it. Yermakov is
saying the same thing: just watch and listen.]
„It is no secret to anyone that the UK's closest partner is the only state
officially keeping the largest arsenals of chemical weapons in the world." [How true, but ist
he USA theUK's "closest partner" really? Actually, since the British launched their
anti-Trump cvampaign -- with Christopher Steele / MI6 -- the two have been at war with one
another. Yermakov seems to play innocent on that point, even naive, but if the Americans set
the trap, then the British set themselves up by believing that what May did was wha their
closest partner wanted them to do. And now May is in deep sh**.]
Yermakov further,"is most likely a new grossly falsified and unlawful
provocation." Against Russia, yes, of course, fa false flag, and illegal. But also against
the UK? That is left ambiguous.?
"It only has to be solved who stood behind this and which goals pursued." -- Yes,
indeed, who was behind the false flag, and what were the aims? This hast o be solved,
clarified. Yermakov poses these questions openly and round about, not limited to Russia. Do
the British know who was behind the false flag, and what the aims were? Do they have any
interest in finding out? Yermakov does not launch counter-accusations at the British.
„Only one thing is clear that Russia has absolutely no complicity in this
at least for one simple reason: such a scheme is simply inadmissible and it is
disadvantageous for us by all parameters." Russia's innocence is clear, and, in fact, the
British know that themselves. It would be insulting to claim the British believe their own
propaganda. And,
"At the same time, Great Britain has quite a different track record," the senior
diplomat said, adding that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had openly admitted his lies
about the situation around Iraq." Ah, yes, Blair lying about Irak WMD, but whether he was
trapped into that lie or not, at least it is obvious he was doing it to justify actions that
were not in the first place British actions, it was Bush's war.
„"One only has to guess who and for what purpose is now trying to plunge
Great Britain into a new dirty and again losing venture for London from the very outset
against Russia *this time,*" -- "One" has to guess, and "one" can be Russian, some Russsian
who guesses, or it can be a Brit. And "one" is going to "guess" about who is plunging Britain
into a dirty and loosing venture against Russia. Wow! -- Let's unravel this. Russia has
nothing to do with intelligence war-maneuvers of the Americans against England. If -- that
thatg is "highly likely" -- the Americans set the trap, plunging Britain into a losing
venture agaisn Russia, implied not to be in British interests, the Russians did not
„collude" in setting the trap. Leave Russia out of the game. England is being dragged
into something. Yermakov has "empathy" for the British in this dilemma. The British may well
think that they were dragged into the Irak-WMD charade and the war, so who is dragging
Britain into a losing game „this time"?]
„"the British authorities are beginning to get ever more nervous" as "they
have driven themselves into a deadlock" -- [Really a pity, right? That really hurts, you are
invited / or dragged onto the gang-plank, thinking you are doing the right thing, and their
your "closest partner" steps off the plank and you plunge into the depths. Sure you get
nervous, sure you see you brought onto yourself, you are in a blind-alley. -- You can only do
what Yermakov did if you have the upper-hand and you know it. Russia via Yermakov is not out
for retaliation, Russia extends the open hand , Russia is merciful. Remember the scene in
Schindler's list, where a Nazi camp-commander was about to shoot a little boy because there
were still stains in the bathtub the boy was supposed to have cleaned? And Schindler tells
the Nazi: real power ist to forgive, and the Nazi, who thinks he is powerful and wans power,
lays down his rifle. How merciful the Russias are is ytilll to come. ]
Moscow considers the Salisbury attack to be an act of terror against Russian
citizens carried out on UK soil, he stressed. -- -- So Moscow wants access to the Skripals,
Yulia in particular.
Now comes the icing on the cake, the knife begins to turn. "The senior Russian
diplomat called on the British to put their hatred against Russia aside for a moment, as well
as their "island way of thinking." "I mean no offence, I think highly of the British
diplomacy and this is the reason why I feel ashamed for you when I hear such things,"
Yermakov added, stressing that in the past, Russian diplomats had learned much from their
British colleagues and British experts and now they were calling them for dialogue.. [Of
course the British hate the Russians, but don't let that hate get in the way of properly
assessing the British situation in this trap. If Russians are anything, they are professional
and objective. Of course, Russian diplomats learned from British diplomas: they know
double-dealing also, but Russians do it openly -- open double dealing, and that is what
Yermakov was doing the whole time. Why would Russia do that? -- It's simple: "to split
Europe." That is what the British accuse Russia of doing, but Russia is not doing it the way
the British think, they are going to split Europe because the British have handed over the
lever to do it, because the British are shaming themselves with their nonsense propaganda,
and they know they are losing because it is so shameful. The British were tricked, Russia
does not play tricks. The Russians win because they put truth on the table: if the British
continue with their shameful behavior, they have no chance to play any leaves in Europe. They
know it, that is why they are nervous, that is their own dead-end. Now, when Blair lied,
dragging Britain into the Iraq war, it unleashed destruction, which does not bother the
British as long as others are destroyed. But now they are on the receiving end, it is their
own destruction which is at stake.
wow -- the British diplomat in the audience has a brutal speech -- well written -- its so
hard to defend oneself against untruth -- when its calculated -- at 53:55
It is foolish to believe that explanation will bring to your side those who are implacably
oriented against you because they take it as a sign of weakness.
"A military grade, novichok, nerve agent developed by Russia". So they didn't make then ?
'Developing' isn't making, just in case your education didn't cover this rather unsubtle
distinction. "Barrage of distortion and disinformation" Have you looked in the mirror of late
?? Pathetic.
I think the UK representative went a bit off-script when she said "Russia produced" -- the
official script is "Russian developed". I suspect that she may get a reprimand for that.
One the one hand I am amazed, on the other hand, not. Has anyone listened to the full session
or read the TASS release? ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) If not, please do so,
and show some of what the Russians call "respect," which means just listen carefully.
I do not wish to offend, as the Russian "senior diplomat" said, but I am ashamed to hear
such baseless gossip as "It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and
Russia is obviously following" or "You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to
truth" (cited examples being by no means exhasutive).
Do you realize, have you registered the *fact* that the Russians said "Russian Foreign
Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga"?, which a load of backup to that
suggesion.
The anger and righteous disgust by the chief RF MFA spokesman at around 1:45 from recall (I
did just skip to snippets -- but got stopped there) is worth seeing. He talks of the
Malaysian Boeing downed in Ukraine to the US rep in audience, pointing out US knows exactly
what happened because of its satellites directly overhead, and says something I'd never heard
-- repeated it a couple of times at least -- again in accusatory disgust -- that the first
accusations Russia shot down the plane came BEFORE the plane was hit!
This is true, the plane was still flying when the first accusations were made. The fact that
it hit the ground moments later belies the lies that Opolchensya and/or Russia did it. The
plane was not hit by a missile, there are entry and exit aircraft cannon holes in the left
cockpit outer skin. I have no doubts that the photos of that damning piece of evidence are
long gone but not to worry, I'm sure someone has them.
Auslander
MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged
was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser,
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation,
subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.
The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible,"
General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and
American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday,
just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia
of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.
Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's
willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and
while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar
statements.
The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about
the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back
from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future
attacks.
The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger
effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the
effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.
After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the
election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no
mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security
Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated
Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and
ultimately to support his candidacy.
Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American
intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of
our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the
2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a
conclusion.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the
session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the
facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.
The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered
by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's:
questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.
"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on
Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful
source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply
fantasies."
Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump
campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was
keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not
Russia. It is the United States."
This supposedly MI6-connected presstitute promoted Steele dossier. Now he promotes the war
with Russia.
His idea is confiscate cash from Russian oligarchs. He forgot that British have investments
in Russian that can also be gone.
Notable quotes:
"... Expulsion of diplomats is a temporary setback but the PM might have done more ..."
"... There is one area where the Russian elite is vulnerable. It keeps its money in the west, with much of it laundered in London and via UK corporate entities and banks. Unlike in Soviet times when apparatchiks enjoyed superior Moscow apartments, Putin's friends are multibillionaires, with yachts, villas, planes and other international assets. ..."
"... May could have frozen the luxury properties of tycoons such as Alisher Usmanov or Igor Shuvalov, Russia's deputy prime minister, whose handsome London flat overlooks the Ministry of Defence. She didn't. Oligarchs, of course, are not officials. But they are useful intermediaries who enjoy their fortunes at Putin's pleasure. ..."
Expulsion of diplomats is a temporary setback but the PM might have done more
... ... ...
There is one area where the Russian elite is vulnerable. It keeps its money in the west,
with much of it laundered in London and via UK corporate entities and banks. Unlike in Soviet
times when apparatchiks enjoyed superior Moscow apartments, Putin's friends are
multibillionaires, with yachts, villas, planes and other international assets.
An entire class of British professionals service Russia's super-rich. They include lawyers,
public relations executives, real estate firms, headmasters and accountants. It is this last
group which sets up complex offshore-managed structures used for the purposes of money
laundering. They went unmentioned by May.
And on the question of what to do about Russian cash, May was vague. The measures she
suggested on Wednesday were aspirational. They included bringing to bear the capabilities of
law enforcement against "serious criminals and corrupt elites". This happens already. But
hard-pressed officers from the National Crime Agency admit prosecuting wealthy perpetrators is
difficult and time-consuming.
May could have frozen the luxury properties of tycoons such as Alisher Usmanov or Igor
Shuvalov, Russia's deputy prime minister, whose handsome London flat overlooks the Ministry of
Defence. She didn't. Oligarchs, of course, are not officials. But they are useful
intermediaries who enjoy their fortunes at Putin's pleasure.
"As for the tragedy that you mentioned, I found out about it from the media. The first thing that entered my head was that if
it had been a military-grade nerve agent, the people would have died on the spot," said Putin.
"Secondly, Russia does not have such [nerve] agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons under the supervision of international
organisations and we did it first, unlike some of our partners who promised to do it, but unfortunately did not keep their promises."
Despite the tensions, Putin said Moscow was ready to cooperate with London: "We are ready to cooperate, we said that straight
away. We are ready to take part in the necessary investigations, but for that there needs be a desire from the other side and we
don't see that yet. But we are not taking it off the agenda, joint efforts are possible."
"I think any sensible person would understand that it would be rubbish, drivel, nonsense, for Russia to embark on such an escapade
on the eve of a presidential election."
Surprisingly this Guardian presstitute has some sound thoughts ;-)
Theresa May was probably pushed by Big Uncle. It is inconceivable that she behaved so
arrogantly and foolishly on her own, even taking into account that any confrontation with Russia
might prolong the life of her cabinet.
All-in-all this false flag operation looks like the first step is some gambit designed by
British intelligence services against Russia. With Scripals as sacrificed pawns. It is amazing
how "false flag friendly" poisoning cases are. Uncomfortable evidence can always be hidden under
that smoke screen of "state secrecy".
There might be strong desire to confiscate Russian oligarch money as one of the motives for
the current May goverment hysteria. That's explains why members of parliament jumped so high on
orders, and why the reaction was so bipartisan. Because the attempt to spoil the World Cup looks
so petty, that it is smells with the USA, not British intelligence serves. After all British team
is a favorite. But such attempts were numerous in the past, so you never know. Sochi was the most
recent example.
Notable quotes:
"... Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our history of provoking Russia ..."
"... The prospect has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand. ..."
"... Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end. Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany) pleading with the west "not to play with fire". ..."
"... As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money laundering. ..."
Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our
history of provoking Russia
Do we really want war with Russia? Do we want to risk one, even a tiny one? The prospect
has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given
Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There
is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its
spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand.
... ... ...
Parliament parroted the same nonsense. The Tories' Tom Tugendhat said the poisoning "if not
an act of war, was certainly a warlike act". Labour's Chris Leslie and John Woodcock worked
themselves into a lather over "our country under attack" and "the gravity of the threat Russia
poses to this nation". In these bidding wars of exaggeration, words lose all meaning.
... ... ...
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the
humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end.
Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge
of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany)
pleading with the west "not to play with fire".
As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by
opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the
world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the
prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money
laundering.
All this is a grim echo of how the allies treated Germany after Versailles in 1919. They
rubbed its nose in defeat, occupying its territory, destroying its dignity and stripping it of
its flimsy wealth. Germany eventually found refuge in dictatorship.
... ... ...
Camus wrote that "plagues and wars take people equally by surprise". The idea that Skripal
may be the Franz Ferdinand of the next European conflict may seem ludicrous. Yet the west's
responses to post-Soviet Russia, however reasonable in the short term, have been disastrous in
general. A war with Russia would be the west's fault.
"... "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." ..."
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged.
The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the
underlying principle from Nuremberg as "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order
of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
This is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as
settled as anything possibly can be.
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a
legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just
following orders.
Specifically, they say Gina Haspel, a top CIA officer whom President
Donald Trump has designated to be the agency's next director, bears no responsibility for the
torture she supervised during George W. Bush's administration.
Haspel
oversaw a secret "black site" in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and
subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the
CIA's videotapes of some of its torture sessions. There is informed
speculation that part of the CIA's motivation for destroying these records may have been
that they showed operatives employing torture to generate false "intelligence" used to justify
the invasion of Iraq.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA operative who helped capture many Al Qaeda prisoners, recently
said that Haspel was known to some at the agency as "Bloody Gina" and that "Gina and people
like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of
torture, not for the sake of gathering information." (In 2012, in a convoluted
case , Kiriakou
pleaded guilty to leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer to the press and spent a
year in prison.)
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"WASHINGTON BREAKS OUT THE "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS" NAZI DEFENSE FOR CIA DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE
GINA HASPEL"
Jon Schwarz
"... Senior Russian diplomatic and military officials have accused the UK of hiding and possibly planning to destroy evidence in the investigation into the Salisbury nerve agent attack. ..."
Senior Russian diplomatic and military officials have accused the UK of hiding and possibly planning to destroy evidence
in the investigation into the Salisbury nerve agent attack.
The comments came during a remarkable briefing at Moscow's foreign ministry given for all foreign ambassadors in Russia, to lay
out the country's argument for why it is not responsible for the attack on former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter,
Yulia, on 4 March.
Britain says they were poisoned with a nerve agent known as novichok and has blamed Russia for the attack, but Moscow has
fiercely denied any involvement. The case has prompted the two countries to expel diplomats in a tit-for-tat dispute.
Speaking to a lecture hall of diplomats, Vladimir Yermakov, deputy head of the ministry's department for non-proliferation,
suggested that the UK was "hiding facts" about the case that may later "disappear".
Laurie Bristow, the British ambassador to Russia, did not attend and the ambassadors of other major allies, including the US,
Germany and France, also boycotted the briefing.
But one British diplomat did go. Emma Nottingham condemned the "disinformation" coming from the Russian government during the
briefing, which was closed to the press but streamed live online.
"Russia has offered us so far no explanation of how this agent came to be used in the United
Kingdom and no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in
contravention of international law," Nottingham told the five-person panel.
"We are not obliged to give anything to Great Britain," Yermakov replied to Nottingham. "It
is an attack on Russian citizens on the territory of Great Britain, so why don't we carry out a
joint investigation?"
Yermakov also suggested that Russia may not accept the conclusions of an investigation by
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as fact.
"It is not possible to evaluate what happened in Salisbury within the framework of the
convention and within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said in
remarks translated by Interfax. "Deeper expert evaluations will be needed, and in any case we
need to conduct our own investigations for Russia to be able to draw any conclusions."
At present there is no way of disciplining a retired judge who trades on his former title of
"Judge" and his rank of QC to give advice to lay people (without any up-to-date knowledge of
law or professional indemnity insurance) and then speak on their behalf as a McKenzie Friend
in Court.
I know of a case where this actually happened - a retired Chancery Circuit Judge
intervened in a case involving a religious charity when he has no known connection to the
faith in question. His intervention was distinctly unhelpful for the parties and impeded the
proper administration of justice. But nothing could be done about his unprofessional and
meddling behaviour.
Journalists are not state officials, and do not have the power to imprison citizens. There is
no right to be a judge (so state regulation of judges is legitimate) whereas there is a right
to freedom of speech (so state regulation of journalism is not legitimate).
Judges are lawyers: a rapacious breed drawn predominantly from and representing the "highest"
stratum of society. They are expert at presenting one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and
evidence. They provide "blue chip justice" favouring that social segment that can afford to
hire lawyers and so keep the legal sector in work. They know how to wear down complainants
(often of limited means) with unjustified decisions that have to be appealed at every stage
of proceedings. They are assisted by absurb laws which deem them virtually infallible in
jurisdictions such as the Employment Tribunal, where it is, in practice, not an "error of
law" to find something impossible to be true or to make a finding contrary to the weight of
evidence, or without evidential basis (and invariably favouring the employer). Even when an
indefatigable complainant succeeds in an appeal against a rotten judgement, they often find
their case "remitted" for a rehearing before the same biased tribunal or another made up of
the friends and colleagues of the first, and likewise of the employer. Many contributors
here, and all employment lawyers, know this to be true, yet this unjust system persists. What
criticisms of it there are focus on ultimately minor issues such as whether one should have
to pay fees to lodge complaints, rather than the more important issue of its institutional
racialism and the virtual impossibility of Black people being successful in complaints
against members of the establishment within it.
You also need to remember that judges work within a system which is controlled by politics,
press start complaining about high number of car thefts, car thieves suddenly start getting
jailed while house breakers do not.
There are also other parts of the system for instance social work reports, often made
about people who know the systems inside out, know exactly what to say and when to say it.
Lawyers who are simply there to lie, on both sides of the case with full knowledge they are
doing it. Police who are more concerned about getting results than actually justice. And
finally the judges themselves who all appear to have totally different interpretations of the
law, I have seen grown men break down when they find out they are getting 1 judge over
another and that was just the lawyers.
Judicial lies are far from confined to racism-motivated instances. The whole system of
"justice" is the biggest scam on the planet. That's why they don't allow recording of your
own hearing.
The judiciary regularly get away with complete and utter cheap lies in their judgments. They
are unaccountable as it only takes two more judges to refuse permission to challenge the lies
and that's the end of the matter. In one of my cases I asked to audio-record (my own case).
Both the judge and government barrister insisted I would not be alllowed to record. The
reason for this refusal of recording is so that there is no record of the filthy lies judges
deploy in the smaller civil court rooms where there are no reporters. One important subset of
lies is about the limitation act. Supposedly fact means possibility, knowledge means
suspicion, and was means might be - well that's what high court judges say these words mean,
and the fact that loads of dictionaries say otherwise is of no power against them.
We need every litigant to have the right to record their own cases.
And perhaps that needs review. After all, they are all members of same brotherhood or
society, and all operate from under Londons Bar .So is no independence at all.
My recent experience of JCIO is not entirely sanguine. I represented myself in a child
custody case in Birmingham. The Cafcass favored my child to stay with me. The Circuit Judge
presiding over the case, lied in his judgment three times in order to favor my ex. When I
took the matter to the appeal in High Court, the Law Lord presiding practically said that
because the Circuit Judge is experienced, he is entitled to lie. I was quite gobsmacked. JCIO
were completely unmoved by my protestations. It is apparent that truth is diminished if you
are a layman fighting the excesses of establishment.
The internet is awash with people who have been unfairly treated by the Justice system. Court
observers have commented on the familiarity between Judges and business men in employment
tribunal cases, and the employee losing, and also losing an appeal. Has anybody ever tried to
get an employment judge's notes from the case? Impossible. Ultimately when the judge says the
notes are not to be released under any circumstances (why not if they have nothing to hide)
and the Trbunal President when asked under a data protection request, tells you that the data
controller, is, yes the original judge who won't release them under any circumstances, is it
any wonder that people have no faith in the British Justice system, or should we rename it
Old Boys Network system?
The corrupt protecting the corrupt!
I refer to the Porton Down cover-up that involved the killing of 39 Porton Down veterans who
died as a result of being injected with a bacteria derived from salmonella - abortus equi -
in an altered state. (source FOI) Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs (unlike Judge Brian
Kennedy QC) who ordered details of the deaths to be made public) did purposely support the
MoD by allowing them to keep secret ALL facts related to the killings. Judge Edward Jacobs
also ignored a 3.72 million pounds fraudulent payment (stolen from public funds) awarded to
Martyn Day Senior Partner with the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. It was Martyn Day who
supposedly represented 39 family members of deceased veterans. In effect Jacobs by his very
silence and by allowing crimes of this nature to be kept under wraps did himself become party
to the crime.
"The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong" I don't know, I though
Patrick Logicman was spot on with his "But then you couldn't tell them from janitors" remark
above.
Yes but in the midst of the usual press anarchy, a few wise words from Joshua are surely not
out of order?
The predilection of cheap jack town magistrates describing themselves as Judges, takes
some beating. The powers of local authorities to press their own non-criminal "charges" can
be rather unpleasant, and quite happy to present fictitious evidence in abundance, backed up
by such "judges".
If you review most Laws in Britain,USA Canada,etc they were enacted worded and favored the
very rich and property owners when passed. Judge`s hands are really tied to the laws of the
land and it is the rich bias and regulations that keep the poor in their place that Judges
are restricted by when looking to dispense justice [as far as the law allows].
Same applies to the Police they didn`t make the laws.The Justice system and the Police
have been deliberately kept apart from society so they identify more with conservatism and
the status quo and even identify with it as elitists.
The difference is that the father needs to be suspended in case the allegations prove to be
true, because something important is alleged. Here the allegations against the judges seem to
be about nothing - nothing obviously wrong has happened even if the facts are true.
In my experience of the judiciary in criminal trials is that they do have a tendency to
protect the Police and even on the odd occasion pervert the course of justice to protect
them. You cannot assume that any judge will be impartial in any case or inquiry especially if
police corruption is being investigated or has been alleged. In my view you trust a judge to
be independent and impartial at your own risk.
Suspending a judge from duty pending investigation is rather like a judge confining a
separated father to a supervised contact centre while his ex's phony allegations are looked
into. All rather unnecessary but what do you do?
My experience of the judiciary convinces me that it functions principally to protect the
establishment. This is perhaps seen most blatantly in the employment tribunal, where judges
make virtually unchallengeable findings of "fact" that contradict incontrovertible evidence
that they simply ignore in order to exculpate defendants in race and religous discrimination
cases. Sometimes they collude with defendants to pervert the course of justice by accepting
fabricated documents as genuine, despite the existence of the genuine documents showing their
inauthenticity (which they do not mention as they are irreconcilable with the documents that
they wish to represent as genuine). Sometimes, they make important findings based on key
documents that they have never seen, which the claimant dispute ever existed and the
defendants claim they have lost. At other times, the judges just simply lie about the
evidence if that is required to discredit the complainant. Such phenomena are well-documented
(e.g.,
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/culture-of-disbelief-why-race-discrimination-claims-fail-in-the-employment-tribunal/).
However, maybe because sex, drugs and death are not involved - and it only affects Blacks,
after all - no-one seems at all interested, no programmes get made about this or articles get
written in the mainstream media even when prominent journalists have the evidence of its
occurrence.
It is a tradition in this country that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, judges do not
respond to attacks on them in the media. This means that we often hear the attack, but not
the defence. Let me illustrate this with an example from history which shows that judges can
be right, even when non-lawyers think they are obviously wrong.
If the media and some members of Parliament had got their own way, Mr. Justice Grantham
would have been sacked after instructing a jury in strong terms that a prison warder charged
with manslaughter, against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, was nevertheless not
guilty. It transpired about two years later that the single prosecution witness had lied: the
"victim" was dead before the warder entered the room. I understand that the warder was named
Mitchell and, despite being acquitted, did not get his job back.
Had Mr. Justice Grantham been sacked he could not have investigated the Adolph Beck case, the true facts
might never have come out and we might still not have a criminal appeals process.
"The credit for resolving this miscarriage of justice lay firstly with the 1904 trial
judge, Mr Justice Grantham, who had lingering doubts about Beck's guilt and had delayed
concluding the case despite apparently strong prosecution evidence and procedures. It was in
this period of delay, before being sentenced, that the crucial arrest of the real offender
took place."
Source - historybytheyard.co.uk
Each? But then you couldn't tell a judge from a janitor. They tried that in China. It
didn't work. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the wigs and gowns.
The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong. Perhaps self-regulation does
not work for most professions, but in the case of judges it seems to "over-work" and the
desire to ensure that judges are seen as people of integrity seems to take over at times. On
the basis of JR's article, there seems very clearly to be no substance in the allegations
against either Fulford or Thornton. When normal people face such baseless allegations, the
case is struck out, or a responsible prosecutor stops it. So the impression here is that the
regulator is afraid to be thought to sweeping things under the carpet and so the process
continues - and absurdity is piled onto absurdity when the judges are even suspended from
work in the meantime.
Turenne and Shetreet's book, referred to in the text, notes instances when judges not only
face complaints but actually receive criticism for doing things which others can do and might
even be expected to do. For example, it seems that judges should plead guilty to minor
traffic offences if they are guilty, and should not seek technical ways that might exist to
defeat the charges (ie ways that are not based on the merits of the case). This may be a good
idea, of course, but it further ridicules any notion that the regulator is soft.
I have for many decades thought that most judges are daft old fools, out of touch with
reality. My opinion has been confirmed by many examples.
I'm not up enough with the law to be able to suggest a better alternative, those who know
what they are talking about should do that. However, I was pleased to see the web site linked to in the article ,
which seems to be a small step in the right direction.
Justice and access to it should be a cornerstone of our society - except that in its
current form, it is reduced to a cleverly disguised commodity - whereby the 'truth' /
'justice' can be purchased by paying for expensive lawyers.
This age old practice of letting "professionals" regulate themselves is thankfully in decline
but not quickly enough. They didn't regulate themselves, they protected each other like
brothers in crime. Lawyers, police, bankers, religious institutions, doctors banded together
to give themselves maximum benefit. And the pompous indignation when Joe Public dared to
question them. I have always felt that these groups pulled the wool over our eyes. I laugh at
the term "professional" often they are far from it.
Who is judging the judges?
We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to but it remains the case that
judges themselves judge judges
I find it amusing that a journalist in a National Newspaper is writing an article about a
group of self interested people being able to judge themselves.
Who handles complaints about newspapers? I'll give you a clue with a quote fro the Press
Complaints Commission's website:
The Press Complaints Commission is currently in a phase of transition; and it will soon
be replaced by a new structure of independent self-regulation for the newspaper and
magazine industries.
Self-regulation. Sounds a bit like what the judges do.
One of the key elements of the English judiciary is that it is NOT elected. The executive and
legislature are the elected bits and thus the judiciary must defer to them in terms of
law-making and keep to their own province of interpreting the law - true it can be a fuzzy
line at times but it is a hugely important part of the functioning of the rule of law.
Elected judges would be a disaster for many reasons.
What the UK judiciary gets away with is utterly horrifying. That they palm it off as
'isolated cases' is bad enough, but hiding behind the pretence that people 'don't know the
facts' is even worse.
The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
"... We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be. ..."
"... For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. ..."
"... (in English in the original text -- trans. ..."
"... Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities. ..."
"... Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth. ..."
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode.
I've been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those
parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including
athletes with disabilities ), with their "skripals" and ostentatious disregard of the most
basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically
combined with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their
epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia,
and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in
the Brexit-zone;
with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of
speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech
never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort
of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your
injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you.
You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those
amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came
to be.
For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and
analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive
arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn
history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their
empires. Only because of their arrogance.
(in English in the original text --
trans. )
But the only Empire, you have left, ignores history, it doesn't teach it and refuses to
learn it, meaning that it all will end the way it always does, in such cases.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him.
Before, he was just our President, who could be reelected. Now, he has become our Leader. We
won't let you change this. And it was you, who created this situation.
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
I agree with you, Margarita, and I am American! I remember as a child, being taught about
that horrid USSR - to be so feared, ready at any moment to bomb us into oblivion! I remember
the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. - not knowing the full details, but being told that Kennedy saved us
all from WWIII. As time went on, we'd watch humorous shows detailing the large percentage of
Russians in USSR wanting to AND defecting to America. We were shown Russians lined up around
city blocks to buy toilet paper, shoes (any size, any color would do). Russians naivety was
always made fun of, casting the majority of you as either clowns or criminals capable of all
heinous crimes. Then came the 90s. I watched Yeltsin tottering around drunk, watched in
horror as the USSR collapsed, wondering what had happened to you. Then came Putin - this
young man being handed the reins of your collapsed, ruined country. Suddenly it seemed, we
saw more and more of him. I remember watching his face when he had to explain to the tearful,
waiting parents and friends of the mariners from the Kursk. His remark that if he could go
down there himself and rescue them he would! I knew then, that this was a man to be watched,
because I admired him at that moment. Over the years, after one successful term after
another, I saw Russia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the USSR. I saw the pride
returning to the Russian faces, saw smiles returning to their faces, watched you regaining
your honor, your sovereignty as we started losing ours. Watching and listening, in horror and
fear as more and more of our rights were taken away after 9/11. Discovering that it was a
false flag (one of many, it seems), that took the lives of ordinary Americans and used their
deaths to start killing more people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack. More
time going by, more rights taken away here, yet for you, rising ever more to greater economy,
more business friendly environments in Russia, more world trade with an increasing number of
trading partners.
Then started the demonization again - not of USSR, but of Russia - same story, different
name. Putin - guilty of all crimes of mankind, blamed for everything under the sun, capable
and willing to kill people around the globe with impunity, using chemicals and all other
nefarious things! I watched the crimes committed in Ukraine, which deposed the legally
elected president, and that tried to kill him after a coup that put Nazis in his place. I
watched Crimea hold it's referendum, saw the fireworks display afterwards with all the happy
faces. Russia was demonized even more and sanctioned greatly for that. Now to 2017 - I prayed
that Putin would run again - (he waited a long time before stating he would run.) I knew that
Russia sorely needed him to remain at the reins, guiding Russia (and the world, it seems)
around the icebergs of hate, crimes against humanity, local wars, demise of any empathetic
feelings towards others as we are all dragged along to the next, last war. Putin has been the
one who has prevented it from happening in several situations, where it could have been
started. But the demonization continues - little wonder America has lost it's appeal to most
of you!
The deep state has us in thrall - (no Kennedy here now to protect us). I pray daily that
all of us will survive to realize our hopes - yours and ours, but feel on a deep level that
this time it won't happen. It seems that some people here truly want a war - feel they could
survive the strike and retaliate to ruin your country, but that ours would remain mainly
untouched. They think their bunkers will protect them - their expansive underground cities
built for the richest and 'best' of America, while the rest of us are collateral damage. I am
not rich - have no real savings, so am definitely not one of those to be saved - like so
others around me. I'm sure many of you are in the same position, have the same fears and
dreams as I do. I offer all of you my best wishes for a happy, healthy, free and safe world.
Maybe your Putin actually does have a rabbit in his hat, or that silver bullet - the magic
needed to save us all! I truly hope so.
As a Canadian, thank you for your excellent summary of what I have concluded for some
time. Sadly, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic as established by the founders; it
is not even a representative democracy. What the US has become is an Evil American Empire
that is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity in the US and throughout the entire
world. The good news is that a growing number of people in the US and the Western World
realize this and are working very hard to return America to its founding ideals. The first
stage in this process is the exposure of powerful members of the Deep State who have
infiltrated and corrupted the essential institutions of government, freedom and justice.
I used to be liberal before liberalism became a symbol of stupidity, war mongering and
affiliated with the Deep State and it's rush to rule the world by destroying every society
whose people chose to live life as they saw fit. The translation mechanism for understanding
US leadership is projection. If the mouthpieces ramble on about their values, the meaning is
that they are stating the values of their opponent or target country. If they're accusing a
country of terrorism, they're talking about their own support for terrorism for geopolitical
gains. If they're accusing a country of using chemical weapons, they're really talking about
their own use of chemical weapons to launch another war and destroy yet another country's
society. So one can easily see the true meaning of these psychopaths rantings and rhetoric by
merely using the simple mechanism of projection to determine the truth.
Many times I am completely confused by the use that Americans make of traditional
political or economic terms. "Socialism", for example, applied to Democrats? Calling
"Liberals" those who like to defy society's traditional customs? "Marxism" is no longer a
theory about the conflict of classes, or a dialectical understanding of society! Many
political discussions are due to the different interpretations that people give to the same
words. The US political science vocabulary is in chaos- along with many other US things!
Seventy years ago, George Orwell wrote the prophetic essay, "Politics
and the English Language," in which he noted that politicians,
journalists and academics were increasingly using meaningless words and
euphemisms to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and...
give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Source:
https://www.alternet.org/el...
Totally agree. Fundamental or Philosophical Liberalism has to be with the human being and
his liberties and rights.
Economic Liberalism has to be with the commodities trade and physical money, financial money,
and their privileges put over the human beings, of course this is a euphemism because whom
are really self conceded such privileges are the owners of those goods i.e. International
Usurers.
Economic Liberalism morphed into the worst; into Neo-(Economic)-Liberalism (They call it only
"liberalism" in order to confuse their enemies, all the people). Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things
including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as
their rightful commodities.
You're absolutely correct! We've had the worst of the worst running and influencing those
that run the country and this man was a psycho, but we have more, too many!
The arrogance of the man. I do hope he lives long enough to see the fruits of his labor
whilst the economy collapses around him. I guess when that happens he and his other hapless
miscreants will keep their heads down and rely on security to protect them from the karma
hurtling towards them.
Nothing this man has done has benefited the American people.
Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided
in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is
what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM
and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held
responsible for the factual truth.
The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time. Yet,
it gets almost no coverage from the corporate media.
How often do network newscasts report on the 40 million Americans living in poverty, or that we have the highest rate of childhood
poverty of almost any major nation on earth? How often does the media discuss the reality that our society today is more unequal
than at any time since the 1920s with the top 0.1% now owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? How often have you heard the
media report the stories of millions of people who today are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case some 40 years
ago?
How often has ABC, CBS or NBC discussed the role that the
Koch brothers and other billionaires play in creating
a political system which allows the rich and the powerful to significantly control elections and the legislative process in Congress?
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask
Sadly, the answer to these questions is: almost never. The corporate media has failed to let the American people fully understand
the economic forces shaping their lives and causing many of them to work two or three jobs, while CEOs make hundreds of times more
than they do. Instead, day after day, 24/7, we're inundated with the relentless dramas of the Trump White House, Stormy Daniels,
and the latest piece of political gossip.
We urgently need to discuss the reality of today's economy and political system, and fight to create an economy that works for
everyone and not just the one percent.
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask: who owns America, and who has the political power? Why,
in the richest country in the history of the world are so many Americans living in poverty? What are the forces that have caused
the American middle class, once the envy of the world, to decline precipitously? What can we learn from countries that have succeeded
in reducing income and wealth inequality, creating a strong and vibrant middle class, and providing basic human services to everyone?
We need to hear from struggling Americans whose stories are rarely told in newspapers or television. Unless we understand the
reality of life in America for working families, we're never going to change that reality.
Until we understand that the rightwing Koch brothers are more politically powerful than the Republican National Committee, and
that big banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational corporations are spending unlimited sums of money to rig the political
process, we won't be able to overturn the disastrous US supreme court decision on Citizens United, move to the public funding of
elections and end corporate greed.
Until we understand that the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and that people cannot make it on $9
or $10 an hour, we're not going to be able to pass a living wage of at least $15 an hour.
Until we understand that multinational corporations have been writing our trade and tax policies for the past 40 years to allow
them to throw American workers out on the street and move to low-wage countries, we're not going to be able to enact fair laws ending
the race to the bottom and making the wealthy and the powerful pay their fair share.
Until we understand that we live in a highly competitive global economy and that it is counterproductive that millions of our
people cannot afford a higher education or leave school deeply in debt, we will not be able to make public colleges and universities
tuition free.
Until we understand that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all and that we spend far more
per capita on healthcare than does any other country, we're not going to be able to pass a Medicare for all, single-payer program.
Until we understand that the US pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because pharmaceutical companies
can charge whatever price they want for life-saving medicine, we're not going to be able to lower the outrageous price of these drugs.
Until we understand that climate change is real, caused by humans, and causing devastating problems around the world, especially
for poor people, we're not going to be able to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into sustainable forms of energy.
We need to raise political consciousness in America and help us move forward with a progressive agenda that meets the needs of
our working families. It's up to us all to join the conversation -- it's just the beginning.
March 20 marks a major anniversary. You'd be forgiven for not knowing it. Fifteen years
after we invaded Iraq, few in the US are addressing our legacy there. But it's worth recalling
we shattered that country.
We made it a terrorist hotspot, as expected. US and British intelligence, in the months
preceding the invasion, expected Bush's planned assault would invigorate Al-Qaeda. The group "
would see an opportunity
to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks," particularly "
in the US and UK ," assessments warned. Due course for the War on Terror.
Follow-up reports confirmed these predictions. "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause
celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and
cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," Washington analysts explained in
2006.
Fawaz Gerges
lists two groups this milieu produced: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), "a creature of the 2003
US-led invasion," and ISIS, "an extension of AQI."
There were good reasons for anyone -- not just jihadists -- to resent US involvement.
Consider sectarianism. "The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history
followed the 2003 US-led occupation," Sami Ramadani affirmed .
Nabil Al-Tikriti concurs , citing US
policies that "led to a progressive, incessant increase in sectarian tensions." The Shia death
squads "
organized by U.S. operatives" were one such decision.
The extent to which these squads succeeded is, in part, what scholars debate when they tally
the war deaths. Low estimates, like Iraq Body Count's, put civilians killed at just over 200,000. One research
team determined
some "half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war." Physicians for Social
Responsibility concluded "that the war has, directly or
indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq," plus 300,000 more in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Iraqis surviving the inferno confronted a range of nightmares. The UN " reported that over 4.4
million Iraqis were internally displaced, and an additional 264,100 were refugees abroad," for
example. US forces dealt with Iraqi prisoners -- 70-90% of whom were " arrested by
mistake " -- by "arranging naked detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;" "breaking
chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;" and "forcing groups of male
detainees to masturbate themselves," to list some of the ways we imparted , with the approval of top
Bush administration officials, democratic principles.
Then there are the generations of future Iraqis in bomb-battered cities: Fallujah, Basra. In
the former, "the reported increases in cancer and infant
mortality are alarmingly high" -- perhaps "
worse than Hiroshima " -- while "birth defects reached in 2010 unprecedented
numbers." In the same vein, "a pattern of increase in congenital birth defects" plagues Basra, and
"many suspect that pollution created by the bombardment of Iraqi cities has caused the current
birth defect crisis in that country."
This bombardment began decades before 2003, it's crucial to clarify. We can recall UN
Under-Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari's mission to Baghdad after Operation Desert Storm. He
and his team were familiar with the literature on the bombings, he wrote in March 1991, "fully
conversant with media reports regarding the situation in Iraq," but realized upon arrival "that
nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation"
-- "near-apocalyptic" -- "which has now befallen the country," condemning it "to a
pre-industrial age" for the foreseeable future. This was the scale of ruin when the UN Security
Council imposed sanctions. The measures were "at every turn
shaped by the United States," whose "consistent
policy " was "to inflict the most extreme economic damage possible on Iraq."
The policy was, in this respect, a ripping success. The UN estimated
in 1995 that the sanctions had murdered over a half-million children -- " worth it ," Madeleine Albright said --
one factor prompting two successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq to resign. Denis
Halliday
thought the sanctions "criminally flawed and genocidal;" Hans von Sponeck
agreed , citing evidence of "conscious violation of human rights and humanitarian law on
the part of governments represented in the Security Council, first and foremost those of the
United States and the United Kingdom."
Eliminating hundreds of thousands of starving children was just the prequel to the
occupation -- "the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed
Baghdad in 1258," in one writer's judgment
. But try to find more than a handful of commentators reflecting on any of these issues on this
dark anniversary. Instead, silence shows the deep US capacity for forgetting.
Nick Alexandrov lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He can be reached at: [email protected]
"An editor at the Guardian says the poisoning was a 'brazen attack on a sovereign country'
and 'cannot go unpunished'".
So presumably The Guardian will now be agitating for the trial and severe punishment of
all those responsible for brazen and unprovoked attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan. Iraq,
Libya and Syria?
All of which did rather more than poisoning two or three people (so far, non-fatally). In
Iraq alone the "coalition" is responsible for over 3 million civilian deaths. In Iraq and
Libya the civil infrastructure was demolished and the head of state murdered.
And what does The Guardian have to say about that?
Mizan Thrope • 2 days ago
Another FALSE FLAG created by the western neocons to discredit Russia. This is so
obvious. The sheeple need to wake up.
"... The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who visited the site at Nukus, said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the UK placing blame on Russia. ..."
"... In a blog post , he wrote: "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." ..."
"... The UK government case rests not just on its argument that novichok was developed in Russia, but what it says is past form, a record of Russian state-sponsored assassination of former spies. ..."
"... Murray, in a phone interview, is undeterred, determined to challenge the government line, in spite of having been subjected to a level of abuse on social media he had not experienced before. ..."
"... "There is no evidence it was Russia. I am not ruling out that it could be Russia, though I don't see the motive. I want to see where the evidence lies," Murray said. "Anyone who expresses scepticism is seen as an enemy of the state." ..."
The question now is whether all of Russia's chemical weapons were
destroyed and accounted for. Theresa May – having identified the nerve agent used in the
Salisbury attack as novichok, developed in Russia – told the Commons on Wednesday that
Russia had offered no
explanation as to why it had "an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of
international law". Jeremy Corbyn introduced a sceptical note, questioning whether there was
any evidence as to the location of its production.
The exchanges provoked a debate echoing the one that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq over
whether UN weapons inspectors had overseen the destruction of all the weapons of mass
destruction in the country or whether Saddam Hussein had retained secret hidden caches.
On social media, there were arguments that the novichok could have come from some part of
the former Soviet Union other than Russia, such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan or Ukraine, or some
non-state group, maybe criminals.
The years following the fall of the Berlin Wall were chaotic, with chemical weapons
laboratories and storage sites across the Soviet Union abandoned by staff who were no longer
being paid. Security was almost non-existent, leaving the sites at the mercy of criminal gangs
or disenchanted staff looking to supplement their income.
"Could somebody have smuggled something out?" Amy Smithson, a US-based biological and
chemical weapons expert, said to Reuters. "I certainly wouldn't rule that possibility out,
especially a small amount and particularly in view of how lax the security was at Russian
chemical facilities in the early 1990s."
It took almost a decade before order was restored, in part through stockpiles being
transferred to Russia from other parts of the former Soviet Union and in part through help from
US and other western experts.
Novichok was developed at a laboratory complex in
Shikhany, in central Russia, according to a British weapons expert, Hamish de
Bretton-Gordon, and a Russian chemist involved in the chemical weapons programme, Vil
Mirzayanov, who later defected to the US. Mirzayanov said the novichok was tested at Nukus, in
Uzbekistan.
The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who visited the site at Nukus,
said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the UK
placing blame on Russia.
In a blog post , he wrote:
"The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'novichok'
nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil."
A Russian lawyer, Boris Kuznetsov, told Reuters he was offering to pass to the British
authorities a file he said might be relevant to the Salisbury case. It details an incident when
poison hidden in a phone receiver killed a Russian banker and his secretary in 1995. The poison
came from an employee at the state chemical facility who sold it through intermediaries –
in an ampule placed in a presentation case – to help reduce his debts.
The UK government case rests not just on its argument that novichok was developed in Russia,
but what it says is past form, a record of Russian state-sponsored assassination of former
spies.
Murray, in a phone interview, is undeterred, determined to challenge the government line, in
spite of having been subjected to a level of abuse on social media he had not experienced
before.
"There is no evidence it was Russia. I am not ruling out that it could be Russia, though I
don't see the motive. I want to see where the evidence lies," Murray said. "Anyone who
expresses scepticism is seen as an enemy of the state."
Senators Mark Udall and
Ron Wyden are upset about something, they just can't say what. In a
letter
sent to the National Security Agency this week about a fact sheet on its surveillance programs, the senators complained about
what they refer to only as "the inaccuracy". The inaccuracy is "significant". The inaccuracy could "decrease public confidence in
the NSA's openness and its commitment to protecting Americans' constitutional rights". But, because the information underlying it
is classified, the inaccuracy can't be described.
This is either a frustrating illustration of the absurdities of America's secrecy regime, or the start of a pretty solid vaudeville
act.
The frenzied public debate over the NSA leaks has
focused on the correctness of the government surveillance programs themselves. But America cannot properly debate these and future
surveillance efforts until it decides what can be debated.
As an official in the first Obama administration, I worked in jobs requiring top secret clearance. I know firsthand how essential
secrecy can be to effecting policy goals and how devastating leaks can be. I navigated diplomatic relationships threatened by the
indiscriminate release of WikiLeaks documents, and volunteered on the taskforce that sifted through them, piecing together the damage
done. But it is also true that a culture of over-classification has shielded too much from public debate and that more could be disclosed
without damaging the efficacy of intelligence programs.
Trillions of new pages of text are classified each year. More than 4.8 million people now have a security clearance, including
low level contractors like Edward Snowden . A committee
established by Congress, the Public Interest Declassification Board, warned in December that rampant over-classification is "imped[ing]
informed government decisions and an informed public" and, worse, "enabl[ing] corruption and malfeasance". In one instance it documented,
a government agency was found to be classifying one petabyte of new data every 18 months, the equivalent of 20m filing cabinets filled
with text.
It is difficult to argue that all or even most of that information should be classified. By keeping too many secrets, America
has created fertile ground for their escape. Already, the Obama administration has been forced to initiate six espionage prosecutions
for leaks – twice as many as every previous administration combined.
It has also left the American people disillusioned and mistrustful. This is especially true of a new generation raised in a networked
world that has made them expect far greater transparency from the institutions around them. According to a recent
Pew
Research Center/ USA Today poll , a clear majority of young people (60%) feels that the NSA leaks served the public interest.
The leaks illustrate how bad the lack of trust has become - and present an opportunity for greater disclosure.
There is no doubt that some secrecy is essential to the efficacy of surveillance programs like those revealed by the
NSA leaks. The specific sources and methods of such programs
should be protected. However, it is entirely possible to protect those specifics while also broadly disclosing to the public the
scope of information subject to collection, and the rationale behind doing so.
That level of disclosure should be the norm for future programs, and can still be instated in the case of the current NSA surveillance
programs. Two Congressmen – Democrat Adam Schiff, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican Todd Rokita – introduced
a bill last week that would call on the Department of Justice to declassify the legal justifications for NSA surveillance efforts.
Universal public disclosure of individual decisions could impede the efficacy of the program, but there is no reason the Department
of Justice can't disclose its generalized legal reasoning. That's a drawer in the stadium of filing cabinets that America can safely
open.
"You can't have 100% security and then have 100% privacy," President Obama said in the days immediately following the leaks. "We're
going to have to make some choices as a society." But the government can and should let Americans know what choices it is that they're
making. The intelligence community might find Americans, particularly young Americans most suspicious of government institutions,
more sympathetic to their delicate balancing act as informed participants.
As we approach the fifteenth anniversary of the unwarranted invasion of Iraq, which we are still paying for in so many ways, it
is important to remember the misuse of intelligence that provided a false justification for war. It is particularly important to
do so at this time because President Donald Trump has talked about a military option against North Korea or Iran (or Venezuela for
that matter). Since there is no cause to justify such wars, it is quite likely that politicized intelligence would once again be
used to provide a justification for audiences at home and abroad.
In 2002 and 2003, the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency collaborated in an effort to
describe the false likelihood of a nuclear weapons program that had to be stopped. In the words of Bush administration officials,
the United States was not going to allow the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." On September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney and
national security adviser Condi Rice used that phrase on CNN and NBC's "Meet the Press," respectively, to argue that Saddam Hussein
was "using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
In October 2002, the CIA orchestrated a national intelligence estimate to argue falsely that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger
for use in a nuclear weapon. Senior officials throughout the intelligence community knew that the so-called Niger report was a fabrication
produced by members of the Italian military intelligence service, and several intelligence officials informed Congressional and White
House officials that they doubted the reports of Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger. Nevertheless, the national intelligence estimate
spun a fictitious tale of a clear and present danger based on false reports of alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons;
nuclear weapons; unmanned aerial vehicles; and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that were nonexistent.
In December 2002, President George W. Bush found the CIA's case for war inadequate and asked for "something that Joe Public would
understand or gain a lot of confidence from." Bush turned to CIA director George Tenet and remarked, "I've been given all this intelligence
about Iraq having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Instead of being truthful, Tenet replied, "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"
Several days later, Alan Foley, the chief of the Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control Staff, told his analysts to
prepare a briefing for the president. "If the president wants intelligence to support a decision to go to war," Foley said, "then
it is up to the agency to provide it." In early January, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin gave the phony "slam dunk" briefing
at the White House.
The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans distributed the unsubstantiated and flawed intelligence that not even the CIA would vouch
for. The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith supplied bogus intelligence to the White House on Iraqi WMD and links
to terrorist organizations to make the case for war, and then "leaked" this intelligence to key journalists such as Judith Miller
at The New York Times . Miller had a front page article in the Times on September 8, 2002, citing administration
officials claiming that Saddam was seeking "specially designed" aluminum tubes to enrich uranium, the so-called "smoking gun." Several
days later, President Bush inserted the Times' claim in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
The aluminum tube issue was central to Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003, which was based on
the phony CIA estimate from October 2002. As Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson wrote in The New York Times in
February 2018, the secretary's "gravitas was a significant part of the Bush administration's two-year-long effort to get Americans
on the war wagon. It was CIA Deputy Director McLaughlin who lied to Secretary of State Powell about the reliability of the intelligence
in Powell's speech. McLaughlin was the central advocate for the phony intelligence on mobile biological laboratories that ended up
in that speech.
President Bush would have gone to war with or without intelligence, and once again we are confronted by a president who might
consider going to war with or without intelligence. Fifteen years ago, we had a CIA director from Capitol Hill who was loyal to the
president and unwilling to tell truth to power. Once again, we have a CIA director, Gina Haspel, who is a White House loyalist and
cannot be counted on to tell truth to power. She was one of the Agency's leading cheerleaders for torture and abuse, and sent the
message that order the destruction of the torture tapes. And former CIA director Mike Pompeo, a neoconservative hardliner, is now
secretary of state, who earned his new position by being a total loyalist who would never tell truth to power. Is there a voice for
moderation left in the White House?
Bush's war destabilized the entire Middle East. Any Trump war could lead to the use of nuclear weapons that would destabilize
the entire world.
"... I'd define coup in this case as a potentially "illegal seizure of power" in the form of a slowly unfolding, unresolved constitutional crisis that sticks over time. ..."
"... The 1933 coup plot was funded by Wall Street money in hopes of subverting the power of Franklin Roosevelt, a leader deemed by many wealthy men of the time to be a traitor to his blue-blood class. ..."
"... The Plot to Seize the White House ..."
"... "War is a racket. It always has been," is how Butler's booklet War Is a Racket opens. "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." The little book ends this way: "Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. But victory will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples." ..."
"... The Wall Street cabal's coup plot was based on the idea of insinuating a disciplined military man into a White House operation deemed irresponsible and out of control. The plan was to install Butler into a newly created cabinet-level position called the Secretary for General Affairs. Negative press would be arranged to inform the American people that the President of the United States was a cripple. The "man on a white horse" was there to save a problematic administration from itself -- all for the good of the country. ..."
"... Today's politics are very different; the similarity is in the troublesome situation of a sitting president deemed a national security problem. In FDR's case, it was weakness due to sympathy for the downtrodden; while in Trump's case, it's unprecedented governmental inexperience linked with a volatile narcissism contributing to chaos in the highest reaches of the government. ..."
I'd define coup in this case as a potentially "illegal seizure of power" in the form of
a slowly unfolding, unresolved constitutional crisis that sticks over time. Like the
oft-cited frog being boiled to death in a pot of water rising in temperature very slowly.
Center right Times columnist David Brooks had a column recently in which he compared Trump USA
to Berlusconi Italy and how, once democracy has been sullied by a right-wing populist like
Berlusconi (or Trump), getting democracy back within its previous (constitutional) lines is
difficult to impossible.
Some like to call the 2000 election of George W. Bush a "coup" legitimized by a conservative
Supreme Court. Whatever one calls the 2000 election, it did put a permanent stain on US
democracy. I have no doubt in this age of "fake news" and sophisticated PR that an unresolved
constitutional crisis cum coup in Washington D.C. would be spun by info wizards as a
pro-American, patriotic event. All this, of course, has helped ratchet up political
polarization to new heights.
Instead of seeing a military coup as restricted to melodramatic fiction like the film Seven
Days In May, it might be instructive, beneficial and even patriotic to think of it as possible
with at least one very real historical antecedent to consider.
The 1933 White House Plot
We don't hear much about the 1933 American "coup" -- here, put in quotes because it was
always ambiguous and it was thwarted. The plot has effectively been deep-sixed into historical
oblivion. Why might that be? Might it be because it amounted to just another example of the
dirty little secret that hovers over everything in America: the power of money married to the
power of violence? Just another day in the history of America. Maybe one has to be a
left-leaning antiwar activist born under the sign of the National Security State to understand
this. But, to me, the antiwar left is perennially at a loss in this equation: Not only is it
oriented on peace versus war, but it's also unarmed in the sense of an NRA obsession with guns.
Furthermore, the left tends to be crippled thanks to the Cold War that established left-leaning
ideas as association with subversion and the enemy.
The 1933 coup plot was funded by Wall Street money in hopes of subverting the power of
Franklin Roosevelt, a leader deemed by many wealthy men of the time to be a traitor to his
blue-blood class. Had the whistle not been blown on the plot by a Marine general named
Smedley Butler, it could have succeeded in politically crippling FDR and his New Deal
government. Had it gone differently, it could have changed history. (The 1933 coup attempt is
described by Jules Archer in a 1973 book titled The Plot to Seize the White House .
Also, The History Channel produced a 41-minute
documentary on the plot .)
As the depression set in, the nation watched the rise of fascism in Europe. FDR was opposed
on the right by people like the popular hero Charles Lindbergh who cozied up with the Nazis.
Much of this ugly, polarized political struggle has slipped from our popular history, in large
part due to the unifying power of World War Two that helped end the depression and ended up
consuming both sides of the right/left battle. The internal political struggles of the thirties
shifted into a focus on military dominance. The US ended up top of the heap at the end of World
War Two. It also ended up at odds with the other victor in the war, the Soviet Union. It was at
this juncture that US leaders formulated The National Security Act of 1947, thus creating the
National Security State we live under today.
MacArthur busting Bonus Marchers, Butler speaking to them and the Mussolini incident
Smedley Butler was raised a Hicksite Quaker in West Chester, Pennsylvania. One side of a
major 19th century split, the Hicksites saw "the inner light" contained within each of us as
the primary source of truth, while Orthodox Quakers were more like fundamentalist who saw The
Bible as the primary source of truth. The young, idealistic Butler learned the US Marines was
expanding and recruiting new officers. He lobbied his parents (his father was a US congressman)
to let him join, and in 1898 at age sixteen, a fresh Second Lieutenant Butler was dropped off
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was first exposed to hostile fire. He went on to the
Philippines. He fought in counter-insurgency wars in places like Nicaragua and Haiti. He
undertook spy missions in Mexico. His career was unique. At one point, he took leave of the
Marines and became police commissioner of Philadelphia, only to quit when he grasped the level
of corruption in the city. He was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor, and at the end of
his career he was court martialed by Secretary of War Stimson for calling Benito Mussolini a
bum in a speech. He, then, began speaking out in public, effectively undermining the charges.
Today, amongst leftist, antiwar activists he's considered a hero thanks to a small book he
wrote in 1935 called War Is a Racket. On the other hand, I mentioned him once to General
Stanley McChrystal at a book signing and the respected Iraq "surge" leader cited him back at me
as, in his mind, one of the great US military heroes. Both views paradoxically prevail. In
1939, he expressed opposition to war in Europe. But, then, he conveniently died in 1940. How he
would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor remains an intriguing question.
Butler got involved in the 1933 coup when he was asked by the Wall Street cabal to be their
"man on a white horse" to lead the plot. Due to his humility and his bravery, Butler was
beloved by the common soldier -- even when he pushed them. In one story, a soldier has fallen
out of a long march and General Butler, wearing no insignia of rank, gets the man back up and
walking by carrying his pack. The plotters' modeled their efforts on the rising fascist states
in Europe and the various colored-shirt thug organizations significantly made up of WWI
veterans. Fatefully, Butler was a terrible choice; he supported FDR. Smelling a rat, he played
along with the plotters' front-man, Gerald MacGuire, a fat, cigar-chomping stock broker paid to
go to Europe and study the various colored-shirt groups. The idea was to install Butler as the
commander of the American Legion, whose 500,000 members -- many disgruntled WWI vets -- had
been used to smash union strikers with baseball bats. The Legion outnumbered the US military at
the time. With the help of a reporter from the Philadelphia Record, Butler got the goods and
went to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which held hearings and exposed the
right-wing plot. (It's the very same HUAC that went on to notoriety as a prosecutor of the
left.) Those named in the coup all denied they were plotting anything, and the story
disappeared into obscurity. No charges were made.
Had the cabal, instead, set up General Douglas MacArthur as the "man on a white horse" --
who they had considered -- it might have turned out differently. MacArthur had an arrogant
"fascist" character, but he was not loved by the common soldier. Butler and MacArthur had
crossed paths in July 1932 during the Bonus March encampment in Washington DC. Butler was
sympathetic and spoke to the encamped veterans seeking their promised bonus for WWI service.
"They may be calling you tramps now, but in 1917 they didn't call you bums!" the cragey,
diminutive general hollered at them. "You are the best-behaved group of men in the country
today. I consider it an honor to be asked to speak to you." MacArthur, of course, led the
troops who burned the Bonus Marchers out, killing one veteran and wounding 50.
"War is a racket. It always has been," is how Butler's booklet War Is a Racket opens. "A
racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of
the very few, at the expense of the very many." The little book ends this way: "Secretly each
nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale.
But victory will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to
work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of
destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity
for all peoples."
The Wall Street cabal's coup plot was based on the idea of insinuating a disciplined
military man into a White House operation deemed irresponsible and out of control. The plan was
to install Butler into a newly created cabinet-level position called the Secretary for General
Affairs. Negative press would be arranged to inform the American people that the President of
the United States was a cripple. The "man on a white horse" was there to save a problematic
administration from itself -- all for the good of the country.
Today's politics are very different; the similarity is in the troublesome situation of a
sitting president deemed a national security problem. In FDR's case, it was weakness due to
sympathy for the downtrodden; while in Trump's case, it's unprecedented governmental
inexperience linked with a volatile narcissism contributing to chaos in the highest reaches of
the government. In both cases, the overarching issue is a very dangerous world and the
need for experience and discipline. Is General Kelly today's "man on a white horse" insinuated
into the White House to represent the interests of the National Security State?
There are no neat or absolute answers to these questions. We tend to associate the idea of a
"coup" with coup d'etat in Third World nations. Our CIA and military have notoriously been up
to their eyeballs in foreign coups; there's classics like Iran 1953 and Guatemala 1954.
Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009 had the stink of US complicity, but they are more current and,
thus, there was lots of plausible deniability and lots of fog. And fog and doubt only get worse
in this internet age.
The National Security Act of 1947 codified the reality of the imperial American
military for the baby-boom generation and beyond. The War Department became the Defense
Department; the CIA we know today was formed from the Office of Strategic Services. The 1947
NSA document amounted to a formal re-arrangement of the country's priorities coming out of WWII
-- when the victorious United States of America became the "leader of the free world." We
forget that before World War Two changed everything, the US military was a shadow of what it
was to become.
Over these 70 years, the executive in the White House has ping-ponged back-and-forth between
the moderate left and the moderate right, between the Democratic and Republican Parties. (Trump
may be the exception in being far right.) Every four years there's a national "conversation" of
sorts about who's going to live in the White House and make executive decisions and who's going
to legislate in Congress. You couldn't come up with a better example to illustrate the idea of
a civilian political see-saw than January 20, 2016, the day Barack Obama handed the civilian
reins over to Donald Trump. Meanwhile, over those same 70 years, the National Security State
(as an institution led by the Pentagon) has existed as a steadily ascending through-line
leading to today's post-9/11 world. Our imperial military has been, and remains, virtually
untouchable through the electoral process that chooses civilian leadership. Just like assault
weapons on a small scale, the National Security State thrives beyond the reach of American
politics. In my mind, White House Chief of Staff and former four-star Marine General John Kelly
resides in this protected zone as a power behind the civilian throne.
Rattlesnakes have a terrible reputation. Here were I live, in Florida, we have the biggest
rattlesnakes on the planet, the Eastern Diamondback (
Crotalus adamanteus ). They are huge and can reach well over 2m (6ft) in length and
weigh up to 15kg (30lbs). The Eastern Diamondback's venom is not the most potent out there, but
they can deliver *a lot* of it. So, yes, it is a formidable creature. But it is also a gentle
creature and truly very shy one.
Eastern Diamonbacks are also a stunningly beautiful creatures. I confess that I absolutely
love them.
For all their reputation for nastiness, Eastern Diamonbacks will never ever attack you if
they can avoid it . I have seen a lot of these snakes on my hikes, I have manipulated them
(with a hook), and I have seen my German Shepherd come nose to nose with one (literally) and
that Eastern Diamondback did not strike. Why? Because these snakes will do everything they can
to avoid having to bite you.
First and foremost, they hide. Really well. You can stand right next to a large Eastern
Diamondback and never notice it. You can walk right by, and it won't move, or rattle its tail,
and you will never know that it was there. Camouflage is their first line of defense.
Then, if discovered, they will rattle their tails. If needed, very loudly. You can easily
hear the rattle from an Eastern Diamondback from 5m (15ft) away. More than enough distance to
easily avoid it.
Furthermore, if given the chance, the Eastern Diamondback will retreat and hide.
Finally, when cornered a lot of them try what is called a "dry bite": they do bite you, but
deliver no venom. Why? Because you are not prey, so what would be the point of envenomating
you? The Eastern Diamondback does not want you dead, it wants you to let it live!
I was once told by a park ranger in Arizona that the profile of a typical rattlesnake bite
victim is: white, male, with tattoos and the famous last words " hold my beer and watch
this! ".
Why am I telling you all this?
Because that is exactly what I see happening before my horrified eyes.
Russia is the Eastern Diamondback desperately trying to do all it can to avoid to have to
strike. The West is the drunk idiot full of hubris, arrogance and a very mistaken sense of
invulnerability saying " hold my beer and watch this! ".
Keep in mind that in a confrontation with a drunken human the Eastern Diamondback is most
unlikely to survive. And it knows that, and that is why it does everything it can to avoid such
a confrontation in the first place. But if cornered or attacked the Diamondback will strike.
Hard. Want to see what such a strike looks like?
"anything for israel..." http://politicalhotwire.com/world-politics/57199-american-soldiers-dying-israel.html
"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack
Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. ... According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of
the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11
Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the 'real threat' from Iraq was not a
threat to the United States. The 'unstated threat' was the 'threat against Israel', Zelikow
told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. 'The American government,'
he added, 'doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular
sell.'
That was then Today with have this situation: http://silentcrownews.com/wordpress/?p=5814
"Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel
with missile defense in times of war according to Haimovitch [Israeli IDF Brig. Gen.] "I am
sure once the order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our
deployment and team to defend the state of Israel"
General Clark, the US Army: "We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime
we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties
"
Individual are highly rewarded i f they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Rebels, individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
Notable quotes:
"... The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests". ..."
Jack, in my opinion, there is no "US". The "US" doesn't have an interest.
There are individuals who behave in their own individual self interest.
The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these
individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools
for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Its a monumental unconscious group-think based on individual self interest.
This is my understanding of "the Borg" and "US interests", "US foreign policy goals"....they are actually individual interests
shaped by what individuals who work in this realm believe they should believe and espouse to achieve their own goals. Rebels,
individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
God bless Putin and Russia for standing against the Zionist NWO
You are correct Desert Fox. The prime variable in history is economics. Economics before
politics and before war.
Our illuminist friends manipulate the strings of international bank capital for their one
world government. In effect, the West has been infested with a tiny cadre of plutocrats, who
operate a usury mechanism to extract wealth from host peoples and nations.
Russia was to be broken up into parts. ((Harvard boys)) came to the 'rescue" and
privatized Russia with various schemes, the most important of which was to saddle Russian's
with "dollar" debts. Russians as hewers of wood and drawers of water, were to sell their
"earth" in exchange for finished dollar priced goods. Middle Class Russian labor is then cut
out of wealth production inherent in making finished goods. For example, Russian platinum is
used to make high value catalytic converters elsewhere, while only a few Russian's get
wealthy (in dollar terms) by poking holes in Russian land to extract minerals. Former Russian
nuclear scientists walk around drunk as they are not fit for being good labor to extract oil,
platinum, etc.
In effect, our ((friends)) turned Russia into African economy, never mind that Russian's
aren't African's. This desire to rape and pillage the earth, to then take rents on the world,
to then think of yourselves as god (note a little g) is a sophisticated, yet criminally
insane method akin to parasitism.
Russian's were infested by parasites, and yet Russian people as hosts have become stronger
year on year, to eject their parasite. Putin was instrumental in this transformation.
All nationalist economies in the past, which had the temerity to eject these parasites
have come under attack. I'm thinking Nazi Germany as well – oh the horror. This
economic attack is often under the guise of liberalism, which has a knock on effect of
breaking down civil society. In other words, liberalism is a symptom of parasitic financial
oligarchy (and illuminism) a control method to make a host weak, to then be re-colonized.
Russia DOES need to take full control of its Central Bank and eject its fifth columnists
(atlantacists), a final act that hasn't been done yet. On this point, it is factual and fair
to criticize Putin, because once Russian's have their own money power, they can accelerate
even faster. http://www.sovereignmoney.eu
What is US interest in the Middle East? I don't see any. We've got plenty of oil. And the
Canadians will happily sell us more.
The millenia old conflicts there are really no business of ours. The possibility that
we'll go to war with Russia and risk our own population to further Israeli perceptions shows
how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. The zionists "own" our political, media,
governmental establishments lock stock and barrel for this possibility to exist.
If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he
should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would
prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.
Honestly I have no idea what the firing of Tillerson and his replacement by Pompeo means.
Maybe it's because Tillerson called Trump a moron and Pompeo is an ass licker. Hillary,
Rubio, etc al wanted a no-fly-zone over Syria. That would have brought instant conflict with
Russia. If Nikki Haley's threats come to pass we'll get there.
Trump is attempting to change many past arrangements. One being trade where the US has
bled for decades running massive trade deficits. How the GOP does in the mid-terms will
influence his position on many issues.
"... Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of official secrecy. ..."
"... Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. ..."
"... With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. ..."
"... Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. ..."
"... He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet. ..."
"... "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life. ..."
"... Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist state. ..."
"... As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA, but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the latent qualities that would make him powerful. ..."
"... In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In 1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis. ..."
"... Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. ..."
"... The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to. Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden, Jr. and others. ..."
"... the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company. ..."
"... By October 1965, the AEC estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms. ..."
"... John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used it to build their nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. ..."
"... When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated diplomacy. ..."
"... Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life into the concept of the deep state. ..."
"... Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest Zionist of the lot ..."
Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its
internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet
penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even
be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of
collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial
shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of
official secrecy.
Let's not forget there are a dozen, at least a dozen such agencies based here in Washington.
The CIA with its $15 billion a year budget is the largest. The NSA with a budget of about $10
billion is the second largest. The Defense Intelligence Agency is about $4 billion. Then along
with some other obscure but still very large agencies like the NGIA. Never heard of the NGIA? I
didn't think so. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is a $4.9 billion a year agency.
Collectively, these agencies spend probably $50 billion to $60 billion a year, which make them
a very small but powerful potent sector in the American scheme of power.
Want to know how the NGIA spent your $4.9 billion? Good luck. Want to see a line item budget
of CIA activities in Africa last year? Move along. It's true that Congress nominally has
oversight powers over these agencies. Our elected officials do have their security clearances
that we don't have, so they can go in and look at selected operations. But the intelligence
oversight system is very weak as even its defenders will admit. The intelligence committees
polarized and politicized can't even agree on what kind of secret activities they're supposed
to monitor. The FISA court system is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance by their
government, but it largely functions as a rubberstamp of the secret agencies. A secret
government is the norm in America in 2018 which is why the discourse of the deep state has such
currency today.
Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. So who was he? Born in
December 1917, James Angleton grew up as the oldest son of James Hugh Angleton, a brash self-made American businessman who moved
to Milan, Italy during the Depression and made a fortune during the time Benito Mussolini selling cash registers. Angleton
attended private school in England. He went to Yale College, and then to Harvard Law school. He was a precocious good-looking
young man with sophisticated manners and a literary frame of mind.
As an undergraduate, he befriended his fellow expatriate – Ezra Pound – in
Italy. Pound was the modernist poet in the mad tribune of Mussolini's fascism. In their
correspondence, which I found at Yale, Angleton sometimes ape the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Ezra
Pound. For example, criticizing the Jewish book merchants who he thought overcharged for
Pound's books.
In 1943, Angleton was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services, America's first
foreign intelligence service stationed in Rome during and after World War II. He excelled at
secret intelligence work. I tell a story in The Ghost of how he rescued a leading Nazi and a
leading Italian fascist from postwar justice. Among other tasks, he reported on the flow of
Jews escaping from Germany and heading for Palestine. The revelations of the Holocaust
transformed his disdain for Jews into something of sympathy. He began to develop sources among
the leaders of the Jewish and Zionist organizations – including Teddy Kollek who was a
British intelligence agent, and a German operative named Arthur Pier who later became known as
Asher Ben-Natan.
With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the
CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence
staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. In those days, the
CIA was right here in the heart of Washington. It's hard for people to believe now, but the CIA
was located in a series of temporary buildings located along the reflecting pool next to the
Lincoln Memorial. The tempos, as they were called by CIA people, were drafty in the winter, hot
in the summer, and devoid of charm year-round. But this is where Angleton worked, at what was
known as the Office of Special Operations.
Angleton, while sympathetic to Jewish suffering, was still very wary of Israel when he
started his career at the CIA. Before the 1948 war, the Jewish army had been largely armed by
Czech arms manufacturers and communist Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was the first country
to recognize the state of Israel in 1948. Angleton initially feared that the Soviets would use
Israel as a platform for injecting spies into the West. The Israelis, for their part, were
looking to cultivate American friends. Stalin's anti-Semitic purges in 1948 showed that his
allegiance to the Jewish state was superficial at best.
In 1950 a man named Reuven Shiloah, the founder of Israel's first intelligence organization,
came to Washington. He visited the CIA and he came away very impressed with how it was
organized. He went back to Israel and in April 1951, he created out of a very fractious
collection of security forces what was known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special
Tasks – inevitably known as Mossad, Hebrew for institute.
In 1951 Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion came to the United States and brought Shiloah with
him. Ben-Gurion met privately with President Truman, and Angleton arrange for Ben-Gurion to
also have lunch with his friend Allen Dulles who would shortly become the director of the CIA.
The purpose of this meeting, Efrain Halevy, a retired director of the Mossad and a longtime
friend of Angleton's told me in an interview in Tel Aviv, the purpose was in Halevy's words to
clarify in no uncertain terms that notwithstanding what had happened between Israel and United
States 1948 and notwithstanding that Russia had been a key factor in Israel's survival, Israel
considered itself part of the Western world and would maintain the relationship with the United
States in this spirit.
Shiloah stayed on in Washington to work out the arrangements with Angleton. Shiloah,
according to his biographer, soon developed a special relationship – quote/unquote
– and Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. Angleton
return the favor by traveling to Israel often. He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of
counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet.
Manor headed up Operation Balsam which was the Israeli's conduit to the Americans. "They
told me I had to collect information about the Soviet bloc and transmit it to them," Manor
recalled about the Americans. "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving
them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use
Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they
should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad
relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life.
In 1963 a man named Isser Harel was succeeded as the chief of Mossad by a military
intelligence officer named Meir Amit. Amit found Angleton to be a little eccentric, but he
noted that his – quote – identification with Israel was a great asset for Israel.
Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement
role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's
closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's
Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist
state.
As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a
couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was
extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA,
but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the
latent qualities that would make him powerful.
Second, Angleton's creative intellect and his operational audacity inspired deep feelings of
loyalty among the Israelis. While Angleton's counterintelligence vision would become very
controversial within and bitterly divisive within the CIA, he was widely admired in Israel as a
stalwart friend. He still is to this day.
In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In
1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist
Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph
Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the
agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis.
Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be
seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the
region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on
the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. I tell a
lot of the story in The Ghost, but the story of Angleton in Israel is really so large and so
profound that it probably deserves its own book. I could certainly not do justice to it in the
18 minutes that I have, so I'm going to confine myself to one narrow question about the
tradeoffs that became implicit in this arrangement between the CIA and the Mossad and its
implications for us.
The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA
help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to
Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to.
Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a
subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate
himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden,
Jr. and others.
I want to just give you a sense of how this transpired. So the Nuclear Materials and
Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in
the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who
financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and
movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company.
At that time, the US government owned all of supplies of nuclear fuel which private
companies, like NUMEC, were allowed to use but ultimately had to return to the government.
Within a few years the Atomic Energy Commission noticed worrisome signs that the Apollo Plant
– NUMEC had a plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania – that the plant's security and
accounting were very deficient. Unexplained losses of nuclear material did happen at other
companies, but NUMEC's losses were proportionately much larger. By October 1965, the AEC
estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC
facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms.
John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely
with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment
of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used
it to build their nuclear arsenal. This story is now very well documented. In the spring of
1965, a technician working at the night shift at NUMEC went out on a loading dock for a breath
of fresh air and saw an unusual sight. Zalman Shapiro was pacing on the dock while a foreman
and truck driver loaded cylindrical storage containers, known as stovepipes, onto a flatbed
truck.
The technician saw a clipboard saying that the material was destined for Israel. It was
highly unusual to see Dr. Shapiro in the manufacturing section of the Apollo nuclear facility,
the technician said. It was unusual to see Dr. Shapiro there at night, and it was very unusual
to see Dr. Shapiro so nervous. The next day NUMEC's personnel manager visited the technician
and threatened to fire him if he did not keep his mouth shut, that's a quote, concerning what
he had seen. It would be 15 years before the employee told the story to the FBI.
What did Angleton know about NUMEC? Well, he knew that the AEC and the FBI were
investigating starting in 1965. As the Israel desk officer of the CIA, he talked about the
NUMEC case with liaison agent Sam Papich who was monitoring the investigation for the FBI. He
also spoke about it with his colleague John Hadden.
On the crime scene particulars, Hadden defended his former boss. "Any suggestion that
Angleton had help the Israelis with the NUMEC operation was totally without foundation," he
told journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn. But Hadden didn't deny that Angleton had helped
the Israeli nuclear program. Why would somebody whose whole life was dedicated to fighting
communism have any interest in preventing a very anti-Communist nation for getting the means to
defend itself, Hadden asked. The fact they stole it from us didn't worry him in the least, he
went on. I suspect that in his inmost heart he would have given it to them if they had asked.
Hadden knew better than to investigate any further. I never sent anything to Angleton on this
– the nuclear program – because I knew he wasn't interested, Hadden later told his
son, and I knew he'd try to stop it if I did.
With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first
nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and
still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought
collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. He believed that
the results proved his point. When he started as chief of the counterintelligence staff in
1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington – especially
at the State Department. When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held
twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and
the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by
expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated
diplomacy.
Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of
any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was
largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA
itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by
doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life
into the concept of the deep state.
I thought of this story when I visited one of the memorials to Angleton in Israel in 2016.
The memorial is located on a winding road outside the city of Mevaseret Zion, which is now
really a suburb of Jerusalem. Historically, control of this high ground has been seen as key to
the control of Jerusalem and of Palestine itself. A nearby ruins of a castle built by
12th-century Christian crusaders for exactly that purpose stands in mute testimony to the
importance of its strategic location.
The Angleton memorial consists of a pedestal of stones topped with a black plaque. To James
Angleton, a friend it says. This plaque was dedicated in 1987, a few months after Angleton
died, and it has been maintained by his Israeli friends ever since. It's still in perfect
condition. The location is no accident. In the course of his extraordinary career,
Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this
strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest
Zionist of the lot . Thank you.
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
Our military record is not so great. Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a
millennia. The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific
Theater of WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian
work), or a miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco
(War Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".
You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning
their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.
The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces
wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent
killers of their host.
Neocons are like clogged arteries -- you know they will be a problem but failing to
comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.
You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do
what is needed to clean out and become safe.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury.
Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough
of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the
premises.
"... It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it. ..."
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory, and being
part of the largest military alliance in the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in
"defense".
If the same tone would have been used in the BBC and guardian articles against another
nation, for example Israel, it would rightly be treated as anti-Semitic and even considered as
hate crime by the Police.
The stink of hypocrisy from the Guardian and almost all the English press has made me
absolutely convinced that the public are being softened up for a direct conflict against
Russia. My guess is that it will kick off within the next year. I think that Putin has
mis-calculated because NATO know that the Russians don't yet have the capability that they
boasted of recently, it's largely still in development, so NATO needs to move now before they
are further constrained. The lunacy of such a move is lost in their desperation to go to
war.
Several weeks ago I predicted that there would be some false-flag event that would lead to a
boycott of the World Cup in Russia, there's no way that the neocons can allow Russia to be
portrayed positively.
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a
daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals
who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons in openly baying for a
war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of
the ABM agreement, marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine
and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia
reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its
sphere of influence – Latin America – and for that matter anywhere else on the
planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity
to reconfigure the world and bring democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the
Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white man's burden' by the
'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately
necessary in the short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their
own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000 Iraqi children through sanctions, well,
it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire
is not on the wrong side of history, it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of
parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain
and return it to Russia to invest in businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for
them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over
from Australia as the major wheat exporter to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers
of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in, wheat
production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are
just a few areas they can invest in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than
you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain,
the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector
(constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services
industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial
system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military
budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by
water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need
a standalone military anyway.
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of
eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously,
held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south, are now on
the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that
the USSR sent missiles of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up-
living standards are plummeting and the only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the
officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment has been
living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely
empty bullying, there is nothing left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will
obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is
sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black. There is no time to
wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of
strength must be thrown into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent
russophobic dementia are eating away the brains of the rulers on both sides of the
Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime
empire is becoming marginal and the force that it has used, throughout these centuries, no
longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate those not
worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of
apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors to jailers- either they adjust to a new
dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of
London when it surrendered its hard drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction
in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in
decline before they nabbed Glenn Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive
credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for
OffGuardian) and here is the island nation AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole
world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional US
Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that
-- for the first time ever -- the Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority
over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North
and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is That Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or
frightened of a particular thing -- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of
nuclear war. Trotsky said America was the strongest nation but also the most terrified' and
nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has
shifted to Russia and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion
from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty
little heads about nuclear war or American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as
it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by coming to the homeland.
The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire"
military buildup in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class
of nuclear weapons and Old Bush promised Nato wouldn't expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little
bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / military
/congressional industrial complex.
None of this suggests tht it will end pretty.
MichaelK, March 9, 2018
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with
something else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would
just open up and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC...
Notable quotes:
"... Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank God for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional US Empire. ..."
"... But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by coming to the homeland. ..."
"... The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapons and Old Bush promised Nato wouldn't expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / military /congressional industrial complex. ..."
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of
London when it surrendered its hard drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction
in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in
decline before they nabbed Glenn Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive
credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank God for
OffGuardian) and here is the island nation AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole
world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional US
Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that
-- for the first time ever -- the Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority
over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North
and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is That Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or
frightened of a particular thing -- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of
nuclear war. Trotsky said America was the strongest nation but also the most terrified' and
nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has
shifted to Russia and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion
from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty
little heads about nuclear war or American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as
it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by coming to the homeland.
The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire"
military buildup in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class
of nuclear weapons and Old Bush promised Nato wouldn't expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little
bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / military
/congressional industrial complex.
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
If you are interested in Higgins and 'Bellingcat', you might want be interested in a
'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' which has recently been set up by a group of
British academics.
At the moment, work which has already been done is being prepared for publication on the
site. However, some of it has already appeared on the blog of one of the members, Tim
Hayward.
This includes a detailed discussion of the report of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
on the Khan Sheikhoun attack by Paul McKeigue.
His professorship, at Edinburgh, is in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics. This
means that, unlike most of us interested in these matters, with the obvious exception of
Theodore Postol, he has a grasp of a lot of relevant science.
A basic tool of his trade is a technique called 'Bayesian analysis', one of whose many
applications is to separate out genetic factors in disease from others. His use of it in the
piece may make bits of it somewhat hard going for those of us whose scientific education
stopped at school.
But if you are interested in a demonstration of the way that the kind of pure charlatanry
propagated by Higgins and Kaszeta has come to be accepted uncritically by supposed impartial
international bodies, you should read the piece.
Also on Hayward's blog is an article which was submitted to the Guardian's 'Comment is
Free' page, in response to a piece by Olivia Solon smearing those who have had the temerity
to suggest that the 'White Helmets' may be something less than a band of disinterested
charity workers, and an account of the attempts of the 'Working Group' to get a response from
the paper.
Thanks for the link. But what Mattis has said relates to the latest accusations, not early
ones. Key paragraphs:
'A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald
Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation
is said to have been launched.
'"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be
ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said.'
So he is not repudiating the conventional wisdom according to which sarin was used at Khan
Sheikhoun, and the possibility of a military response to a fresh 'false flag' is left open.
Unless he is basing his accusation on credible evidence, this to be blunt, comes close to
inciting jihadists to atrocity.
The extent -- and unscrupulousness -- of the mounting propaganda campaign in relation to
the recently claims is well brought out in a piece by Rick Sterling in 'Consortium News' on
Sunday. Whether those involved are still hoping to precipitate a serious American military
intervention, and whether those hopes might be realistic, I cannot say.
This makes the detailed demonstration by Professor McKeigue of the frankly farcical nature
of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun, to which I linked, all the
more important. In addition to exposing the total dependence of its analysis on a completely
incredible claim about the aircraft which is supposed to have delivered the chemical weapon,
and discussing much other evidence, he brings out a key point about developments in 'chemical
forensics' over the past years.
As well as the 1995 sarin attacks, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks led to an enormous
investment of money and intellectual energy in the development of analytical techniques
making it possible to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons incidents. A fascinating
article entitled 'Tracing a Threat' by Bethany Halford in 'Chemistry & Engineering News
World' in February 2012 provides a good picture of what the state of play was at that
time.
She quotes an expert called Joseph Chipuk, from a consultancy called 'Signature Science'
in Austin, explaining how the 'spectra' -- different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
associated with different 'impurities' in samples, including 'environmental' ones, such as
soil, fragments of weapons, and clothing -- can be matched with reconstructions of possible
'synthetic pathways'.
The levels of sophistication of which this kind of analysis was already capable, he made
clear, are close to breathtaking:
'To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says
that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as
2,000 times in an "almost robotic manner," following a database that tells them exactly what
conditions to use. They then hand off the product to the analytical chemists, who look at all
the tiny impurities that turn up along with the toxic chemical -- "the stuff that's down in
the weeds," as Chipuk describes it. From there, the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of
spectra that are collected go to statisticians and computer scientists who work their magic
to tease out the unique attribution signatures.'
At the end of the article, Halford quotes Chipuk again making clear that improvement is
continuous in a way that is making it quite extraordinarily difficult to fool analysts who
are genuinely looking for the truth -- as not only Dan Kaszeta but, very regrettably, key
figures at the OPCW and some of its 'Designated Laboratories' do not appear to be:
'"The fact is that technology continues to improve, instrumentation continues to improve,
and computers continue to improve. The chances of someone being able to slip by undetected
are getting smaller and smaller," says Signature Science's Chipuk. "If you were to choose to
do something like this, the science is going to catch up to you."'
In relation to the claims now being made, what is initially at issue is simply the
question of whether the 'impurities' identified by the 'spectra' in samples from the
incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal match.
What characterised the 'hexamine hypothesis' as put forward by Kaszeta was the -- close to
surreal -- suggestion that a single substance, hexamine, was a 'smoking gun'. To anyone who
had taken the trouble to read easily accessible discussions of the methodology, such as
Halford's piece, it would be apparent that it is simply ludicrous to base a claim on a single
substance -- particularly given that hexamine is also used in explosives.
In the 'Reuters' report on 30 January, we were told:
'Two compounds in the Ghouta sample matched those also found in Khan Sheikhoun, one formed
from sarin and the stabilizer hexamine and another specific fluorophosphate that appears
during sarin production, the tests showed.'
So we have an -- unidentified -- compound which supposedly establishes that the hexamine
did indeed form part of the sarin production process, rather than of the explosive charge.
And we are then told of the presence of another compound, which are told is 'another specific
fluorophosphate': why not tell us which?
To anyone interested in actually making sense of the evidence, to have a mere two
compounds mentioned, and those not adequately identified, suggests an alternative
possibility: that people who knew details of the 'synthetic pathway' by which Syrian
government sarin had been synthesised leaked them to those who were producing the substance
for a 'false flag.' It would have been beyond the capabilities of a relatively primitive
operation to produce any kind of close fit -- to get a couple of compounds to match would
probably not have been difficult at all.
If this suspicious interpretation if false, there is a very simple way to refute it -- and
General Mattis is in a perfect position to do this.
The close links between the American and British 'intelligence communities' have been
stressed in comments on this thread. It is clear that in relation to Syrian chemical weapons,
there was a division of labour.
Analysis of 'environmental' samples was concentrated at the British OPCW-certified
facility, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire.
Meanwhile, preparations for the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal were the made at
one of the two American OPCW-certified laboratories, the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center in Maryland.
The destruction of the 581 tonnes of the sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride, or
DF, aboard the specially kitted out vessel 'M.V. Cape Ray' in the Mediterranean was announced
in August 2014. In the extensive reporting on the preparations for this, it was made
absolutely clear that -- as one would expect -- the vessel was equipped with a proper
analytical laboratory, with OPCW scientists involved as well as those from the Edgewood
Center.
In a post entitled 'Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards?' shortly after the Khan
Sheikhoun attack, and then in two 'open letters' to the members of our Defence and Foreign
Affairs Committees, I pointed to the mass of evidence suggesting that the test results from
different incidents did not match each other or those from the stocks destroyed on the 'Cape
Ray.'
The publicly available evidence, I argued, provided strong reason to believe that results
from Porton Down and the OPCW confirmed the claim made by the Russians, supposedly on the
basis of tests from their own OPCW-certified laboratory, that the sarin used at Khan Al-Asal
and Ghouta was a 'cottage industry' product. This was also what Seymour Hersh claimed that
tests carried out at Porton Down had revealed about the sarin used at Ghouta - he used the
term 'kitchen sarin.'
What the Reuters report has -- perhaps inadvertently -- confirmed is that Porton Down had
in fact tested 'environmental' samples from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013, the
first where sarin was used in Syria, by suggesting that tests from that incident as well as
those at Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun matched the results from the stocks on the 'Cape Ray':
'Laboratories working for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
compared samples taken by a U.N. mission in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta after the Aug. 21,
2013 attack, when hundreds of civilians died of sarin gas poisoning, to chemicals handed over
by Damascus for destruction in 2014.
'The tests found "markers" in samples taken at Ghouta and at the sites of two other nerve
agent attacks, in the towns of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib governorate on April 4, 2017 and Khan
al-Assal, Aleppo, in March 2013, two people involved in the process said.
'"We compared Khan Sheikhoun, Khan al-Assal, Ghouta," said one source who asked not to be
named because of the sensitivity of the findings. "There were signatures in all three of them
that matched."'
Can anyone seriously believe that if the tests we know to have been done on at Porton Down
had established what this 'source' who does not have the guts to the identify himself claims,
this fact would not have been trumpeted to the skies -- first when the results from Ghouta
matched those from Khan Al-Asal, and then when both matched those from the 'Cape Ray'?
Allright -- sometimes the practically incredible turns out to be true. But if he has any
evidence on which to base his claims, General Mattis should have the courage of his
convictions, and order the disclosure of the relevant 'spectra.'
You are wrong about this. That the 'chain of custody' principle has been flagrantly
violated in the reports of the 'Fact-Finding Mission' and the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
is patently the case, and in itself reason why the almost unanimous acceptance of these in
the MSM is scandalous. But that is a separate issue.
The reasons why the test results from the various laboratories were critical were set out
last April in my '"Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards"?' piece, and the two 'open letters'
to the members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees pointing out the need for
clarification as to what was being claimed about the test results.
Let me recap, and update.
An example of the kind of 'chemical forensics' one needs in incidents like this was
provided by the analysis of test results on 'shell and soil' samples purporting to derive
from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013 which formed part of the document from the
Russian OPCW-certified laboratory which was submitted to the UN Secretary-General on 9 July
that year.
On 4 September, as part of the attempt to stop the visible attempt to use Ghouta to create
an unstoppable momentum towards the destruction of the Syrian government, more details of
what looks like an expanded version of the original document were made public by the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In it they claimed that:
'shell and soil samples contained nerve agents -- sarin gas and diisopropylfluorophosphate
-- not synthesized in an industrial environment, which was used by Western states for
producing chemical weapons during World War II.'
It was also made clear that the conclusions rested upon precisely the kind of very complex
analysis Bethany Halford is describing:
'We highlight that the Russian report is extremely specific. It is a scientific and
technical document containing about 100 pages with many tables and diagrams of spectral
analysis of the samples. We expect that it will significantly assist in the investigation
into this incident by the UN. Unfortunately, it has in fact not started yet.'
Unfortunately, the detailed 'spectra' have not been released, but they have certainly been
analysed by experts at the OPCW and that organisation's 'Designated Laboratories' in the
West, including Porton Down. We know that the results from the materials tested on the 'Cape
Ray' will show a sarin precursor 'manufactured in an industrial environment.'
To prove what Mattis and others want to claim it is necessary that the 'spectra' from none
of the other tests match those in the Russian report, and the 'markers' from the 'Cape Ray'
materials are the same as those from Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, and Khan Al-Asal. If there are
serious 'chain of custody' problems, the 'markers' from the four sets of tests might not be
sufficient to establish Syrian government culpability -- a lack of a match would be quite
sufficient to establish that the indictment cannot be accepted as it stands.
As I brought out in my post last April, the publicly available evidence -- of which
Hersh's 'Red Line and Rat Line' article and subsequent interviews form an important part --
strongly suggests the Russian claims that the toxin used in both Khan Al-Asal and also Ghouta
was 'cottage industry', as they put it, or 'kitchen sarin', as he put it, are correct.
It is simply not a refutation of these claims to treat one compound supposed to validate
the 'hexamine hypothesis', and an unspecified fluorophosphate, which could be the
diisopropylfluorophosphate reported by the Russians, or hexafluorophosphate, as conclusive
evidence. (The implications, or lack of them, would be quite different, depending on which
compound it was.)
And all this hush-hush whisper-whisper from 'diplomats and scientists' who are not
prepared to be identified, as well as assurances from that supposedly 'independent' expert
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, only add to the grounds for scepticism. As I brought out in
my post, he is under the strongest possible suspicion of having been involved in covering up,
and quite possibly colluding in, the 'false flags.'
If they have evidence to support the case, then let Western governments produce the
'spectra' -- as also should the Russians. We do not need complete reports, which may need to
be kept secret for perfectly good reasons -- simply the 'many tables and diagrams' which must
exist. Once these were out in the open, then it would be much easier to have an informed
argument.
Most of this ground I covered last April. However, there is some crucial new context. Part
of this is provided by a report in 'The Intercept' last October, entitled 'NSA Document Says
Saudi Prince Directly Ordered Coordinated Attack By Syrian Rebels On Damascus.' As it
explains:
'According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower
Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi
royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian
revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition
forces, giving them instructions to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the airport, the
document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.'
This was on 18 March -- the day before Khan Al-Asal. Further relevant context is provided
by a piece in February 2017 on the 'Monitor on Massacre Marketing' site by Adam Larson,
entitled 'What happened on March 19, 2013?' which is subtitled 'The First Bodies Tossed
Across Obama's "Red Line" in Syria.'
This starts by reviewing the -- ample -- evidence that the Khan Al-Asal attack came at a
point where there was very visible enthusiasm on the part of a lot of people in the United
States and Western Europe for intervention in support of the 'Assad must go' agenda, so that
he had every incentive to avoid chemical weapons use, and the insurgents every incentive to
produce a 'false flag.'
And Larson goes on to note that 'Ironically, the first solid news of the feared chemical
attack came in the form of a Syrian government announcement on March 19 that their forces had
been gassed by "terrorists" in a town just west of Aleppo" -- that is, the Shi'ite town of
Khan Al-Asal.
There follow detailed reviews of the evidence of another incident on the same day, in
which the victims appeared to be insurgents, at the Damascus suburb variously transliterated
as Otaybah and Uteibah, and more fragmentary and puzzling evidence about events at Homs.
And Larson goes on to suggest that a three-pronged 'false flag' was planned for 19 March,
in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- the country's three largest cities. This would obviously fit
very well with the NSA intercept, in that it would suggest that the intent was to portray
these as Assad's savage response to the attacks in Damascus, thus, hopefully, generating
unstoppable momentum for American military intervention.
This seems to me eminently plausible, but it leaves open two possible interpretations of
Khan Al-Asal. When insurgents who are difficult to control are given access to weapons like
sarin, there is an obvious possibility of matters developing in unexpected directions, either
as the result of their bungling an attack, or succumbing to the temptation to use it against
government forces.
However, a different set of unintended consequences is also possible. It could be that
Syrian intelligence, perhaps with the assistance of Russian and/or Iranian, and with a
combination of 'SIGINT' and 'HUMINT' methods quite possibly being deployed, knew precisely
what was going on -- and had double agents inside the groups preparing the 'false flags.'
Rather than wait until the inevitable chorus calling for all-out air strikes began, it
could well have made sense to turn one of the incidents into a 'false flag' within a 'false
flag.'
The anti-Assad camp would then have been effectively 'snookered.' They would have faced a
situation where they would know that, if they acceded to the calls from the Syrians and
Russians for a proper UN/OPCW investigation, making a rigorous use of 'chemical forensics',
these would implicate the insurgents. And if the evidence suggested that it was these who had
crossed Obama's 'red line', it would have been game and set, and probably match, to the
Syrian and Russian governments.
Irrespective of people's views on what interpretation is plausible in relation to Khan
Al-Asal, the important point is that strategies which rely strongly on convert action -- as
the 'régime change' projects I outlined in the current post do -- are inherently
liable to run out of control. The uncontrollability of their instruments, and the possibility
of covert action meeting covert action in return, are always liable to generate unintended
consequences which can escalate.
As soon as the possible that an impartial investigation would implicate the insurgents was
real, in relation to Khan Al-Asal, irrespective of whether the imputation would have been
justified, the alternative to facing a complete collapse of their projects in Syria, for
Western governments, was inherently likely to be at best covering up, at worst colluding in,
further 'false flags.' Moreover, intense pressure had to be mounted, to ensure that what were
supposed to be sources of independent expertise supported their cover-ups.
This pattern, I am suggesting is common both to history of the 'StratCom' in which
Christopher Steele has been involved, and that relating to chemical weapons use in Syria.
Particularly when the 'Fourth Estate' ceases to do its job, a likely result is the
progressive systematic corruption of institutions.
You have read one of the articles on what James Mattis said on Friday about sarin? He quite
clearly states that the United States has no evidence that the Syrian government has used
sarin. Given the way, the French, British, German, etc. intelligence services share
information, that suggests that if James Mattis is speaking the truth then no one in NATO,
except perhaps for Turkey given Erdogan's recent behavior, has any evidence either. This
means that both incidents, East Ghouta and Khan Shaykhoun, and any other incidents that are
alleged by the terrorists to have involved sarin are not what they are claimed to be in
western msm and most western politicians. Bellingcat and all the other NGOs who have made
similar claims about sarin are all wrong.
"... Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as "Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not. ..."
My understanding is Fusion GPS does research for both sides. Soros giving them money is
entirely plausible but assuming that money equals control is a bit of a leap.
It appears to be some Russians seeking to discredit the investigation with clever
BS/truthiness.
I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller. They may believe
he is primarily after them and they may be right. I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and
suspect he is using all this as a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian
mobsters, particularly in their money laundering. It would not surprise me if he hopes he
will not be forced to nail Trump himself to the wall, which would drag all kinds of political
noise into the trials, some of the people around Trump will be bad enough. Using some of
them, at least for the moment, is unavoidable, it's the politics is the source of his mission
and resources.
If only our press had the bandwidth necessary to distinguish those few Russians from ALL
Russians...
"I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller."
"I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and suspect he is using all this as a golden
opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters"
Thank you ! You have such a refreshing level of naivety that I really enjoyed your
posts.
How one in his sound mind can call Mueller "an old-school lawman" if one remember
Mueller's role in 9/11 and anthrax investigations.
And FYI those "absurdly wealthy Russians" represents the US fifth column in Russia (as
guarantors and protectors of neoliberalism in Russia; Google such a name as Chubais
https://www.rusjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeltsin_Putin.pdf
) and to destroy them might not be in best USA interests. Moreover, such a move actually will
be do Putin a huge favor, strengthening his hand.
As for "a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters" the danger of such
a brilliant move is to reveal criminal connections with Russian oligarchs (and financial
oligarchs in general as you never know where the oligarch ends and the mafia boss starts) and
the Democratic Party.
Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and
Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might
learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and
intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of
the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as
"Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not.
FYI Bill Clinton took a huge bribe in the form of speech fee from people very close to
"Russian Mobsters" (organized crime figures should probably more correctly be called "the
informal neoliberals" ;-)
There was an interesting discussion in Quora in 2016 on this topic:
From Yeltsin to Putin: Chubais, Liberal Pathology, and Harvard's Criminal Record
Matthew Raphael Johnson
Johnstown, PAWhen the USSR collapsed in 1990-1991, Gorbachev was
incapable of handling thesituation. Boris Yeltsin came to power both bureaucratically and
popularly. He was named theChief of the Presidium, but in June of 1991, he was elected in a
popular election where heearned 57% of the popular vote.
With a small army of American advisers, Yeltsin began selling off Soviet era assets.The
problem was that the process had nothing to do with markets. Privatization of assets wentto a
handful of well-connected politicians and bureaucrats who came to control the economyas a
whole.1 They had amassed a huge number of shares by 1995, and hence, the post-Sovietoligarchy
was born. The fact is that the work of 70 years of Soviet labor went to the pocketsof two or
three dozen people.2
The rising oligarchs could easily manipulate the court system and tax police, sincethere was
no real law governing private enterprise. Russia was led to the brink of anarchy. By1998,
according to a paper by Sergei Guriev and Andrei Rachinsky, the oligarchs comprisedabout 700
individuals that completely controlled Russia's economic assets.3
The Western Elites and the Ivy League as a Criminal Syndicate
In NS Leonov's book
(only in Russian), The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000, he states, as the first
"reform" of Yeltsin's government :
Government "reforms" that began Gaidar's privatization scam was the seizure of the savings
of the people. These were taken by force, though not directly. Inflation and economic collapse
made the transfer of funds easy. State control was removed from prices and the "free market"
would ensure the enrichment of corruption. This was the level of cynicism the new democracy had
reached, while simultaneously preaching the sanctity of private property. What did not melt
away in the deliberate fleecing of the people was taken by other means. An estimate of the
total taken thisway is about 300 billion rubles, and it had the proper effect: without money,
rebellion was difficult. They cried out in frustration.4
Nothing was done according to democratic norms, which is odd since democracy was the
buzzword that made these economic decisions seem political. At almost no time in the history of
the USSR did one man, Chubais and his allies, have such total and irresponsible control over
the Russian economy. When the voucher program was introduced in 1992, massive inflation
resulted. Soon, each 10,000 ruble voucher was worth very little. It was rendered null
regardless, since the state refused to consider the vouchers as legal tender.
1 Hoffman, D. The Oligarchs: Wealth And Power In The New Russia. Public Affairs Books, 2011
(cf esp ch12).
2 Kotz, D.M. Russia's Financial Crisis: The Failure of Neoliberalism? Z Magazine, (1998),
28-32
4 Leonov, NS. The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000. Moscow: Russia House, 2002 (All
citations aremy translations from the Russian.
Making the entire scam even more blatant, Chubais inserted a rider to the law stating that
the value of the voucher would only exist until late 1993. In 1992, Yeltsin's popularity went
from 50% in January to 30% in August, and from there to single digits.
By July of 1992, Chubais was hated. This led Yeltsin to limit the power of parliament,
increase his executive power and totally dominate the regions. This was done with western
backing and was a far greater centralization of power than Putin was later to be condemned for.
He had already banned the Communist Party, helping to break his main opposition and prevent
their imminent reelection in Parliament. The fraud of democracy was clearly open.
Soon Chubais and his crew stated that there was no benchmark value for any sold property.
The institution in charge of this, the Russian Federal Property Fund and related agencies,
therefore, began from arbitrary benchmarks. Ultimately, major firms were being sold for 1-5% of
their value. Worse, some of these were defense plants, bought up by shallcompanies operates by
the CIA – this was Hay's job. Therefore, scientific advances of the USSR were now
entirely in American hands.
In 1992, Yeltsin did fairly well in a referendum, receiving about 50% approval, but at this
date, privatization had just begun. Elections a bit later were to belie this vote. Yeltsin
himself clearly had no confidence in this referendum. Having no confidence in that vote,
Yeltsin then, again with western backing, banned all opposition protests in Moscow. Then,
making matters worse, he signed order 1400 in September of 1993 which stripped the Congress of
People's Deputies of all power. For the upcoming elections, Yeltsin passed a law saying that
only 25% of voters needed to show for it to be valid. This was a means of making sure that
opposition boycotts could not win. Yeltsin soon after banned the main opposition newspaper.
Russia's privatization scam was created, directed and imposed by Harvard University and
carried out by two "professors" whose incompetence is rivaled only by their lack of
accountability. Anatoly Chubais, probably the most hated man in Russia, was an old friend of
Harvard "economist" Andrei Shleifer, who was also working with Harvard don Jonathan Hay (who
according to the FSB, is CIA). Chubais, functioning as a Russian dictator since Yeltsin was not
functional at the time, put the privatization scheme into Harvard's hands. Apparently having no
workable knowledge of Russian life, the Harvard elite, believing themselves infallible, quickly
proved their theories not only false, but directly responsible for ruining thelives of
millions.5
1994-1995 was the period of the solidification of the oligarchic clans, their connection
with the United States, and the complete collapse of the state. Oligarchic clans, created by
Chubais, filled the vacuum with private armies, political machines and newspapers. In the US,
conservative and liberal alike called this the "free market" and democracy. Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, of Jewish origin and endlessly changing political positions, became the
government's ace in the hole: whenever the US questioned the increasingly obvious destruction
of Russia, Yeltsin would trot this clown out to make some typically outrageous statement. In
1995, it was clear that Zhirinovsky both "loved Hitler" and was "proud" of Russia's victory in
the Great Patriotic War. Clearly in the pocket of Yeltsin, Zhirinovsky a)kept US aid money
coming into his efforts, b) siphoned off serious criticism, c) easily associated nationalist
views with this kind of rhetorical nonsense.
Chubais continued to hang onto power. Not being a Russian citizen (and yet having all that
power), he clearly equated the oligarchic clans as "democracy." In Davos, 1996, he met with the
heads of all the clans including Guzinsky, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Friedman, Potanin and many
others, and formed a political movement designed to keep nationalist and communists out of
power.
This move shows that Chubais backed the oligarchs, did not consider them "unintended
consequences" and sought their assistance to stay in power: All in the name of democracy.
Yeltsin, now at 3% (with the same margin of error) began to implement populist measures, but
now was isolated. Winning a strangely high 33% of the vote in the 1996 elections, it can only
be attributed to a) electoral fraud, or b) the fact that Gen. Alexander Lebed had been talked
into entering a sort of coalition with Yeltsin. If they won, then Lebed's rival Pavel Grachev,
would be history. Yeltsin won the second round with just over 50%, as the oligarchs and Chubais
personally spend a small fortune bribing artists, journalists, writers and, making an even
worse mockery of democracy, busing thousands of urban youth into Moscow to ensure their
support.
Harvard's Sinister Role
Harvard University spent quite a bit of its money to
restructure Russia. The US government sued some of them, specifically, Andrei Shleifer, for
breach of contract. Many economists from Harvard worked for the State Department so as to be
able to control Russia for the better. The fraud of the Russian economy was in part blamed on
these advisers, whowere forced to pay more than $31 million to the US government for
"conspiracy to defraud."
Harvard had authored the plan that Gorbachev had requested to turn Russia into a capitalist
state. This was the plan that was enacted. The Harvard Institute for International Development
in Russia was the group created at Harvard and sponsored by the US government. This is what was
sued over. The US government argued that the reform program was a failure, and the planners,
living in America, knew it was a failure and continued to defend it – with taxpayer
money. Even worse, as it turns out, Shleifer was rigging some of the auctions himself,
investing his own money in firms that he knew would turn a profit, even if overseas.
The US Justice Department in 2000 sued, among others, Shleifer and Hay for defrauding the US
government. The Justice Department stated:
The United States alleges that Defendants' actions undercut the fundamental purpose of the
United States' program in Russia -- the creation of trust and confidence in the emerging
Russian financial markets and the promotion of openness, transparency, the rule of law, and
fair play in the development of theRussian economy and laws.6
Since they were using $40 million in taxpayer money, the cold-blooded desolation of Russia
implicated the US. The civil lawsuit argued, to simplify, that Harvard's economists, especially
Shleifer (and his wife), was investing taxpayer money in Russian companies about which they
were giving financial advice. Harvard admitted guilt in the form of a $25 million settlement.
How much of this assisted their victims in Russia is not known.7
In response to the suit, lawyers for Shleifer and his co-conspirator, Jonathan Hay, sneered
to the press: "We are confident that, as the civil case unfolds, the court will confirm that
the Harvard program significantly fostered Russian reform and that the government received its
money's worth." As it turns out, even their lawyers did not believe this, since their defense
rested, not on the denial that conflict of interest existed, but that they were never bound by
such ethical rules.8
6 "United States of America, Plaintiff v. the President and Fellows of Harvard College,
Andrei Shleifer, Jonathan Hay, Nancy Zimmerman, and Elizabeth Hebert, Defendants" (2000)
7 His crimes and the full nature of the lawsuit and evidence can be found here: Wedel, J.
Who Taught CronyCapitalism to Russia? How Harvard and the 'U.S. Government's Aid Agency
became part of the RussianProblem. The Wall Street Journal Europe, March 19, 2001
In 2005, a federal judge found Shleifer guilty of professional fraud. The disgraced
"professor" paid the US government $2 million, and his wife, operating yet another scam,
settled out of court for $1.5 million. Harvard paid about $10 million in legal fees to defend
their role in the starvation of Russia.9
For all that, Shleifer remains a celebrated professor at Harvard and the toast of academia
worldwide. His academic stock has not suffered in theleast from this. Just as puzzling, Harvard
suffered no diminution in prestige. This is especially puzzling in that ivy league scandals
erupt seemingly on a daily basis. This Teflon world exists partly due to the protection of
former Harvard President, World Bank economist and Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, also a
pivotal figure in the Russian fiasco.10
Summers is partly to blame for the American sub-prime mortgage disaster since hewas pivotal
in removing many of the regulatory barriers that forbade predatory lendingpractices. Therefore,
the execrable Summers is the co-author of not one but two national meltdowns. Summers,
after being forced to resign from Harvard based on an unrelated set of sins,11 was quickly
rehired as a "professor" by the government. Then, Summers became a leading figure in Obama's
economic brain trust, was soon after appointed as part of the "oversight"panel for the UN's
economic programs and became a member of the Group of 30, a highlyelite and secretive
organization created by the Rockefeller family.
Like Summers and Shleifer, Chubais was also handsomely rewarded for his direct role in the
Russian cataclysm. He was soon placed on the board of JP Morgan, and, to no one's surprise, was
granted a seat on the ultra-elite Council on Foreign Relations, another powerful conclave
within the Rockefeller cult.12
Summer's career, his almost comic legacy of failure and ignorance, and the criminal
impoverishment of Russia (not to mention the 2007 US meltdown) wholly destroy the "elitestatus"
of places like Harvard.13 This set of scandals, largely unknown to a bewildered and exhausted
American public, shows the profound and pervasive putrescence of academia, especially in the
Ivy leagues. It brought into question academic tenure, unearned salaries, and the famed
academic insulation from consequences arising from their theories. The Harvard civil suit and
all it entails demonstrates the incompetence of those paid to implement policy and their
ability to get their hands on taxpayer money. It shows a reprehensible and reckless disregard
for the welfare of others that is rewarded with academic posts, social prestige, ostentatious
wealth and immense power.
It might be worth mentioning that the behavior patters of Chubais conforms almost perfectly
to the Triarchic diagnostic model of psychopathy as developed by Skeem, et al in 2011. First,
it is typified by a pathological arrogance. The victim has full confidence that he is above the
law, or that the law only applies to others. Second, the victim shows an impulsive and
anti-social temper that focuses only on short term gratification based on the lowest motives.
Because of these two symptoms, the victim either does not perceive or does not have any
restraints on his destructive behavior. Finally, and most significantly, the victim feels no
remorse for the consequences of his actions. Other criteria related to these includeparasitic
behavior, superficial charm, grandiosity, ingenious criminal ideas, and assertive narcissism.14
Yeltsin, quoted in Leonov's book, called Chubais "an absolute Bolshevik by temperament and
mentality." The basic consensus about Chubais' behavior is that he cared little for
construction, and only for destruction.
8 Seward, Z. Harvard To Pay $26.5 Million in HIID Settlement. Crimson, July 20059 The
guilty verdict and settlement issues are summarized in the Crimson article above.
10 Finucane, M "Feds Sue Harvard over Russia Advisers." ABD News; also see Wedel, Janine
R. The HarvardBoys Do Russia. The Nation, 2008; and "Larry Summers, Robert Rubin: Will The
Harvard Shadow EliteBankrupt The University And The Country?" The Huffington Post, Jan 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-r-lewis/larry-summers-robert-rubi_b_419224.html
11 These had something to do with comments about intellectual differences between men and
women. That this contrived controversy erupted just as Harvard was paying off the federal
government is no coincidence.
12 Levy, Ari. Summers Joins Andreessen Horowitz as a Part-Time Adviser to Entrepreneurs.
Bloomberg, June2011 and Greenwald, Glenn. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's
ownership of government.Salon, 2009
13 As far as ivy league fraud and incompetence go, this is just one scandal out of
hundreds.
The political lesson of this is unfortunate: the diagnostic criteria for criminal
psychopathy are precisely the qualities required for success in big business and government.
Even the best intentioned politician or businessman must display some combination of thesevices
in order to successfully compete in these fields. What passes as virtue in libera lcapitalism
is actually an undisguised form of mental illness.
Leonov speaks in more detail about his pathology:
Evil lurks in Chubais' colorless eyes. He arrogantly uses his supporters in public.
Assertiveness and phony composure is his cynical way. Yeltsin was seen by him as merely
manageable. Yeltsin was easy to manipulate due to his unpopularity. He did not have the
intellectual wherewithal to fight back. He was compliant and signed anything on cue. He saw
the Duma as mere formalism that can be bypassed. In reality, he just relied on Presidential
decrees.
Of course, all of this in the name of democracy. Rather than deal with the fallout for the
sins of others, Yeltsin did one excellent thing for Russia – appointed Vladimir Putin
astemporary president on new year's eve, 1999. As was proper, Putin guaranteed Yeltsin immunity
from prosecution, which meant he could no longer be used as a scapegoat. Putin, to make a long
story very short, brought Russia from a GDP that was 98th in the world to 2014,where it is 8th.
For the period 1991-1997, the transfer of wealth from Russia to the oligarchs was roughly $1.75
trillion. This was not "lost" to Russia, since wealth is not "lost." It merely changed hands.
Under Chubais and Harvard, the economic contracted by almost 90%.
For all that, Yeltsin's party received 15% of the vote. With instructions from the US,
Yeltsin, after this humiliation, created the idea of a "consensus document." The point is to
create the illusion of agreement. Several western NGOs designed a position paper which
supported "free market" reforms. Representatives of the new rich in Russia signed this
document, which was then trumpeted as proof of social cohesion around Yeltsin.
Bernard Black et al, writing in 2009, described the devastation of this shock treatment
for Russia and Ukraine in 1994:Russia's mass privatization. . . permitted insiders (managers
and controlling shareholders) to engage in extensive "self" or "inside" dealing. . . which
the government did nothing to control. Later privatization "auctions" were a massive giveaway
of Russia's most important companies at bargain prices to a handful of well-connected
"kleptocrats". . . Medium-term prospects are grim; the Russian ruble has plunged; the Russian
government has defaulted on both its dollar denominated and ruble-denominated debt; most
banks are bankrupt; corruption is rampant; tax revenues have collapsed; capital flight is
pervasive; and the government (whomever the Prime Minister happens to be at the moment) seems
clueless about what to do next.15
14 Skeem, JL, Polaschek, DLL, Patrick, CJ, and S Lilienfeld. Psychopathic Personality:
Bridging the GapBetween Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest 12 (3): 95–1622011
15 Black, et al, 1
This scheme represents one of the most luridly thoroughgoing, colossal and overwhelming
failures in economic history. The role of the US government, international financial agencies
and elite academia in this monumental disaster is well known. During the well publicized
destruction and starvation of Russia, the British journal Euromoney named Chubais the
"Worlds Greatest Finance Minister," as yet another means of displaying theelite's lack of
accountability. In the Financial Times of 2004, A. Ostrovsky states "Chubais makes no
excuses and feels no remorse over the most controversial privatization of all - the
'loans-for-shares' deal, in which he handed control of Russia's largest and most valuable
assets to the group of tycoons [sic] in return for loans and support in the 1996 election for
the then ailing Yeltsin."16
Once this became plain, the architects of the plan backed off, blaming everyone else for the
issues. He writes in Foreign Affairs that the "Russian people" must vote for "democracy" in the
2000 elections. At the time, his own popularity was running about 2-3%. Hence, he did not mean
"democracy" in the normal sense of the word. The real change was between 1994-1996. Here, the
oligarchs were openly ruling with Yeltsin, who was often drunk and would disappear for weeks on
end. It didn't matter. The oligarchs bought up most of the banks, then issued licenses to trade
internationally that only they could have. As the government got desperate, the oligarchs
stepped in and loaned Moscow the money to continue to function. Russian was not a "government"
in any sense of the word. About 700 major families controlled almost the entire Russian economy
and hence, the state as well.
The Results of the Scam
Government revenues went down by over 50% in this same
time. Wages went down by about 75% by 1998. In 1992, the inflation rate was almost 1000%. Light
industry, that is, the consumer sector, lost about 90% of its capital, the hardest hit sector
of all. Machinery of all kinds fell by about 75%, meaning that 75% of the machines useful in
the Russian economy had been liquidated (or were just not used) by 1998. The only thing that
kept Russiaafloat was the black market.17
The state could no longer enforce its laws, and hence, men started not showing up for the
draft. Republic after republics declared independence, to be immediately recognized by the US.
So, what can we conclude here? Very few deny that Yeltsin was a failure, but a failure of the
worst kind. This kind of economic destruction has never been seen before outside of warfare.
Government revenues and expenditures collapsed, hence, an already bad infrastructure was made
far worse. Believe it or not, from 1992-1999, the Russian government collected about $6 billion
all told. Hence, the state did not function.
Interest rates were high, about 300% in 1994, so credit was available only to the very rich,
who controlled the (now private) central bank in the first place. Nearly everyoligarchical bank
was connected with organized crime. In fact, there is no substantial difference between the
oligarchs and organized crime.18
Under the oligarchs, tax collection collapsed. Industrial production went down by 25% in
just a few years. By 1997, Russia had defaulted on its debts. Between 1991 and 1998,Russian GDP
fell by almost 40%. Life expectancy went down from 68 to 56 years. Russians became
impoverished. Money was so scarce that, by 1996, most trade was done through barter.
Importantly, these oligarchs became a state within a state. Tax collection had collapsed, and
the new Russia was completely broke. With the Asian meltdown in 1998, interest rates for
Russian borrowing went to 300%. 19
16 Arkady Ostrovsky, Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004.
17 Graham, Thomas. From Oligarchy to Oligarchy: The Structure of Russia's Ruling Elite.
Demokratizatsiya7(3), (1997) 325-340
18 ibid
Yeltsin's popularity by 1998 went to about zero. Since then, pro-western (that is, pro
freemarket) parties have polled no more than 5-7% of the vote combined. Yeltsin resigned the
Presidency in 1999 and appointed Vladimir Putin as president.
A man of immense mental and physical strength, he sought to discipline the oligarchs,
rebuild Russia and create a modern economy. As soon as Putin took office, he went after the
media monopoly of Vladimir Guzinsky. Soon, numerous oil firms and banks were investigated for
tax fraud. Some oligarchs fled the country, others like Mikhail Khordokovsky, ended up in
prison. Attempting to split the oligarchs, playing one fraction against another, Putin's
popularity soared, and Russian economic growth recovered.20 Since the meltdown in 1998, the
Russian economy has gone from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2011. Growth rates remain high,
and Russia enjoys both a trade and budget surplus. In the first eight years of Putin's
presidency, the Russian GDP increased by over 75%.
Near the end of 1993, about 18-20 billion rubles had fled the country. As 1994 dawned, the
population was impoverished. Malnutrition was becoming a problem, and alcoholism was
increasing, as was suicide and all manner of social pathology. By 1994, thedeputy interior
minister, Vladimir Kozlov, stated that about 40% of the economy is nowcriminalized. Leonov
writes,
V. Polevanov [deputy prime minister at the time] notes that the total nominal valueof the
voucher fund (about $1.5 trillion rubles) was 20 times less than the cost fixed assets
industry, fired up for auction. One Moscow, where privatization was notcarried out on the
residual and by market value, gained 20% of the enterprises 1.8 trillion rubles, while income
from the rest of Russia in the first two years of privatization amounted to only $1 trillion
rubles.
The above argument is abstract. In this section, a case study will be analyzed in detail to
show how these forces come to be, how they operate, and how they attempt to insulate themselves
from its consequences. Traumatic economic events do not occur due to abstract or impersonal
forces. People, very powerful people, create the conditions that destroy entire economies.
Economic self-interest is the engine of these irrational policies. Economics depicts social
actors and institutions as calculating machines with no identity or purpose. The result is that
economics is always treated in the passive voice, which is a fundamental mystification.
The Second Half of the 1990s
Showing Chubais complete rejection of supporting
Russian interests, Leonov writes,
Soon, it became clear that Chubais committed his sins only because he was controlled by
others. The real owners of Russia. In 1998, Russia was continuing to disaster, that is, total
bankruptcy. At this point, even after the default, American investors finally got the message
and moved their cash out of Russian securities. This strengthened the effect of the default. As
he became CEO of RAO (etc), he sold to foreigners a 32% chunk of Russian energy concerns, which
violated all Russian laws. This meant, of course, that foreigners now could block Russian
energy policy.
Chubais and his Harvard friends did not believe in their own rhetoric. Their had quickly
moved into the most luxurious apartments and appointed to themselves very high salaries.
Nothing about their world was based on the market principles they hypocriticallyadvocated.
While advocating the rule of law, the oligarchical firms allied with Chubais werenot paying
taxes; but it just so happens that the criminal code recently passed did not considerthis a
crime. In 1997, there was no question that Chubais was evading taxes as well.
19 Ibid, cf esp 330-332
20 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2) (2008): 185-191
Admitting his guilt, he paid about 500 million rubles, which was just a small amount of what
he owed. His power did not diminish, but it remains a fact that no dictator in Russian history
had the power that Chubais had. In the name of market reform and the rule of law,Chubais was
receiving millions from shall companies for non existent services. Alexander Lebed remained the
sole source of opposition to Chubais once Yeltsin sought treatment for heart illness. Chubais,
realizing the general's recent spike in popularity for negotiating successfully with Chechen
rebels, invented a slew of charges that the general conspired with these same militants.
Chubais had become so powerful that he was no longer required to be creative. Lebed was
dismissed from his post, proving that Chubais was, in fact, a dictator.21
In the name of the rule of law, Chubais made mafia gangster Boris Berezovsky "deputy
director of the security council." Potanin, another underworld billionaire, was named "Deputy
Prime Minister." Chubais was rubbing Russia's face in his power, typical of thepsychotic. Soon,
all major television channels were in the hands of two mafia dons, Berezovsky and Guzinsky.
Leonov writes:
By 1996, all the financial power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of
businessmen almost exclusively Jewish. It consisted of Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky,
Alexander Smolensky, Pyotr Aven, Boris Chait, and Vitaly Malkin. Major bankers also included
gentiles Potanin and Vinogradov, the only two.
Since the state had collapsed, these oligarchs acted as the state treasury and profited from
it. Billions continued to be looted and wound up in banks in Israel, Britain and the US. Yet,
elections were coming up. An ailing Yeltsin dismissed Chernomyrdin's "government," which
included Chubais. Boris Berezovsky began, in his words, to rally all the "democraticand
reformist forces in Russia" to prevent his own possible dispossession.
Typical of the psychotic, these men knew no limits. They began issuing high yield junk
bonds, eventually promising to pay out, in some cases, 180%. Foreigners were buying these bonds
to the point where almost 30% of all marketable securities of the Russian "state"were owned by
outsiders. It was another scam, and the bankers refused to pay anypercentage, and even more,
demanded the return of Chubais to government. Chubais quicklyflew to Washington, warning of a
communist-nationalist resurgence. $6 billion was quickly given, which was never seen again.
Forming a shadow government, Russia's bankers dictated terms to Yeltsin. In their
generosity, they agreed to not demand immediate debt payment from the Russian taxpayer. Yet, to
punish Yeltsin, this oligarchy declared that it will reduce the sale of foreign currency.
Putting downward pressure on the ruble, the oligarchs got their revenge for the tepid rebellion
of Yeltsin. This is what drove the junk bonds as high as 180%; the ruble was suddenly worth
nothing. In fear, Yeltsin put the banker's friend, Chernomyrdin, back in power in late summer,
1998.22
21 Ostrovsky, Arkady. Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004
22 Russian Federation: Selected Issues 2012 International Monetary Fund IMF Country Report
No. 12/218http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12218.pdf and Oliker, O, and T.
Paley. Assessing Russia's
As typical of capitalist democracies, the political clique took the fall for the private
sector. Yeltsin was blamed for the disaster, though his power was nil. That winter, Russia
froze with millions unable to buy fuel. The perfect man was chosen for the prime ministership,
Yevgeny Primakov, with no apparent beliefs of any kind. Quickly, Primakov demanded the return
of Chubais and others who caused the mess, in order to repair it.
The default that August destroyed any bank not immediately under the oligarchs. GDPfell by
200-300 billion rubles. Industry was devastated. In one month, September of 1998, the average
Russian income fell by over 30%. The Federation Council, too late, officially declared Chubais
and crew as "negligent and incompetent." At the same time, the banking oligarchy was
speculating in currency markets, making a profit estimated at the time of 5.5billion rubles in
1997.
Bill Clinton at the time cared only about the possibility of the Lebed coup. Primakov,
however, began to strengthen the state as the only possibly solution to the total dissolution
of Russia as a political entity. Soon, the dependable Zhirnovsky was again trotted out, with
the occasional spray painted swastika to re-direct attention and create the "extremist" threat.
More political groups, heretofore unknown, showed up in Moscow with strange uniforms and
rallies. Gaidar was quick to link them with the communists, creating a convenient, single group
for the masses to visualize.
In the midst of the meltdown, the system took advantage of the perfectly timed murder of
Galina Starovoitova, a westernizing politician. 15,000 members of the opposition were rounded
up and the "democratic forces" demanded emergency powers. The westenizers even created their
own "nationalist" political group, "Fatherland" in order to siphon off opposition activists. In
a display showing excellent acting, Yeltsin, in December of 1998, disbanded the group as a
"threat" to "democracy." Of course, western Russia experts breathed a sigh of relief that
"fascism" was not coming to Russia.
Solzhenitsyn refused to be a part of the charade, refusing to accept the Medal of St. Andrei
from Yeltsin. A long time nationalist, Solzhenitsyn realized that in giving this award, Yeltsin
was currying favor. Another misdirection was the attempted impeachment of Yeltsin in 1998, as
if he was in charge of the disaster he only vaguely understood. Like the Clinton impeachment,
it was an absurdity, deliberately designed to protect those with actual power (that is, the
private sector) who created the disaster. The Commission decided that Yeltsin had "exceeded his
power" as president, as if this is the reason why Muscovites just froze the previous winter.
Using political figures to cover for the banking cartel is as old as the Medicis in Florence.
Then, in another mockery of Russia, Yeltsin was blamed 100% for the disaster ofthe previous
decade.23
Given all this, you are now ready to understand Putin. He came to power as Premier under
Yeltsin when the latter resigned in 1999. Yeltsin's popularity rating was between 3-5%. All aid
from the IMF was stolen and funneled into the hands of the oligarchs. Oil and gas firms had
their profits pocketed in the same way, tax free. As Yeltsin retired, he gave many of his
friends immunity from prosecution.
Putin as the Restorer of Sanity
Putin's leadership restored confidence in the
currency, the state and the law. Oligarchystill exists in Russia (as elsewhere), but the
monopoly position they used to wield is no more.Russian oil firms have come under the control,
though not the ownership, of the state, sinceoligarchs were planning on selling assets to
Exxon-Mobil, which led to the "KhordokovskyDecline. The Rand Corporation,
2002http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1442.pdf23 Guriev, S.
and Andrei Rachinsky (2005). The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism. Journal of
EconomicPerspectives, 19(1), (2005) 131-150
http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/papers/GurievRachinsky.pdfaffair." Mikhail Khordokovshy was an
oligarch who controlled YUKOS, one of Russia's mostpowerful oil firms. In the interest of
national security, Putin placed Khordokovsky under arrest. He was indeed guilty of tax evasion,
but his plans to see Russian strategic assets to Americans was too much for Putin to stomach.
The more oligarchs Putin put in jail, the more popular he becomes.
Putin's policy has been to tread softly, taking on only the most powerful and obnoxious of
the oligarchs. He has made strategic alliances with some in order to intimidate others While
Russia has been rebuilt and the state became powerful, the oligarchs still have fight left in
them, and Putin acts cautiously. Putin's basic approach has been to guide investment and
control the flow of investment funds so they benefit Russia, not the oligarchy. The state does
not own the economy, but it does oversee it. The oligarchy gave Putin no other choice.
The oligarchs financed all of Yeltsin's election campaigns and public image in Russia at the
time. The point was to keep Yeltsin in power long enough so that the oligarchs could get their
cash out of the country. They knew that eventually, a popular government would punish them.
Putin, to a great extent, was this punishment.
Putin created an entirely new Russian government, when local districts under his control.
Needless to say, the regional governments had been bought, and Putin could have no dealings
with them. Some of them even had their own foreign policy! All those sent to govern the regions
were from the security services or the army. This was no accident. Putin restructured the Upper
House (the Federation Council) so as to permit his government to have a say in who gets
appointed to it. 24
Putin insisted that local law must be consistent with federal law. This is because local
leaders were creating their own countries, and this could not stand. Putin then permitted
oligarchs and their puppets to be tried as violators of the constitution. Let me give you one
example. In 2003, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky had taken over the Russian oil giant Yukos.
Now, Putin got intelligence that Khodorkovsky was planning on entering intobusiness with
Exxon-Mobil, permitting their penetration into the Russian market. Realizing this was a
security threat (which it was, since it would mean that Exxon would control much of Russia's
oil), he had Khodorkovsky arrested. Is list of crimes was well known, but the stategot him on
taxes, which was a no-brainier. Putin was immediately attacked or "authoritarianism" by the
press in the west.
So why does the west heap abuse on this man?
He reformed the tax code, putting in place a 13% flat tax on all income and investments.
About half of regional prosecutors were removed from their positions due toe xtreme corruption.
All Russians knew that already. He quickly ended the war in Chechnya, making sure a Chechen,
pro-Russian government was put in charge.
He brought together the top 13 oligarchical families to a conference he organized. He told
them that their rule was over. He forced them to pay millions in back taxes to the state, and
to create several important charitable funds with their stolen money.
He was going to use the state to pressure their media into being more objective, pro-Russian
and pro-state. Since the oligarchs controlled the press, it made sense that this had to be
fought. To call this "assaulting press freedom" is absurd.
He realized that the political opposition in Russia was created by the oligarchy. Hence,
there was no actual party development. Few parties had an agenda (except the communists, who
did well), and these were mostly personal vehicles for their founders.
Putin also shifted investment away from oil and towards higher end items. This was needed to
diversify the economy. The judiciary is independent. Today, about 70% of people who sue the
state for various reasons win. Putin also introduced the jury.25
24 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2), (2008), 185-191
It's tough to argue with Putin's success:
Labor productivity grew 49 percent 1995-2005, ranging from a 23 percent improvement in
retailing to a 73 percent rise in construction. Total factor productivity grew by 5.8 percent
per year, and the World Bank estimates that only one third of that increase came from increased
capacity utilization. Firm turnover (i.e. the exit of inefficient firms and the entry of new
ones) accounts for half the total improvement. Stock market capitalization rose to 44 percent
of GDP by 2005, while the RTS index went from 300 in 2000 to 2,360 in December 2007.
In September 2006 the market capitalization of the 200 biggest firms was $833 billion (one
third of which was Gazprom). The percent of the population living in poverty fell from 38
percent in 19998 to 9.5 percent in 2004, and the share of family budgets spent on food fell
from 73% in 1992to 54% in 2004.
The only macroeconomic indicator that gives cause for concern is inflation, which dropped
from 20 percent in 2000 to 9 percent in2006, before creeping back up to 11-12 percent
level.26
Now, "market capitalization" and other such elite measures are not the whole story. They can
exist with an economy failing in other respects. However, before wealth can b eredistributed,
it has to exist. Accumulating what can then be redistributed are what these numbers are telling
us. Given all this, however, it should come as no surprise that those who are condemning Putin
today backed the privatization deals 20 years ago.
W. Thompson, writing in the Guardian in the Summer of 2003, states:
Fiscal consolidation has probably contributed more than any other single factor to
restoring the authority and legitimacy of the formerly bankrupt state. Exceptionally
favorable economic circumstances account for much of this improvement, but so also do better
expenditure management, the reform of tax legislation and more efficient administration. The
state's rule-making capacity has also grown markedly.
Unlike Yeltsin, Putin has a compliant parliament and presides over a government that, for
all its internal divisions, is not riven by the factional conflicts that marked the 1990s.
The result has been a flood of new legislation, much of it directly concerned with state
reconstruction.27
Thompson speaks the truth. "Exceptionally favorable economic circumstances "can not cause
national success. They do not in Ukraine, much of Africa or Detroit. They must be identified
and utilized with substantial skill. Circumstances, of themselves, tell us nothing. The
"compliant parliament" exists because of Putin's popularity, though Thomas seems to suggest
that such legislative cooperation is required in times of emergency. Worried about bureaucratic
corruption, Putin passed several laws limiting the discretionary power of federal agencies.
Reform has reduced corruption, endemic at onepoint. Business is much easier to accomplish.
Putin's reelection numbers roughly mirror his popularity in the country, and his opposition,
backed by the US, has no agenda whatsoever.
25 Lavelle, P Putin's "Authoritarianism" vs. the "Commentariat". Commentary,
2004ahttp://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle004.asp and Lavelle, P Russia's Economic Future.
Commentary,2004 http://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle.asp
26 Rutland, P. Putin's Economic Record. Wesleyan University, CT, 2008
As of January 1 of this 2013, Russia's anti-bribery legislation is the toughest in the
world. In Russia, about 92% of American businesses think that Russian investment is a good
thing, and that Russia is a decent place to do business. The IMF has stated that part of
Putin's success is is utilization of capital that was left idle. Utilization of the country's
resources has increased from about 50% in 2000 to over 76% today. But in order to do this, he
needed to destroy the power of the oligarchs at the regional level.
Conclusion
The simple fact is that Putin's authoritarianism was forced upon him.
He did use a heavy hand, but not nearly as heavy as Yeltsin. He realized that it was either a
strong hand or chaos. As the state has been rebuilt, so have oversight bodies empowered to
check it'sbehavior. Putin launched a bunch of commissions to look into corruption in different
areas o the country, knowing full well that his popularity is based on that, plus economic
growth.Putin needed to increase the potential of the state before the state itself could grow.
Hence,the reformation of all police agencies gave them a direct line to the Kremlin, but, by
2002,crime was still rife. Now, all that has changed.
It makes sense to call Putin a reaction to Yeltsin, chaos and oligarchy. His policies make
no sense without the background. Things appear differently when contrasted with the free-fall
collapse of the Yeltsin years.
Putin then did two things: first, to build up the rudiments of a new state, one that can
permit business to thrive and destroy oligarchy. He needed a new law code, more centralized
structures and an end to regional independence. Second, he was to create a new macroeconomic
structure, with strong fiscal and oversight measures. Russia now runs a trade and budget
deficit. He then stabilized the currency.
Once economic growth took off, he tried to get as much money out of foreign banks as
possible. He first backed big business (for the sake of growth), then shifted more recently to
backing smaller business. He then engaged in education and pension reform. He turned Russia to
the east, allying with China to cooperate in their tremendous economic growth.
It is easy to forget that all that Putin is "blamed" for was suggested by western elites for
Yeltsin. Liberal democracy in the eastern bloc has, without exception, merely been a cover for
the most cynical sort of exploitation. In the name of "democracy" the eastern bloc melted into
the bank accounts of both foreign and local elites. Warlords developed with private armies
that, in the 1990s, were the subject of some journalistic treatment. A Russia in collapse is
far more dangerous for the west than anything Putin has dreamed about.
Rationally, the enforced, rehearsed and studied contempt of Putin can only exist because the
west had other plans for Russia, as a hinterland for cheap, educated labor and resources.
Western collapse is assured precisely because Russia is not prostrate and under the thumb of
Exxon-Mobil. Putin will have the last laugh, which, when the smoke clears, is the only real
cause of the west's irrational hatred.
More of the past? Nope. It is just a question of how many goyim will be
nuked.
It's all very simple. Fundamentally, Jews have been disliked because, as part of their
Jewish identity, those with power pursue, often successfully, their perceived interests which
often conflict with the perceived interests of another group(s).
This case looks more and more like Litvinenko II -- another false flag designed to implicate Russia a fuel anti-russian hysteria.
British MI6 are masters in such provocations.
Along with sabotaging Moscow soccer tournament this also can also be an attempt to distract from MI6 role is creation of Steele
dossier too.
Notable quotes:
"... Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in 1995
by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn.
Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians. ..."
"... The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying fingered
Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited him. He says it was
Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him to British intelligence agents.
Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities' suspicions that another former FSB officer,
Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium. ..."
"... Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..."
"... Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British intelligence,
transmitting information about Russian agents. ..."
"... Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What did
he do to earn the higher pay? ..."
"... Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. ..."
"... If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it, he
must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will be thrown
under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of ruling elite as
high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free ..."
"... If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories in
fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional quest
of riches ..."
"... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr
Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties. ..."
"... It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way... ..."
"... Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what the 'counter-terror'
mob do. ..."
"... The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever happened,
but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they do trying to find
out what actually did occur. ..."
"... Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration. ..."
"... B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow via
his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke of genius.
Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide. ..."
"... On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will provide
all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such. ..."
"... Meanwhile The Guardian is spewing its usual bilge : Russian spy attack inquiry widens after medics treat 21 people ..."
"... The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it. ..."
On Sunday a former British-Russian double agent and his daughter were seriously injured in a mysterious incident in Salisbury,
England. The British government
says that both were hurt due to "exposure to a nerve agent". Speculative media reports talk of Sarin and VX, two deadly nerve-agents
used in military chemical weapons. Anonymous officials strongly hint that 'Russia did it'.
New reports though point to a deep connection between the case and the anti-Trump/anti-Russia propaganda drive run by the Obama
administration and the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
Sergei Skripal
once was
a colonel in a Russian military intelligence service. In the early 1990s he was
recruited by
the MI6 agent Pablo Miller. He continued to spy for the Brits after his 1999 retirement. The Russian FSB claims that the British
MI6 paid him $100,000 for his service. At that time a Russian officer would only make a few hundred bucks per month. Skripal was
finally uncovered in 2004 and two years later convicted for spying for Britain. He was sentenced to 18 years and in 2010 he and other
agents ware exchanged in a large spy swap between the United States and Russia. Skripal was granted refuge in Britain and has since
lived openly under his own name in Salisbury. His wife and his son died over the last years of natural causes. The only near relative
he has left is his daughter who continued to live in Russia.
Last week his daughter flew to Britain and met him in Salisbury. On Sunday they went to a pub and a restaurant. At some point
they were poisoned or poisoned themselves. They collapsed on a public bench. They are now in intensive care. A policeman one the
scene was also seriously effected.
Authorities have declined to name the substance to which the pair is suspected to have been exposed,
but :
Local media had on Monday reported the substance found at the scene to be similar to fentanyl: a lethally strong opioid available
even on Salisbury's soporific streets.
I think this event is a ramp to offing Knesia Sobchak prior to or just after the national poll. She is a pawn of the West.
She has been directed to consolidate the disparate liberal opposition campaigns by the use of primaries...which would just happen
to result in her primacy. The idea is to have her win enough vote it can be alleged that she has embarrassed Putin...and then
they six her using VX. Her father was close go Putin during Putin's early years in St Pete. The BBC has been running chaff out
the foot saying Putin killed his mentor Anatoly Sobchak. Knesia has been moved into position. She will be offed to harm Putin's
reputation but also to place e a complex wound in him. The West are monsters
Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become
clearer".
Yeah, right.
Like the illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country based on the lies by the same 'government', with a million+ casualties
among the middle eastern population.
That kind of outrageous crime , correct?
One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how low
what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink.
I was wondering if Grigory Rodchenkov was in danger of meeting the same fate by some of the more unsavory elements of U.S. Intelligence
Agencies. He would become a poster boy for Russian assassinations on U.S. soil.
One thing about Rodchenkov, if the doping was not state sponsored, what motive would have have for doing it on his own, is
there enough money in the Olympics that individual athletes would bribe him or would it make him look better if his athletes did
better? I don't buy that it was state sponsored, or at least there is no evidence to that affect.
Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in
1995 by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy
in Tallinn. Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians.
The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying
fingered Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited
him. He says it was Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him
to British intelligence agents. Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities'
suspicions that another former FSB officer, Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium.
Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..
Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British
intelligence, transmitting information about Russian agents.
Nikolai Luzan, who calls himself a colonel and a veteran of Russia's security agencies, wrote a detailed book about how
the British recruited Sergey Skripal. Luzan says his book, "A Devil's Counterintelligence Dozen," is an "artistic-documentary
production."
If we assume that Luzan's account is generally accurate, then Skripal was recruited during a long-term assignment in Malta
and Spain, where he "got greedy."
...
Further on:
Skripal led a quiet life in Salisbury, where he reportedly bought an average house for 340,000 British pounds (about $472,000).
His neighbors describe him as an ordinary, reasonably friendly pensioner. When he moved to the area, he even invited the whole
street over for a housewarming party.
It's unclear why Skripal decided to resettle specifically in Salisbury, but LinkedIn indicates that Pablo Miller -- the
MI6 agent who recruited him -- lives in the same town. In 2015, the year he retired, Miller received the Order of the British
Empire for services to Her Majesty's Government.
Skripal's wife, Lyudmila, lived with him in Salisbury until her death a few years ago. His son died from liver failure in
2017 in St. Petersburg.
It must be Pablo Miller who worked with Steele ...
Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What
did he do to earn the higher pay?
Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. The UK's fairly well covered by CCTV; I'd be very interested
in what those in Salisbury observed. The incident has La Carre written all over it.
If someone like MI6 for FSB wanted him dead they would be instantly in a car accident of robbery attempt, they whoever they are,
wanted this to thing to prolong in time to feed the press Russia gate and wanted people like b to follow the trap since most of
the info here can be found just after few clicks, will be picked up by rational people.
If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it,
he must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will
be thrown under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of
ruling elite as high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free .
If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories
in fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional
quest of riches .
In the society of control ruling elite controls everything it needs to control and hence is responsible for this. Case closed.
The Russian double agent poisoned in Salisbury may have become a target after using his contacts in the intelligence community
to work for private security firms, investigators believe.
Sergei Skripal could have come to the attention of certain people in Russia by attempting to "freelance" for companies run
by former MI5, MI6 and GCHQ spies, security sources say.
... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether
Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.
It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way...
For me it was particularly suss when the Leceister Police who are the coppers on the ground in Salisbury were heavied by Scotland
Yuk ( or 'the met' as englander papers call that gang of proven torturers & murderers) to
turn the Skripsky investigation over to the 'counter-terror squad'
- the mob of thugs whose skillful manipulation of england's media combined with
evidence falsification made their
indicted murder of Brazilian electrician
Jean Charles de Menezes seem like an heroic act by playing the old honest whitefella card - "all those brownfellas look the same,
who can tell the difference?" . No copper, not the killers or the idiot in charge suffered any disciplinary actiion, much less
a criminal one. IIRC the policeperson in charge who claimed to be 'in the bathroom' at the time of de Menzeses murder, one Cressida
Dick, is now chief commissioner, the boss of Scotland Yuk.
The local coppers know the area and will have a rapport with witnesses that a mob of arseholes in sharp suits backed by balaclava
wearing armed heavies is unlikely to enjoy, so why grab the gig especially since it is certain to remain unsolved?
Well partly that, to make sure it remains unsolved, but also because counter-terror plays the press release regurgitators who
are englander 'journos' like a fine old violin. Questions about fentanyl being a nerve agent get tricky? Spin the chooks a yarn
about evil a-rabs you have met.
Kalen is right. Such a flamboyant killing is not how modern intelligence agencies dispose of problems. Unless they want to draw
attention to their work.
Maybe there's a bunch of people around the Christopher Steele dossier thinking of talking. What better way to shut them up
than to knock off a Steele source.
It could always be a simple & rather human explanation - The daughter was struggling for cash at home, dad was old but refused
to die & had a stash of cash from his past, she knocked him off to get an earlier inheritance but being an amateur at this she
did herself in too, which would be poetic justice...?
It is highly unlikely that fentanyl was the toxin that poisoned Skribal and his daughter. That hypothesis should be excluded at
this point.
The main reason for this is that the patrol man who discovered them also came down with similar symptoms. Fentanyl is extremely
toxic when injected intravenously. But not to any one coming into contact with them, touching them or even performing mouth to
mouth resusication.
There are numerous acetyl choline inhibitors (e.g. sarin, vx, and many other similar compounds that have never been approved
for chemical warfare) that can cause symptoms if someone comes into contact with an intoxicated patient especially one has be
exposed externally.
Also the Portland Down lab has identified an ACE inhibitor (of course, that is part of the British military and they could
very easily be lying.)
In any case, this looks like a nerve toxin poison, fentanyl is not in that class.
Fentanyl patchs are used to control intense chronic pain...If he resigned from GRU because of health issues, as the "Meduzas"
affirm, it might be related to this chronic pain and so he could well be a patient using this drug for pain control.....
Thus,
fentanyl is not a nerve agent, but an anesthesic in any case....All could well be a performance...to blame the Russians and contribute
to scare the population about them previous to some machination to be mounted at......Do not forget that that factory of mannequin
challenges broadcasts, the White Helmets, is also a British "enterprise", creation of "former" MI6 LeMesurier....
Yesterday when questions about fentanyl were raised, the sick policeman was identified, up until that point all that had been
said was that the bill first on the scene were admitted to be checked out by medics. Today the close to death's door copper is
in fine fettle once again. I leave it up to others to decide whether he was crook (sick - an Oz term) or the imported police were
crooks (lying).
Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what
the 'counter-terror' mob do. If they were really opposed to scaring the bejeezuz outta englanders which is what their name
implies they would A) be better at preventing actions which they hadn't cranked up themselves for entrapment and B) not imagine
it was on the up and up to terrify the burghers of Salisbury with yarns about possible 'nerve agent' on the loose that were placing
the town's population at risk.
The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever
happened, but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they
do trying to find out what actually did occur. The form of this gang of sleek deceitful killers means that just because they
claim this local woodentop was poisoned, it doesn't mean that is what actually befell him.
Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration.
It seems that MI6 was keeping Sergei Skripal on a tight leash by having him live in Salisbury close to Pablo Miller who must be
the old fellow's minder as well as recruiter. One way of keeping Skripal on this leash must be to supply him with an addictive
painkiller, for whatever pain he is suffering (physical, perhaps psychological?), and fentanyl fits the bill.
Fentanyl also fits the bill for a poisoning agent that also affected the police officer who attended the Skripals. The fentanyl
epidemic is apparently forcing emergency and first-response personnel to re-evaluate procedures in handling patients so that they
themselves are not affected by sniffing fentanyl accidentally.
B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow
via his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke
of genius. Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide.
Nobody died. Only 3 remain in hospital and are not endangered.
On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will
provide all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such.
The question raised by the link offered by Oyyo at 6 (at least 21 affected by the "neurotoxin"), the comments offered by Debisdead
at 21, and the note from Craig Murry about the nearby chemical site: Was this an attack targeting Skripal at all, or some other
kind of "misadventure"? There are so many opportunities to use this kind of incident, by entities capable of spinning it this
way and that, that it doesn't give to us individuals reading the news much hope of ever learning the truth.
A police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, collapsed and was rushed to the hospital after he brushed fentanyl residue off his
uniform, allowing the drug to enter his system through his hands. The officer had apparently encountered the opioid earlier
in the day while making a drug bust.
Fenatanyl acts on the nervous system so could be described as a "nerve agent", particularly by a British politician or civil servant.
In addition to the three inpatients**** who are currently receiving treatment in relation to the incident, in line with Public
Health England guidance, which asked anyone who was in the area and is concerned because they feel unwell to come forward,
the Trust has seen and assessed a number of people who did not need treatment.
**** - These are Sgt Nick Bailey & the two original victims.
The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it.
"... The neocons are nothing if not survivors: they've managed to escape being totally shunned despite their disastrous leadership of the Iraq war, and they're now enjoying a new vogue in "liberal" and even leftist circles on account of their pioneering efforts on behalf of the NeverTrump movement. ..."
"... yet in this era of "America First" nationalism and the explicit anti-globalism of some in the higher reaches of the Trump administration, this time they may well be facing a humiliating defeat. ..."
The neocons are nothing if not survivors: they've managed to escape being totally
shunned despite their disastrous leadership of the Iraq war, and they're now enjoying a new
vogue in "liberal" and even leftist circles on account of their pioneering efforts on behalf of
the NeverTrump movement.
This attack on their longtime stronghold in government is bound to call out the Furies, and
yet in this era of "America First" nationalism and the explicit anti-globalism of some in
the higher reaches of the Trump administration, this time they may well be facing a humiliating
defeat. The NED is a rich source of grants and other government goodies: for the neocons
to lose this is hitting them where they live.
Yes, the good news is breaking out all over! Enjoy it while it lasts
The US Power Elite ... would be rightfully called the „Deep State" of the USA (
http://tinyurl.com/ho2nz87
).
And this Deep State has become more and more ruthless over the time. They have brought
nightmares over the Southern Hemisphere by installing brutal dictatorships ( http://tinyurl.com/kkpvcf7 ) in their
interest and waging bloody colonial wars, in the last one and a half decades especially with
their „War on Terror" ( http://tinyurl.com/nrxxej5 ).
One of their aims is to prevent countries of Africa, Latin America, Near and Middle East and
Southern Asia from choosing their trade partners freely and from making use of their resources
and industrialize, since that would mean a division of resources and allowing them their part
of „consuming ecologic Earth capacity".
The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists. And the first
victims of their dishonesty are themselves. In fact even describing them as "liars" who've
deceived themselves is being generous. To put it another way, they've created a false reality
for themselves. Actual facts and reasoned arguments, especially any kind of moral reasoning,
bounce off such creatures like bullets bounce off Superman.
"... " Incidental collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans' communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for incidental collection, no probable cause is needed, no warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up. ..."
"... While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't " wiretapping " Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information. How was it used? ..."
"... Incidental collection nailed Michael Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his "game-changing" testimony against others. ..."
A significant number of Trump's people were electronically monitored by
a Democratic administration -- many "by accident." We now know that a significant number of
people affiliated with Donald Trump were surveilled during and after the 2016 campaign, some
under warrants, some via "inadvertent" or accidental surveillance. That surveillance is now
being used against these individuals in perjury cases, particularly to press them to testify
against others, and will likely form the basis of Robert Mueller's eventual action against the
president himself.
How did the surveillance state become so fully entrenched in the American political process?
Better yet, how did we let it happen?
The role pervasive surveillance plays in politics today has been grossly underreported. Set
aside what you think about the Trump presidency for a moment and focus instead on the new
paradigm for how politics and justice work inside the surveillance state.
" Incidental
collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans'
communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists
alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for
incidental collection, no probable
cause is needed, no
warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up.
While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is
unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in
surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance
of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't "
wiretapping
" Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information.
How was it used?
Incidental collection nailed Michael
Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian
ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as
Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his
"game-changing" testimony against others.
Jeff Sessions was similarly incidentally surveilled, as was former White House chief
strategist Steve
Bannon , whose conversations were picked
up as part of a FISA warrant issued against Trump associate
Carter Page .
Paul Manafort and
Richard Gates were also the subjects of FISA-warranted surveillance: they were surveilled
in 2014, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, and then they were re-surveilled after they
joined the Trump team and became more interesting to the state.
Officials on the National Security Council revealed that
Trump himself may also have been swept up in the surveillance of foreign targets. Devin
Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, claims multiple communications by Trump
transition
staff were inadvertently picked up.
Trump officials were monitored by British
GCHQ with the information shared with their NSA partners. Some reports
claim that after a criminal warrant was denied to look into
whether or not Trump Tower servers
were communicating with a Russian bank, a FISA warrant was issued.
How much information the White House may have acquired on Trump's political strategy, as
well as the full story of what might have been done with that information, will never be known.
We do know that the director of national intelligence Dan Coats saw enough after he took office
to
specify that the "intelligence community may not engage in political activity, including
dissemination of U.S. person identities to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the
political process of the United States."
Coats likely had in mind the use of unmasking by the Obama administration. Identities of
U.S. persons picked up inadvertently by surveillance are supposed to be masked, hidden from
most users of the data. However, a select group of officials, including political appointees in
the White House, can unmask and include names if they believe it is important to understanding
the intelligence, or to show evidence of a crime.
Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice
told House investigators in at least one instance she unmasked the identities of Michael
Flynn,
Jared Kushner , and Steve Bannon. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations,
Samantha Power , also made a number of unmasking requests
in her final year in office.
But no one knows who unmasked Flynn in his conversations with the Russian ambassador. That
and the subsequent leaking of what was said were used not only to snare Flynn in a perjury
trap, but also to force him out of government. Prior to the leak that took Flynn down, Obama
holdover and then-acting attorney general Sally Yates warned Trump that Flynn could be
blackmailed by Moscow for lying about his calls. When Trump didn't immediately fire Flynn, the
unmasked surveillance was leaked by a "senior government official" (likely
Yates ) to the
Washington Post . The disclosure pressured the administration to dump Flynn.
Similar leaks were used to try to pressure Attorney General
Jeff Sessions to resign, though they only resulted in him recusing himself from the
Russiagate investigation. Following James Comey's firing, that recusal ultimately opened the
door for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller.
A highly classified leak was used to help marginalize Jared Kushner. The Washington
Post ,
based on leaked intercepts, claimed foreign officials' from four countries spoke of
exploiting Kushner's economic vulnerabilities to push him into acting against the United
States. If the story is true, the leakers passed on data revealing sources and methods; those
foreign officials now know that, however they communicated their thoughts about Kushner, the
NSA was listening. Access to that level of information and the power to expose it is not a
rank-and-file action. One analyst
described the matter as "the Deep State takes out the White House's Dark Clown Prince."
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Trump associate George
Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about several meetings concerning Clinton's emails. The FBI
knew about the meetings, "
propelled in part by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British
and Dutch." The feds asked him questions solely in the hope that Papadopoulos would commit
perjury, even though there was nothing shown to be criminal about the meetings themselves. Now
guilty of a crime, the FBI will use the promise of a light punishment to press Papadopoulos into
testifying against others.
There is a common thread here of using surveillance to create a process crime out of a
non-material lie (the FBI already knew) where no underlying crime of turpitude exists (the
meetings were legal). That this is then used to press someone to testify in an investigation
that will have a significant political impact seems undemocratic -- yet it appears to be a
primary tool Mueller is using.
This is a far cry from a traditional plea deal, giving someone a light sentence for actual
crimes so that they will testify against others. Mueller should know. He famously allowed Mafia
hitman Sammy the Bull to escape more serious punishment for 19 first-degree
murders in return for testimony against John Gotti. No need to manufacture a perjury trap;
the pile of bodies that never saw justice did the trick.
Don't be lured into thinking the ends justify the means, that whatever it takes to purge
Trump is acceptable. Say what you want about Flynn, Kushner, et al, what matters most is the
dark process being used. The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a
harbinger that should chill Americans to their cores.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Key advice: Never talk to a cop. Never trust an agent of the Security State. They may still wreck your life, but at least you won't make it easy for them.
Are you really arguing that using surveillance on foreign agents and spies to catch and
compel traders to testify against each other is bad????? Isn't that the way it is usually
done?
It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies. And don't tell me the
government has no right to investigate what could be treason by the president and his staff.
I know how you love Trump and Russia.
I voted for Trump but now I'm completely disgusted with his failures and betrayals and won't
vote for him again.
Setting that aside, it's starting to look to me like the Hillary campaign and allies in
the Obama federal bureaucracy were spying on the Trump campaign.
They fully expected Hillary to win and therefore to be able to cover up what they were
doing.
But then they lost, and now they're ginning up the Russia/national security angle to blow
smoke over what's starting to look like the worst campaign skullduggery since Nixon and
Watergate.
It needs to be investigated, and if there's any fire there, vigorously prosecuted. I don't
give a damn about Trump anymore, but I give a damn about our democracy and system of
government, and if it turns out that some government filth was spying on Trump's campaign, I
want them arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in the darkest, dirtiest hole in our prison
system. We can't have that kind of s***.
If I see one more variation on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" in a
comment my brain will explode. Anyone who writes that kind of thing ("Well maybe they
shouldn't lie") is missing the point: our political process was surveilled and no one can
control what happens to information gathered. Even if you think it good to "take down" Trump,
the process will exist past him to be aimed at a future candidate you support.
"It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies."
Even if true, do you think it is fair for Flynn to be hit with felony charges for his
"less than candid answers" with regard to politically and diplomatically sensitive phone
calls to the Russian ambassador after the elections were over?
Republicans created this mess in their desire to make "security" a partisan issue after 9/11.
If they now regret it and wish to undo the mess, more power to them!
Peter: "If I see one more variation on 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'
in a comment my brain will explode."
The Left used to be vociferously in favor of privacy rights. I took note during the Obama
years that it really only mattered for abortion and library books, nothing beyond that.
But a thought experiment: How many progressives, for that matter how many Black and
Hispanic Americans would be comfortable with the following government requirements:
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have your name and current address on
file at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a key to your home at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a tracking device on your car or your
person at all times.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections to any of those
requirements.
[[It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies.]]
Even easier: Be a Democrat, preferably the Party's presidential candidate, and then it
doesn't matter whether you tell lies or commit felonies because the corrupt Deep
State-lib-Dem-media alliance will hold you safely above the law.
Even in the midst of all of this, the ongoing ability to continue to spy on our own citizens
was recently voted on and passed overwhelmingly, with large bipartisan support. Save your
crocodile tears now.
Russia is not an enemy of the United States despite all the hoopla about how eeeevil they
are, we are not at war. Treason is not on the table unless you, you know, amend the
constitution, or abandon it, or something.
@MM: apart from the key to your house (and even that might be questionable if you have
certain "smart" appliances), you are describing Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and/or
Microsoft. Adding Federal Government to that list isn't as much of a jump as you seem to
believe.
"The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a harbinger that should chill
Americans to their cores."
Thankfully J. Edgar Hoover practiced his job with restraint.
That being said, while there is certainly a need for improvement of the FISA program (sadly,
the 'principled' Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Matt Gaetz, et al., missed their opportunity in
January when they voted for reauthorization), those individuals caught in the web "by
accident" were regularly communicating with targets of legitimately obtained warrants. It was
their choice to subsequently lie.
With respect to their "unmasking", it doesn't seem unreasonable that policy makers in the
White House should have knowledge of their identity (even in the politicized environment of a
presidential campaign), especially when there's the taint of influence of an adversarial
government and/or organized crime on a potential POTUS.
It is amazing how many law and order Conservatives start screaming about abuses of power, and
targeting specific people when they are the ones at the receiving end.
As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they get
to shut up on the subject now.
(Maybe they SHOULD team up with Black Lives Matter..)
We have come a long way from the reactionary and authoritarian chants of "if you have done
nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" in the lead-up and then wake of the sarcastically
name PATRIOT Act.
Surveillance and monitoring are, like all other "national securities" spending, primarily
profit extraction driven public-private "partnerships", but the major point here always was
"if you build it, they will use it".
That, too, is the foundational criticism driving Global Zero and the insistence that
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be honored by all signatory nuclear powers.
The basic principle of any evolutionary stable open society based on checks and balances
is that no self-inflating institutions and power centers are permissible – whether that
is inbred, networked multi-generational wealth, incorporated power such as financial
institutions, or specific government institutions, such as the military, the "intelligence"
agencies etc.
Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret decisions
without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also fundamentally
incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which free speech and
elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for advertising profit.
mark_be: Sorry, I meant to include fingerprints and DNA samples in that list of items for all
levels of law enforcement to retain on file on every American.
Any government whose interests clash with ours must be considered a potential enemy
– not enough to go to war, of course, but to be wary of what steps they may take to
protect their interests and thwart ours.
As for Russia, alas, she is known for playing very dirty. Before there was a KGB, there
was an Okhrana, among whose achievements was the writing and disemination of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion. Anyone who thinks that because they are no longer communists they
Russians are nice guys lives in a fool's paradise
YKW: "As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they
get to shut up on the subject now."
There is no such rule in a free society. People are within their rights to be as
hypocritical and inconsistent as they like.
But if there were such a rule, where are the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party?
Why aren't they castigating DOJ abuse of power in the previous administration?
Why are neoconservatives and Bush era creeps like Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden darlings of
the Left?
"... Politically the situation we see in Ukraine is that the ordinary people don't really care about the politics they are genuinely concerned about bread and butter it is quite sad actually that the US is treating the Ukraine as a pawn and a quite cheap one at that in its game with Russia ..."
1. There is some mystery in this Putin "bragging" about new formidable weapons. This is
not his style. Why now? Why do it when sanctions are in place and can be easily be tightened
as the result? Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence
information about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in
Syria or Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not
do it. Otherwise this is just an open invitation for the new, more destructive and expensive
stage in nuclear arms race. The scenario that Russia should try to avoid.
2. Also the rule is: if your adversary is making a mistake, you should not try to stop
him. If missile defense systems and aircraft carriers are useless why not to allow the USA to
put another 100 billion dollars into it ? Something does not compute here. BTW both remain
perfectly viable as the first strike weapons (you never know what those tubes contain and
they can hold cruise missiles as well). The fact that they will perish is just part of the
cost of the whole operation.
3. Russia has way too many problems, both economic and political. So each dollar put into
military technology is stolen from the civilian sector and makes sanctions more effective. So
succumbing to the arm race is like self-sanctions.
4. After 2012 it is clear that the way the USA will try to undermine Russia is most
probably via political interference during the next election, in which there will be a power
vacuum as Putin finishes his last term, and there is no Putin II. The problem of the leader
succession is a well-known Achilles' spot of Russia. In 2012 the "collective West" achieved
pretty significant success in staging color revolution in Russia using pro-West (aka
Zapadniki) and comprador sector in Moscow as the fifth column. The political situation in
Moscow will always favor pro-European forces, as this city has a huge concentration of
employees of foreign companies, professionals and entrepreneurs who depend on the West and
earn money from the West (compradors) . Efforts to put in power a classic neoliberal like
Macron in France will be multiplied for elections in 2024. I do not see, why they can't be
more successful then in 2012.
5. While weakened by the recent McCarthyism campaign in the USA, Russian comprador sector
and neoliberals are still a very powerful political force and control a significant part of
media and oligarch money. Russian constitution was written by the USA. And scars from the
economic rape of Russia in 90th still did not fully heal. In other words, pro-Western forces
in Russia are powerful enough to serve as a base to stage another color revolution. Probably
along with crashing oil prices before the elections again, or some other nasty trick. In this
case you do not need any missiles. As long as Russia is a neoliberal country Putin and his
policies remain a political anomaly. And Putin himself a maverick. There will be no another
Putin, but there can well be another Gorbachov, or, worse, Yeltsin. The same is true for
China, but at least China has political control of the Communist Party and state ownership of
the financial sector. The latter is not true for Russia and is a huge political risk. While
neoliberalism entered the stage of decline there is no viable alternatives on the
horizon.
6. Loss of Ukraine was/is a huge geopolitical defeat of Putin (and Russia as a country)
which can't be compensated any bragging about new weapon systems. It was and still is a
geopolitical knockdown.
7. Hopes about "some sensible conversation on the new world order may start between key
geopolitical players" are naïve. The US elite is hell-bent on world superiority as this
is a pre-condition of the existence of the dollar as the primary world currency. This
situation will not probably change until the end of cheap oil, which might take another
twenty years or more.
8. If time is working against the USA, why not to sit quiet and try not to anger aging
hegemon as China supposedly does (having also advantage of host of "offshored" manufacturing
from the USA and having the USA as debtor).
9. The level of brain drain from Russia actually is a huge limiting factor, which makes a
claim about cruising missile with a nuclear reactor as a part of propulsion engine highly
suspect.
10. The network of intelligence agencies around Russia (which now include Estonia and
Ukraine) probably represents much more serious threat then the "first strike" capability of
the USA, if such thing can ever exist.
11. "Collective West" can easily tighten sanction expanding them on more technological
sectors, thus damaging Russia economic growth. So bragging about new weapons is bad diplomacy
when the opponent is much stronger economically and politically.
12. China has less than 300 nuclear weapons and still is regarded as a formidable nuclear
power, probably spending 20 times less money in this area.
13. The claim that "The Kinzhal effectively removes any non-suicidal surface force
thousands of miles away from Russia's shores and renders its capabilities irrelevant" is
highly questionable. The idea of the first strike includes the elimination of the possibility
of launching most (or all) Kinzhal missiles carriers, as a necessary part required for the
success of the operation. Any losses of forward deployed units are acceptable in such a huge
game.
Just a pre-empt, tiring if you say you don't understand Ukraine, etc. then twenty
comments; dem Jews.
No rain, too much rain, dem Jews.
Well, you did utter the trigger word.
Guess your family believes religiously in the eternal victimhood and in the right of
Jewish people to demand special treatment from "others"– "because of Holocaust." --
This is over. After the fraternization of the Kagans' clan (via Nuland-Kagan) with neo-Nazi
in Ukraine and after Israeli's support for ISIS, Jewish pretenses on superior morality (and
similar fantastic inventions) have become unrealistic.
Putin should have intelligence information about a real threat of attack from the USA,
or some large scale provocation in Syria or Ukraine.
I'd go for Ukraine.
Something does not compute here.
Well, "if we can't have it it's not good."
Sour grapes.
Russia has way too many problems, both economic and political. So each dollar put into
military technology is stolen from the civilian sector and makes sanctions more effective.
So succumbing to the arm race is like self-sanctions.
Agree.
In other words, pro-Western forces in Russia are powerful enough to serve as a base to
stage another color revolution. In this case you do not need any missiles.
...While neoliberalism entered the stage of decline there is no viable alternatives on the
horizon.
Agree.
Loss of Ukraine was/is a huge geopolitical defeat of Putin (and Russia as a country)
which can't be compensated any bragging about new weapon systems. It was and still is a
geopolitical knockdown.
Agree.
But, perhaps that's not true. In any case, the resident "Team Russia" will now explain that.
As victory, of course.
Hopes about "some sensible conversation on the new world order may start between key
geopolitical players" are naïve. The US elite is hell-bent on world superiority as
this is a pre-condition of the existence of the dollar as the primary world currency.
Agree.
If time is working against the US, why not to sit quiet and try not to anger aging
hegemon as China supposedly does (having also advantage of host of "offshored"
manufacturing from the USA and having the USA as debtor).
and
The level of brain drain from Russia actually is a huge limiting factor, which makes a
claim about cruising missile with a nuclear reactor as a part of propulsion engine highly
suspect.
and
"Collective West" can easily tighten sanction expanding them on more technological
sectors, thus damaging Russia economic growth. So bragging about new weapons is bad
diplomacy when the opponent is much stronger economically and politically.
"Team Russia" coming up. You are about to see the light. Somehow.
Putin and those around him would better do concentrate on internal issues or eventually
issues will concentrate on them.
Agree.
This obsession with high tech is actually puzzling.
Not only that, but, overall, which "military" is better. "Whose father/older brother is
stronger" kid talk.
The Empire shall go for the Russia's internal problems and try to capitalize on that.
Ukraine was taken down using that approach. Oh, wait, not only Ukraine but all those who
didn't tow the line. Thinking that, somehow, a conventional war, only, will settle the issue
is not only delusional but stupid. Why would The Empire do that? No reason whatsoever.
It will try to do exactly what's been doing since '91. Internal dissent.
So, while Russian elites will keep building high tech weaponry (remember USSR), The Empire
will keep working on getting all those "unhappy" with Putin regime onboard and using them for
weakening the regime.
If the regime in Moscow can't, or doesn't want to see it, well, it doesn't deserve that
position. True, weapons industry is good for making money and stashing most of it offshore.
Not sharing that wealth, though, with general population is not that smart, just, they simply
can't help it. That's the way of the world there. Czars and serfs.
The problem is, of course, they can't step down even if they wanted to. Nobody wants
kangaroo courts and hanging. Or public murder broadcast live on Internet. Conundrum.
You make some interesting observations and your comment is thought-provoking
However I think the intent of the article was to explore some of the technical
issues of what we saw on March 1 not so much the political dimension and certainly your
approach is to try to get an overall wide angle picture that gets every possible Russia issue
into the frame
which by necessity means you give up some resolution or granularity if you will compared
to a more tightly focused article
You start with an initial premise of why announce these weapons now and question the
wisdom the simple answer may be technical related these weapons may be already mature
technically and now is the time to show them ?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
A couple more points you mention sanctions quite a bit but we have seen that Russia is
able to carry on just fine sanctions or not
The key indicator there is that sanctions are having a much bigger blowback on the US
itself i.e. the US is losing Europe
Germany has been quite vocal about US going a step too far in trying to dictate energy
policy which is key to German industrial export economy and besides they may finally be
finding their sea legs after years of subservience to an increasingly unhinged country that
is heading for the cliff
The Germans are going to get Nordstream 2 because they want it. It is actually more
important to Germany than to Russia Russia has been supplying energy to Europe for many
decades going back to Soviet times but is just now starting to feed the biggest energy
consumer in the world China
Other, smaller EU countries notably Italy have become quite vocal about Russia sanctions
hurting them we saw just now an election in Italy where the ruling claque were turfed
So it seems that the days of US dictating the politics to its European vassals may be over
the kind of friction they are making with sanctions and their increasing hysteria is only
hastening this process of vassals breaking off
The other issue is Ukraine you bring to this the the typical US perspective of 'losing' a
country this again goes back to the vassal game
The US gained all of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union but did Russia
lose anything sensible people will say the lost they burden of empire long after it had
ceased being profitable as with the British previously
Ukraine is historically something of an artificial country the original Kievan Rus
[Rurivik dynasty] was the original Russia it fell apart after the Mongol invasions but the
Russian and Ukrainian language and people are mostly indistinguishable other than the
Galician Catholic minority
For several hundred years the peoples of the Ukraine [ie even then it was more than a
single national people] were under rule by the Poles and Lithuania while the new Russian
empire based in Moscow gained strength and eventually took over 300 years ago
There are and have always been Ukrainian nationalists that do not like Russia but they are
in the minority the best way to think of Ukraine is similar to Scotland even the Irish are
more distant from the English than Ukrainians from Russians
Politically the situation we see in Ukraine is that the ordinary people don't really care
about the politics they are genuinely concerned about bread and butter it is quite sad
actually that the US is treating the Ukraine as a pawn and a quite cheap one at that in its
game with Russia
I don't believe the Russians look at the situation that way there is real fraternity among
many Russians and Ukrainians that goes to a fundamental level again similar to Scotland where
the country is divided on the issue of the English
So unless the EU and US are prepared to do a full Marshall plan to drag Ukraine into a
reasonable living standard then this 'win' will turn out to be something of a chimera
Heck the polls even in eastern Europe are trending against the post Cold War direction
with about half the people now questioning if the new boss is really better than the old
boss
And finally if you are going to do a wide angle shot like this then get the crazy cousin
into the picture also ie the US and its failing Ponzi economy that is bound to collapse just
on the principles of mathematics
China and Russia are working to bury the source of all US strength the petrodollar this is
literally kryptonite the US is quite simply toast once the petrodollar sinks
China is the world's biggest economy and biggest energy buyer Russia is the world's
biggest energy seller other nations too that are not so strong and have felt the body blows
of US economic warfare such as Iran, Venezuela and other will gladly join in
It's starting to feel like US has used up all its chips and all its markers
The entire developing world wants real prosperity not economic colonialism and corporate
plunder
These are some large and powerful currents that have to be taken into account if one is
going to take a wide angle shot of geopolitics
Ukraine is historically something of an artificial country the original Kievan Rus
[Rurivik dynasty] was the original Russia it fell apart after the Mongol invasions
Relationship of Kievan Rus to modern Russia and Ukraine is somewhat analogous to the
relationship of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire to modern France or Germany. Although both
Germany and France would have to be in the same linguistic family for the analogy to be more
accurate.
For several hundred years the peoples of the Ukraine [ie even then it was more than a
single national people] were under rule by the Poles and Lithuania
Correct. This meant not only political separation but largescale settlement (about 10% of
the population were Polish settlers – these were absorbed by the natives, so most
Ukrainians have some Polish roots), centuries of schooling, etc. And this was enough to lead
to a different culture, language, identity.
eventually took over 300 years ago
The eastern half of Ukraine was linked to Moscow in the 1650s (so indeed about 300 years),
but the western half in the 1770s (so 200 years) and Galicia not until 1939.
but the Russian and Ukrainian language and people are mostly indistinguishable
Incorrect. Ukrainian is about as close to Russian as it is to Polish (Ukrainian grammar
and pronunciation is closer to Russian, but Ukrainian vocabulary actually has more words in
common with Polish than with Russian). The Scandinavian languages are closer to each other
Russian is to Ukrainian. The catch is that in everyday life about half of Ukrainians, and
most urban Ukrainians other than people in Lviv, use Russian rather than Ukrainian. Kiev is a
Russian-speaking city (and Dublin an English-speaking one).
the best way to think of Ukraine is similar to Scotland
Anatol Lieven correctly observed that Ukraine's relationship to Russia is somewhere
between that of Scotland and that of Ireland, to England. Viewing it as Scotland is too
positive, as Ireland too negative. Given that Scotland itself nearly separated, it is natural
to see Ukraine as separate.
"... I would say generally not. If you look at neoliberalism as promoting privatization, removal of regulations and removal of social services, Russia seems to be moving in opposite directions with trying to break up the power of the oligarchs, keeping controls over rampant capitalism and interested in raising pensions. ..."
"... Both Russia and China seem to realize the power of the state more as a restriction to rampant capitalism to protect society. ..."
I would say generally not. If you look at neoliberalism as promoting privatization,
removal of regulations and removal of social services, Russia seems to be moving in opposite
directions with trying to break up the power of the oligarchs, keeping controls over rampant
capitalism and interested in raising pensions.
Both Russia and China seem to realize the power of the state more as a restriction to
rampant capitalism to protect society. Neoliberal countries such as the US use the
government to empower capitalism at the expense of society such as bailing out banks while
cutting back on medicare and social security and also promoting student indebtedness.
The Ukrainian economy is in a catastrophic state after four years of "euro-reforms," said
Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the public movement "Ukrainian Choice – People's
Right." "At the end of 2013. Ukraine's state and publicly guaranteed debt was 40% of GDP, and
by the end of 2017 it had more than doubled, exceeding 80% of GDP. In 2013, Ukraine's GDP per
capita was more than $ 4,075, and in 2016 decreased to $ 2221.
The average monthly salary in 2017 as a whole for the country was $ 267 (in 2013 it exceeded
$ 408), pensions are also 2.3 times lower than before the euro reform. Today, it is slightly
more than $ 48, while in 2013 it was almost $ 112, " Medvedchuk said.
With Ukrainian officials continuing to
talk up their hostility with neighboring Russia, the Pentagon announced on Thursday that
approval has been granted for the sale of Javelin anti-tank systems to Ukraine.
Russia is protesting the sale, however, arguing that the sale of the missiles would
encourage Ukraine to resume the use of force against Eastern Ukraine's ethnic Russian rebels,
with the idea that they would deploy the missiles against any rebel tanks, and also against
any Russian tanks that might join the fight.
Pentagon officials downplayed the issue, saying they don't believe the Javelin missiles
will materially change the military balance of power in the region. Despite obvious offensive
uses for such missiles, the US is trying to spin this as another "defensive" sale to
Ukraine.
The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is "Ukraine has not yet died," one
interviewee says in "Breaking Point," a fierce documentary about that country and its recent
clashes with Russia. For a land often perched on the edge of ruin, she says, mere survival is
something to celebrate.
Directed by Mark Jonathan Harris and Oles Sanin, the film starts with a rundown of a history
that has repeated itself for centuries -- invaders have long prized Ukraine for its resources
and geography, and modern times are no exception.
... ... ...
The filmmakers supply terrifying footage: At civilian rallies, we see nightstick beatings
and bloody riots. During military battles, bullets whiz by and explosions shake the cameras.
Nerve-racking scenes follow Ukraine's extraordinarily bold volunteer soldiers.
Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the
deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.
Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's
white
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a
long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of
his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey
Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support
Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South
Carolina
Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two
African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.
Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating
white men.
"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President
Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.
"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it
represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench
is necessary for the equal administration of justice."
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on
Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by
starting with their offices.
"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own
staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of
South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.
"... Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA. ..."
"... A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster. ..."
First, and this is crucial, Russia is at war. Let me repeat this: Russia is at war with the AngloZionist Empire. The fact
that this war is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic does not make it less real or less dangerous, if only
because these ratios can very rapidly change.
So is China, except we're not as aware of it. Especially the information warfare part.
I think Putin should just kick democracy to the curb and make sure his opponents never have a chance to even deny him a majority.
The west already regards Russia as an "non-democratic authoritarian state" anyway, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of perception.
Yes and no. It is much more complex with China than with Russia. US-Chinese relations have a peculiar dynamics, although at
some pint of time things may get really dicey, no doubt about it.
Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically
balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA.
I'm praying for both of our countries to turn it around, each according to its own culture, traditions, and core people's wishes
(I.e. I want a less centralized system than Russia has, and than WE have for that matter, and generally more individual liberty
than most Russians would want. America and Russia can develop on different paths and still be effective partners, increasing trade
and military cooperation to destroy Islamists, crush piracy on the sea, deter and contain China to Asia, etc.)
A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the
us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop
supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster.
"... Nor, obviously, you understand that Russia's economic recovery, thus overall improvement of such metrics as life expectancy, was done on a radically non-neo-liberal economic agenda. In fact, in the last ten years revitalizing of Russia's industry (from extraction to machine-building) was done precisely with the most active participation of the State be it re-nationalization of some major manufacturers or creation of gigantic conglomerates such as Rostec. ..."
"... This is just the small part of State's (I deliberately omit here the term "government") radically non-neo-liberal policies which actually saved Russia. You can BS some foreigner about 1990s, but not me. ..."
Government's "neoliberal" policies made this possible: they actually encouraged Russians
to lead more healthy lifestyles.
Pardon me, but you have no clue what are you talking about–a feature very typical
for pretentious Russian "liberals" and, generally, office plankton. You definitely have very
vague idea about Russia and Russians.
Nor, obviously, you understand that Russia's economic
recovery, thus overall improvement of such metrics as life expectancy, was done on a
radically non-neo-liberal economic agenda. In fact, in the last ten years revitalizing of
Russia's industry (from extraction to machine-building) was done precisely with the most
active participation of the State be it re-nationalization of some major manufacturers or
creation of gigantic conglomerates such as Rostec.
This is just the small part of State's (I
deliberately omit here the term "government") radically non-neo-liberal policies which
actually saved Russia. You can BS some foreigner about 1990s, but not me.
there has been dramatic improvement in number of soldiers, usability of
equipment
That is the show.
The Ukrainian army's battlefield performance after February 2015 has not improved, nor
will the odds ever again be as favourable as they were in Mid-2014. Kiev has assembled an
army suitable for skirmishing and the occasional terrorist attack, nothing more strenuous.
Building an army capable of winning the war would entail discipline and sacrifice, and the
effort would be for nothing since the RF forces would move in and crush Kiev's army if it
were ever on the point of victory.
Kiev is content with the status quo – it's far from ideal for them but it's not so
bad as to justify the risks involved in a new offensive (this will never happen). Barring
black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely, so long as
Moscow does not pull its finger out of its backside and resolve the situation properly.
Kiev is content with the status quo – it's far from ideal for them but it's not so
bad as to justify the risks involved in a new offensive (this will never happen). Barring
black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely, so long as
Moscow does not pull its finger out of its backside and resolve the situation properly.
Two consideration:
1. Ukraine decides very little. Government was outsourced to Washington, DC. If creation
of tension with Russia is necessary, they will launch offensive.
2. Nationalist movements, especially far-right, have their own often destructive dynamics and
can do things that are illogical and/or highly harmful for the country. They also are ready
to fight and die for their ideas. In this sense Poroshenko is a hostage of Galician far right
"revolutionaries. "
Looks like Mueller investigation was a part of color revolution to depose Trump, using
consequentialism slogan widely attributed to
Machiavelli's The Prince "the end justifies
the means".
Mueller witch hunt is a part of neoliberalism counterattack on forces that are against neoliberal globalization, dropping
standard of living of common people and offshoring of manufacturing. That means tiny greedy elite against the majority of the USA
population. We read about such situations in history books, did not we?
Notable quotes:
"... The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year. ..."
"... It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings. ..."
"... What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won? ..."
"... It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided. ..."
"... Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed. ..."
So here's what Mueller has: evidence of unrelated-to-Trump financial crimes by Paul Manafort and others, based mostly from FISA
surveillance on Manafort dating back to
2014
. The FBI's earlier investigation was dropped for lack of evidence, and it appears Mueller revived it now in part so the information
could be repurposed to press Manafort to testify. The role pervasive surveillance has played in setting perjury traps to manufacture
indictments to pressure people to testify against others has been grossly underreported. We'll see more of it, unfortunately, a new
tool of justice in a surveillance state.
Flynn and Papadopoulos are currently charged with relatively minor offenses whose connections to Russiagate are tenuous. Flynn's
contact with the Russian ambassador can be seen as a lot of uncomplimentary things, but it does not appear to have been a crime.
With Papadopoulos there may be a conspiracy charge in there with some shady lawyering, but little more. Further offstage, Carter
Page, a key actor in the
Steele dossier and the
subject of
FISA warrants, has not been charged with anything.
Here's what Mueller is missing. The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government
(not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff
memo reveals
five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's
collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year.
It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence,
no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele
dossier and its salacious
accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings.
What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty
that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won?
But so far the booked charges against Flynn and Papadopoulos and the guilty pleas of others point towards relatively minor sentences
to bargain over -- assuming they have game-changing information to share in the first place. These are process crimes, not ones of
turpitude. Manafort says he'll go to court and defend himself, lips sealed.
It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving
help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn
an election probably a full two years after it was decided.
Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7
to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their
core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed.
A limping-to-the-finish line conclusion to Mueller's work just ahead of the midterms alleging Trump technically obstructed justice,
or a "conspiracy to commit something" charge without a finding of an underlying crime, will risk tearing the nation apart. Mueller
holds a lot in his hands, and he needs soon to produce the conclusive report to Congress he was charged to write. Until then, absent
evidence, skepticism remains a healthy stance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets
@WeMeantWell.
Looks like Poroshenko is playing with fire. the longer Donetsk and Lugansk republics exists as a separate political
entities the more difficult and costly will be to bring them back. Each year matters in this respect. After, say, ten year
probably no compromise could ever emerge, unless Russia is weakened and /or dissolved into smaller statelets (the permanent
problem for Russia is change of leadership, so 2024 will be a very important year, as Putin does not have any realistic successor
who can continue his policies. So iether Russian "economic nationalists" (to borrow Bannon's term) or Pro-European faction
will come to power. In both cases foreign policies change. Or the US economy crash again and military budget will be
drastically cut, leaving no money for foreign military adventure and the protection of neoliberal empire. Direct attach
might elicit Russian response and as such is highly risky (especially in view of Russia being pissed by the USA all the time now
and might want to make Ukraine, as a US client, a boy for beating) , but periodic skirmishes just run this territory into
wasteland that Syria regions now are. They also drive population out.
Notable quotes:
"... IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to wartime occupation can easily become more or less perm ..."
"... If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't that what Erdogan really wants? ..."
You don't understand what I mean. IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long
time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to
wartime occupation can easily become more or less permanent as was the case with Turkey's
acquisition of Hatay. pl
I certainly don't dispute that Turkey is invading Afrin. And I agree with you that if things
continue to stand as they are now then that invasion will continue until all of Afrin has
been overrun.
But to simply extrapolate from what has happened into the future suggests that
circumstances won't change or - if they do - that Erdogan will continue on like some wind-up
automaton.
If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus
then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't
that what Erdogan really wants?
If the Kurds are too stupid or too proud to play that card then, yeah, sure, you and I
both agree that they will be ground into the dirt.
But if they do supplicate to Assad then the situation changes.
You (I assume) believe that in that circumstance Erdogan will continue to grind on with
this invasion regardless.
I believe he will beat his chest and then go home.
One of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right.
Somehow in numerous statements in this thread, mostly boiling down to "mine is more
Russian than yours", the key issues were missed. I am not even talking about obvious trolls
trying to denigrate Putin's foreign policy feats. He achieved a lot more with a relatively
weak hand than the US with a much stronger one, both in Syria and in Ukraine.
Admittedly, Ukraine does not count: only Americans, who have no history and don't know the
history of other countries, could have stepped into that particular pile of s Ukraine brings
ruin to anyone it supports. At the beginning of the eighteens century Ukrainian Hetman Mazepa
betrayed Russia and joined the Swedes. Peter the Great decimated Swedes in the battle near
Poltava. That was the end of Sweden as a great European power. Western Ukrainians fought for
Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. Where is that Empire now? Then "independent" Ukraine
supported Germans. Well, they lost WWI. Then Ukrainians served Hitler in WWII. USSR smeared
Nazi Germany over he wall. Then Ukrainians were "holier then thou" supporters of the Soviet
Union. Where is it now? So, if I were in the US or EU leadership, I'd make sure that Ukraine
is not my friend, simply for the sake of self-preservation.
Syria is a totally different story. The Empire, on behalf of Israel and Saudis, tried to
break it up into a bunch of powerless Bantustans. The plan seemed to be close to bearing
fruit until Putin threw a wrench into the works. With ridiculously small ground and air force
he turned the tide of the war. The Empire was frustrated. Hence the hysterics.
Anyway, IMHO Putin's Russia has two major weaknesses. One is the profusion of oligarchs
who stole their riches from the state and hid the loot offshore. He does not seem inclined to
tackle them, likely honoring the deal he made in 2000. "Protected" appear to include even
such notorious figures as Chubais (if you ask Russians, ~90% would say that oligarchs should
be stripped of their wealth, tried, and imprisoned; but as many or more would say that
Chubais should be publicly hanged). The other weakness is that it remains a one-man show,
i.e., the absence of credible state institutions and an obvious successor. The rest is
chaff.
"what we see is that western democracies are run by gangs of oligarchs and bureaucrats who
have almost nothing in common with the people they are supposed to represent."
Just for a moment I will take you seriously, although you sometimes write truly silly
stuff, and respond.
Yes, the AngloZionist would prefer to turn and absorb the Russian and Chinese elite, but
only as low subordinates. This is what they have been doing in other conquered countries
– generating a mix of the new and compliant part of the old elite with a greater
proportion of the new elite. The Russian neo-Liberals are ready and waiting for the job,
looking down on their compatriots as cattle (the same word as goyim, what an amazing
coincidence!?). Read what this Felix writes about the Russians. This gang turned Russia into
killing fields in 1917 and will gladly do it again given half a chance by their foreign
masters.
The masters are underwriting the full-time writing of puppets such as Karlin.
Karlin is the Russian Elliot Higgins , interpreting data without a faintest idea of
solid data analysis, a paid full-time hack drawing the right conclusions for the empire.
Perhaps he sees himself as a minister in the Russian puppet government after the successful
regime change.
Therefore, this group of regular trolls (about 10 nicks) on all Saker's
writings are aiming to be that future new Russian servant elite when Russia would be
absorbed. They are truly the last thing that Russian people need.
As I said above, I have seen it all before, it is deja vu all over again (Yogi Bear).
Actually life in Ukraine was not that bad in 2010-2014. Hopefully "After-Maydan" deterioration might be temporary,
although without new markets for Ukrainian industrial goods recovery is almost impossible. Also the level of foreign
debt is now much higher, so they dig a deeper hole for themselves to climb out. Other probable scenario is bankruptcy.
See also
Bill
Black Once a Poster Child for Austerity, Latvia Becomes a Hotbed of Corruption naked capitalism
Poland's level of GDP per capita is 6 times bigger than Ukraine's. They started out
around the same level in 1991 and were supposed to follow the same playbook. To the extent
that their paths diverged can be explained by Ukrainian corruption and incompetence.
Poland received hundreds of billions of dollars in EU subsidies and transfers. Not a fair
comparison. Even still today they are receiving this transfer of wealth from net contributor
countries in the EU (there's another good reason EU became unpopular in net contributor
countries like the UK and the Netherlands):
Energy subsidies from Russia to the Ukraine are estimated at hundreds of billions of
dollars since 1991. The Ukraine has been well subsidized since independence. What they have
been desperately lacking is governance.
I doubt that Putin can be viewed as "pure" neoliberal. He might have some neoliberal leanings, but in his policies he deviates
enough to view him as a dangerous revisionist. Even more so than Trump during recent elections with his rejection of globalization,
offshoring of industries to countries with cheap labor, protection (and creation) of "good jobs" in the USA, etc (he was quickly
emasculated -- approximately three-four months after elections ;-)
Neoliberalism as a social system implies neoliberal globalization. For any country other then the USA that means the acceptance
of the dominant role of the USA in world economics and the global role of dollar as the dominant convertible currency. In other
words is you need to accept preeminent role of the USA in world economic and financial system and institutions much like members
of Communist International accepted preeminent role of the USSR.
That's why GB, Western Europe and Japan are often viewed as US vassals. They might have strong objections to the USA policies
and they have certain degrees of freedom, but on key, fundamental issues they need to behave.
I think Putin strays from neoliberal doctrine on both of those issues. He definitely does not want Russia to be vassal of the
USA. And he jailed Khodorkovski and exiled a couple of other oligarchs who wanted political power in Russia, which is a direct
affront to the neoliberal system. I think Putin tries to play MIC, energy complex and other similar forces vs pro-European "globalist"
faction of neoliberal oligarchs as two countervailing forces. This is a tough balancing act that requires immense political skills.
In this sense he is a statist, not so much a neoliberal. What is true is that Putin considers socialism to be not viable social
system and accepts capitalism as the necessary evil. But within the bound of capitalism he advocates strong role of state in controlling
greed of capitalists, exactly like in the New Deal. Under neoliberalism large corporations and financial oligarchy controls the
state. Some elements of Putin polices can probably be viewed as "cultural nationalism" (ethnic nationalism is not a viable political
platform in Russia, for obvious reasons). Or using Bannon term "economic nationalism".
Also neoliberalism hates welfare state and any New Deal style protections for workers. So neoliberals typically try to dismantle
such social protection net. Neoliberalism also tries to enforce the law of jungles for workers (aka "labor market" with atomized
powerless individuals instead of trade unions, using "free movement of labor" to suppress wages, etc).
On both issues Putin position is different. My impression is that on many such issues his position is closer to the New Deal
vision of capitalism than to neoliberalism. So I consider viewing Putin as a pure neoliberal wrong.
"... My view is that Putin is representative of Russian national oligarchy which DOES want to integrate with the western ruling classes but on equal terms. It is, BTW, why I think Putin's responses to American aggression is muted, or that he still does not get rid of 5th columnists: he really does not want to alienate them totally and waits for a faction in western elite to take over that would recognize Russian oligarchy as equals. ..."
"... In my view, this is never going to happen: as Saker frequently points out, because of the cultural tendencies of the west, they have never considered Russia as equal partners and will never do. In fact, the only reason they could not suck the blood of Russia to the bone and let the country slip from their fingers is their total disregard for the interests of Russian elites which do want their country and themselves be regarded as equals to their western partners. ..."
"... However, this is their main weakness: they cannot beat imperialists on their own game. ..."
"... I would venture a suggestion that, although with quite different complexities, the same would apply to China and its elite. The AngloZionist elite would never accept the Russian or the Chinese elite as equals and this is the main reason that a global alliance of the powerful against the powerless will never happen, despite being predicted by so many authors. ..."
"... In essence, what Saker and you are saying is that Putin has done fantastic things for Russia but he is a man of the past who has reached his personal limits and Russia is in a need of a new leader to take her to the next stage. But there is no such on the horizon – that is the key issue of the forthcoming Russian election. ..."
"... My view is that Putin is representative of Russian national oligarchy which DOES want to integrate with the western ruling classes but on equal terms. ..."
"... This how I also see it. For this reason I was always skeptical of those who put hopes in Putin's Russia as a genuine opponent of the Zio-Amercian Empire. Putin actions and in-actions should be understood as playing for time and gaining some leverage for a better position at the negotiating table. They want to sit at the sam table with the Empire while the Empire still sees them as dish to be consumed at this table. ..."
I agree with Saker in that Putin is neo-liberal but disagree on the part that Putin believes
in social democracy. My view is that Putin is representative of Russian national oligarchy
which DOES want to integrate with the western ruling classes but on equal terms. It is, BTW,
why I think Putin's responses to American aggression is muted, or that he still does not get
rid of 5th columnists: he really does not want to alienate them totally and waits for a
faction in western elite to take over that would recognize Russian oligarchy as equals.
In my view, this is never going to happen: as Saker frequently points out, because of the
cultural tendencies of the west, they have never considered Russia as equal partners and will
never do. In fact, the only reason they could not suck the blood of Russia to the bone and
let the country slip from their fingers is their total disregard for the interests of Russian
elites which do want their country and themselves be regarded as equals to their western
partners.
However, this is their main weakness: they cannot beat imperialists on their own game. The
correct course of action is to fully reject them: i.e. withdrawal from IMF, World Bank, and
other financial institutions, placing controls on the transfer of capital, nationalizing
strategic industries, etc. Obviously, these are actions which will reduce the power of the
oligarchy in Russia and thus impossible to implement by Putin (unless an open conflict with
the west forces him to do so to put the economy in complete war footing).
Incidentally, Russian communist party offers exactly that. So, unlike Saker I take them
seriously not because I don't believe in what Saker writes about them but because such
transformation has its own life and real leadership would eventually emerge from such
dynamics. And, such leaders could not care less what the westerners think and write about
them, unlike Putin
Absolutely great insight, I agree with Saker but even more with you.
I would venture a
suggestion that, although with quite different complexities, the same would apply to China
and its elite. The AngloZionist elite would never accept the Russian or the Chinese elite as
equals and this is the main reason that a global alliance of the powerful against the
powerless will never happen, despite being predicted by so many authors.
I would speculate
that one of the main reasons is the Jewish view of others as goyim or cattle – would
you consider a leading bull of a heard as equal to yourself? It is a barrier. The Anglo elite
is only less blunt about this, but not much different.
It is funnily ironic how one cultural feature of the current rulers of the World is going
to generate a bipolar World and a clash of two empires.
In essence, what Saker and you are saying is that Putin has done fantastic things for
Russia but he is a man of the past who has reached his personal limits and Russia is in a
need of a new leader to take her to the next stage. But there is no such on the horizon
– that is the key issue of the forthcoming Russian election.
My view is that Putin is representative of Russian national oligarchy which DOES want to
integrate with the western ruling classes but on equal terms.
This how I also see it. For this reason I was always skeptical of those who put hopes in
Putin's Russia as a genuine opponent of the Zio-Amercian Empire. Putin actions and in-actions
should be understood as playing for time and gaining some leverage for a better position at
the negotiating table. They want to sit at the sam table with the Empire while the Empire
still sees them as dish to be consumed at this table.
Perry, a member of the Homeland Security subcommittee on cyber security, said Tuesday that the House Office of Inspector General
tracked the network usage of Awan and his associates on House servers and found that a "massive" amount of data was flowing from the
networks.
Notable quotes:
"... Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
"... This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
"... It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the first amendment. ..."
"... If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." ..."
"... It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved. ..."
"... If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign. ..."
"... Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct. ..."
"... Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary. ..."
"... Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law is why sociopaths flourish. ..."
"... They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs. ..."
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants
in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers
of the case at a loss for words. The
document , provided by the
law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic
Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment.
Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust
at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck's outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation
process for political purposes: "For example, Plaintiffs' counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as "shi*bags" on Twitter
and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants." Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit."
This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense
counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note
the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices
of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy
theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: " There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an
improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political
party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign ."
The brief continued: " To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run
directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by
political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office. "
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment.
If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty
"to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent."
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated
that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary
Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen. Disobedient Media will continue to report on this important
story as it unfolds.
Even on a practical level, beyond the "fraud is free speech" argument, they don't seem to have considered that this argument
is a lose/lose proposition. Even if they (DNC) win legally, they are going to lose as people turn away from the finger they're
giving them.
Notice this is a civil suit brought by a citizen. The Bern is silent and not suing anybody although he was the target
of the scam, or maybe a party to it. The DOJ is silent and not looking to put anybody in jail for what appears to be an
obvious violation of criminal law.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- - Jeff Sessions
Not so for murder, and rigging the general election. Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering
soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct.
What is the difference? There is no any justice in America. It is all gone.
The US people are polarized and, thanks to Hollywood and mainstream media, with the culture of lawless, violence, and hatred
of everybody. America is a very sick country with a fake President and the utterly corrupt US Congress. It will not end good or
bloodless.
The US military reliance on super-technology is poorly thought of since these high-tech military systems require very highly-educated
and intelligent people to operate these systems while the US educational system being a total failure cannot produce.
Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious
plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary.
But, hey, if he can shave a few hundred dollars off of my monthly health insurance premiums he can call for a first-strike nuclear
attack on Russia!
Clearly we have laws for little people while the owners do whatever the fuck they want.
... the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails contain information that is presently
classified Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the
Confidential level; 65 contain information classified at the Secret level; and 22 contain information classified at the Top Secret
level....
I think this is the exact reason election boards exists. They should be suing the DNC over this as well, but are full of party
officials. If there was any sane form of democracy, the DNC would be bared from campaigning in most states.
It's a sewer, the whole fucking system is just a cesspool filled with the most reprehensible, self-serving people in the country
outside of Wall Street. But everybody just keeps playing along.
Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There
are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law
is why sociopaths flourish.
They don't live in the same reality as us and never have.
They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible
actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up
a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs.
My take was Bernie was supposed to cat herd the millennials to the Hillary camp but that blew up in their face when the millennials
decided to put down their cell phones and proceeded to give Hillary the bird.
Wouldn't doubt a large majority still ended up voting for but they probably won't admit it.
Doesn't this make the whole candidate selection process, and all the rules and regulations governing a party's whole nomination
process meaningless? If what DEMS did within their own party to Bernie is moot, then what Trump may have done via his "Russian
collusion" is mooted also. Can't have it both ways.
They used the same argument before the appeal... and the corrupt judge agreed with "The Crooks" and closed the case. NOT ONE media outlet covered the fact they actually said in open court that the DNC had no legal obligation to be fair.
Latvia now is a typical neoliberal debt slave and flourishing sex trafficking market. Not
that different from other Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldavia and generally all xUSSR space.
Bill mentions the brain drain from Latvia, but I seem to recall a quite massive general
emigration from the country during austerity, which also helped to "reduce unemployment" as
well. The neoliberal "methodology" for "showing economic success" is moral and economic
bankruptcy masquerading as "science". And wow. So we have Latvia to thank for the coming
nuclear holocaust as well. A true neoliberal market miracle.
Lambert's two principles of neoliberalism are once again brought to mind:
All those 'excess' workers who left were helping keep wages low in the EU
In the sense that Latvia's future productivity is sacrificed for short-term benefits on the
books, it starts to look like another asset-stripping scheme, and the costs are borne by
workers in the EU.
Latvia already has one of the highest levels of poverty and income inequality in the EU
and its population has dropped by about a fifth in the past 18 years which is a bit of a
record considering that there was no war, that is, unless you count the neoliberal war on
people. Some moved to the capital Riga but most bailed out of the country altogether and are
not coming back. You can find whole blocks of empty buildings in some towns.
But don't worry. The Latvians are on the case. The head of the Latvian Central Bank detained
for extortion and the Latvian Ministry of Defense both blame, you guessed it, Russia!
Lambert's two principles of neoliberalism may have to be updated. He already has
#1 Because markets.
#2 Go die.
He may have to modify the second one to say
#2 Go die or get the hell outta Dodge.
Now I may be prejudiced because the Gs came from deepest darkest Lithuania–and we're
talking out in the endless woods in a village along a lake.
When people talk about population decline in Latvia, you are talking about part of the
corruption. The native Latvians wanted a way of getting rid of the Russian population, many
of whom are considered immigrants. So dropping 20 percent of the population means throwing
out the Russians. When your "population policy " is based on something like that, you can
image what the country's economic policies are like.
In contrast–although Lithuania, too, has lost some 10 – 15 percent of its
population since restored independence–the Lithuanians came to terms, imperfect terms,
with their smaller Polish and Russian minorities. Nevertheless, the Lithuanians didn't go
whole-hog free-market fundamentalism. And when a recent president was found to be corrupt,
they impeached him and threw him out.
So you have different models for how to survive as a Baltic State. Latvia has made a mess
of its "model."
"Now of course that's still in a land where they had really severely repressed wages for
the working class and for middle class, and continued to tolerate a fair degree of
unemployment and underemployment for folks, as well. So, yeah it works really well for the
oligarchs. And they do employ people. The unemployment rate drops, but the country
invariably becomes extremely corrupt."
Was he still talking about Latvia or did he switch over to the USA?
Half a decade ago when Latvia was considered a success story for neoliberal austerity, one
animator made this great satire video making fun of how farcical it was to consider it
such.
Latvia also being part of that running sore which involves according to the US state
department's last global estimate, about 800,000 to a million victims per annum of people
trafficking. Of which around 80% are female, with a not stated amount being children, used
for both labour & sexual purposes.
I suppose that it comes as little surprise that the 2 main flows of these commodities is
from East to West & South to North.
An interesting discussion with two polar views on the situation. There is no good guys in the
story anyway. Nether the USA, or Russia, or Ukrainian nationalists, or separatists qualify. Truth
probably lies somewhere in between. The debate itself reminds the current political debate in the
USA between neoliberals/globalists and "economic nationalists"/isolationalists : the two sides do
not hear other and their positions are irreconcilable. Each has its own set of grievances. Its
own version of history. And its own vision of the desirable future.
Independence by itself meant huge stimulus to Western Ukrainian nationalists (who
historically lived a long time under Hapsburg empire). So their political ascendance were given
and Maydan was just the culmination point of a long process (actually encouraged by EU members
such as Germany, Poland , Baltic republics and Sweden)
The USA clearly tried to secure it geopolitical interests via forcefully turning Ukraine to
the West. Despite the fact that it was not completely ready for such a move yet; although were
slowly moving in this direction since independence. Germany (and EU in general) played the same
fatal role of "accelerator" as well. They wanted new markets for their goods and also have
geopolitical interests in weakening Russia (which did happened; Ukraine was the biggest strategic
defeat of Putin). The Nazi Lebensraum was, after all, about Ukraine.
But the process of "separation" from Russia was pretty much under way since independence and
proceeded at a brisk pace under Yanukovich too, who actually supported Ukrainian nationalists
during his term (especially Svoboda, hoping to create something like the USA two party systems:
nationalists vs Party of Regions). And it was Yanukovich government which prepared and intended
to sign the association agreement with the EU. Then Yanukovich hesitated to sign it and at this
point was doomed as pro-Western forces has already their own dynamics and financial support from
abroad. With the financial. organizational and political support support of the USA and EU were
able to depose him. Large (for Ukraine political scene) amount of money was injected, protesters
bused from Western Ukraine, and eventually yet another color revolution (the first was so called
Orange revolution which brought to power Yushchenko government) took care of Yanukovich regime.
The problem is that this "alternative" political course and a new vision of Ukrainian future
proved to be a minefield. Also the association agreement with EU was very unfair to Ukrainian
economic interests and essentially downgraded the status of Ukraine to the status of neo-colony
openly promoting deindustrialization like in Baltic Republics.
Some unrealistic dreams about benefits of Ukraine association with EU were pretty widespread
and become a political factor in the success of the Maydan. nobody understood that by trying to
balance between Russia and the West Yanukovich postponed the day of reckoning and kept economics
expanding. Everybody hated corrupt Yanukovich although some members of his cabinet were pretty
competent technocrats. Nobody calculated losses from the separation of economic ties with Russia
and having a hostile Russia as a neighbor. Hopes that EU will open its market for Ukrainian
agricultural goods and to Ukrainian gastarbeiters proved to be exaggerated. To say nothing about
the danger (or even mere possibility) of civil war as the result of Maydan. All those dreams
about improving the standard of living via association with EU were buried after the Maydan very
soon. The currency dropped around 300% after 2014 from 8.5 to 27 grivna per dollar. Markets in
Russia are almost completely lost.
Ukrainian nationalists decided that the success of Maydan gave them carte blanche on
neo-colonization of Eastern Ukraine as well as the suppression of Russian language and culture.
They miscalculated. This policy was similar to "Polinization of Western Ukraine" by Poles and it
faced growing resistance. Lugansk and Donetsk republic are direct results of this resistance (not
without Russia help). In other words this policy backfired, and now those regions represent a
Gordian knot for both the USA, EU, Russia and Ukraine. For Poroshenko government to agree on
federalization (which Minsk accords presuppose) means to lose face politically (Why to organize
Maydan in such cases, if the net result is a huge drop of the standard of living, loss of Crimea,
and federalization of Ukraine?), and they prefer military solution to the problem. The USA under
Trump administration are only happy to sell weapons to them (as well as coal to replace lost coal
from Donetsk region). And nuclear fuel to electrical stations inread of Russia. Meanwhile
economics is not improving and that also represents a political threat to Poroshenko, making push
for the military solution more probable.
Notable quotes:
"... Any agreement, however -- at least as far as the U.S. State Department is concerned -- would require that Russia must make the first move to ease tensions. ..."
"... Secretary Tillerson has made it abundantly clear that Russia must take the first steps to de-escalate violence and resolve this conflict by fully implementing the Minsk Accords." ..."
"... Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for ..."
"... . You can follow him on Twitter: ..."
"... This country is screwed, alas. Peacekeepers will not change much, but they could help stop shellings and thus help regular people who suffer the most. ..."
"... Strelkov came into Donbass on April 12, 2014 and the acting president Turchinov announced ATO (Anti terrorist operation) on April 7. The people of Donbass protested peacefully for months and no one wanted to talk with them. They sent tanks and jets instead. ..."
"... "And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals." ..."
"... Indeed, that is why there is a civil war in Ukraine. "Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201... ..."
Any agreement, however -- at least as far as the U.S. State Department is concerned --
would require that Russia must make the first move to ease tensions. However, it is
unclear is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or anyone in his department truly speaks for the
Trump Administration.
"It's important to be clear about U.S. policy towards the conflict: Crimea is Ukraine. The
Donbas is Ukraine. We will never accept trading one region of Ukraine for another. We will
never make a deal about Ukraine without Ukraine," John J. Sullivan, deputy secretary of state,
said during a speech in at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Diplomatic Academy in Kiev on
Feb.
21 . "To advance these fundamental goals, Secretary Tillerson appointed Ambassador Kurt
Volker as Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations in July of last year. And his mandate
is to break the deadlock with Russia over Ukraine. Secretary Tillerson has made it
abundantly clear that Russia must take the first steps to de-escalate violence and resolve this
conflict by fully implementing the Minsk Accords."
Time will tell if any progress will be made in solving the Donbas situation.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest . You can follow
him on Twitter:@davemajumdar.
If that's the case, then America needs to pull it's own illegal occupation forces out of
eastern Syria ASAP too! Eastern Syria is Syria. Eastern Syria is NOT part of Kurdistan! What
a bunch of hypocrites.
"One potential approach -- which as been proposed by U.S. special representative to
Ukraine Kurt Volker -- is where peacekeepers would be deployed in phases while Ukraine
implements some of the measures it agreed to under the Minsk agreements."
It stipulates that Ukraine should complete a number of things, and by the end of it
Donbass will be returned to Ukraine. If you add phased peacekeepers to this it could work,
the peacekeepers would start between Donbass and Ukraine, and then move into Donbass and get
more control the more of the Minsk 2 agreement Ukraine completed.
The peacekeepers could not be NATO or Russian troops for each side to agree obviously
Europe and the US have nothing of value to offer to Ukraine because there's little to
exchange it for. There is no economy and too few natural resources to fight for. Thus,
Ukraine will remain a suitcase without a handle despite wet dreams of its ultra-nationalists
(should be represented in the troll section of this thread).
It will remain useless as an economical ally to Russia in the upcoming years because
Ukraine is divided within itself.
The only thing it will be good for, is to serve as an example for everybody on how foolish
it is to overthrow democratically elected governments for the sake of fairy tales.
The conflict there will be frozen for decades, as it was frozen in Moldova and Georgia.
Without Russian and European investments, there will be no economical development in
Ukraine.
This country is screwed, alas. Peacekeepers will not change much, but they could help
stop shellings and thus help regular people who suffer the most.
Vadim, if Ukraine is not important, why do you spend so much of your precious time writing
about it? Why does Russia keep financing the war in Donbass if its so uninteresting to invest
in Ukraine? Why did Russia steal Ukrainian gas in the Azov Sea? Or why does it steal
ukrainian coal in Donbass? Where did the machinery from the Donbass factories go, Vadim?
-The coal belongs to the people of Donbass, not Ukraine, and Ukraine itself banned buying
gas from these territories in hope that it will cause more misery to the civilians living
there, just like Ukraine stole their pensions and their social welfare in hope for causing
maximal suffering.
The Donbass is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Second Ukraine is not
obliged to pay for the Russian occupation of its territory. The occupation force is
responsible for everything that happens inside that territory, even the payment or not of
pensions.
That is a pure lie, the conflict between Donbass and Ukraine is a civil war. Russia is not
occupying those territories. And Donbass will return to Ukraine if they can follow thru on
the Minsk 2 agreement like they agreed to, but never will of course, because the
hyper-corrupt Ukrainian government need the legitimacy and distraction that war brings both
domestically to avoid coup and internationally as an excuse.
Strelkov, referring to the war he helped start in Donbas: "In the beginning, nobody there
wanted to fight."
Pro-Russian agitators like Pavel Gubarev tried to illegally take over government buildings
in E Ukraine, and also tried to organize protests, but they had little support from the local
population. The local population was cynical about Kiev, but they certainly weren't
interested in starting a civil war. That is why Strelkov and other Russians had to start the
war.
"but they certainly weren't interested in starting a civil war. That is why Strelkov
and other Russians had to start the war."
-Nobody wanted a war of course, that is one reason why the Kiev government became so
dependent on volunteer n4zists, they were the only one that was eager and willing to kill
their brothers at the whims of the unconstitutional coup regime. The average Ukrainian
soldiers didn't want to fight and a lot of the Donbass fighters came from defected Ukrainian
soldiers.
Again, all I have to do is point to Strelkov: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to
fight."
"I dream of a Russia in its natural borders," he says. "At least those of 1939." He claims
to have been the one who convinced Putin to intervene militarily in Ukraine, at a time, he
says, when the Kremlin was still debating the proper approach to the country."
"I was the one who pulled the trigger for war," Strelkov boasts."
Doesn't matter at all what some commanders "boasts" , the war was started when the
unconstitutional and unelected government of Ukraine sent its army to crush the rebels.
Strelkov came into Donbass on April 12, 2014 and the acting president Turchinov
announced ATO (Anti terrorist operation) on April 7.
The people of Donbass protested peacefully for months and no one wanted to talk with them.
They sent tanks and jets instead.
"and also tried to organize protests, but they had little support from the local
population. "
Strelkov took Slavyansk on April 12 - that's not when he arrived. As for the ATO, yes, it
was announced on April 7, after armed separatists stormed regional government buildings in
Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov, raised Russian flags, and said they would hold an independence
referendum. What would Russia do if Karelia was taken over by pro-Finnish separatists? And
keep in mind, when the ATO was announced, Turchynov promised amnesty for separatists who laid
down arms.
No, the "people" of Donbass did not protest peacefully (Gubarev and others were not
representative of the people of Donbass). Gubarev and others repeatedly tried to seize
buildings and declare self-rule/independence. But polls during that time clearly showed that
people did not want independence, even if they were unhappy about Yanukovych being ousted
from the presidency. Public opinion did not really shift towards independence until after the
fire of Odessa and Mariupol, when Donbass regions were under separatist control and
influenced by Russian propaganda.
"Strelkov, referring to the war he helped start in Donbas: "In the beginning, nobody there
wanted to fight.""
-The civil war was started when the unelected and unconstitutional coup government sent
the army to kill the rebels in Donbass for just wanting their language rights protected.
"Pro-Russian agitators like Pavel Gubarev tried to illegally take over government
buildings in E Ukraine,"
-Pavel is a Ukrainian, and it is pretty far fetched to call it illegal to resist to an
illegal unconstitutional coup government.
I have not seen any proof that there was a coordinated coup to remove Yanukovych. On Feb
21st, Western powers got what they wanted when Yanukovych agreed to form a coalition
government with Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok (OK, maybe Tyahnbok wasn't they're first
choice) and have early elections. Yanukovych fled because the security forces abandoned him.
They most likely abandoned him because the Feb 21st agreement called for investigation into
violence on the Maidan, and they thought they would be blamed for everything.
I never said Gubarev wasn't Ukrainian. But he was clearly a pro-Russian agitator. And yes,
his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the
locals.
He was in Kharkiv, but not on an official visit. He was fleeing. And sorry, but protests
attended by a few thousand people do not mean that Gubarev had widespread support.
"And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular
with the locals."
-Hardly illegal, quite the opposite, more like it was a duty to resist an unconstitutional
coup government. And while I have not found a opinion poll on rebel controlled areas, the
closes I found suggest that the rebels has a very high support among the Donbass
population.
"An opinion poll that was taken on the day of the referendum and the day before by a
correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Washington Post, and five other
media outlets found that of those people who intended to vote, 94.8% would vote for
independence. The poll did not claim to have scientific precision, but was carried out to get
a basis from which to judge the outcome of the referendum, given that independent observers
were not present to monitor it. Even with those who said they would not vote counted in, a
65.6% majority supported separation from Ukraine"
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/...
You should probably try reading the actual article, instead of quoting Wikipedia. The
journalists polled 186 people, and of those 110 supported independence. That's a tiny and
insignificant sample size. People voting for independence had been going through a war
started by pro-Russian separatists, they were under the martial law of pro-Russian
separatists, and their only news was Russian propaganda telling them that Kiev was all Nazis
who wanted to exterminate Russia. Also, as you no doubt saw while reading Wikipedia, polls
taken before Strelkov and the others started the war showed that the locals were not
supportive of independence.
" them that Kiev was all Nazis who wanted to exterminate Russia"
-Pretty close to the truth actually, Kiev certainly did and are doing everything they can
do exterminate the local civilians in Donbas, but stealing their pensions, cutting of social
pay, hindering and stoping food, medicine and water.
Actually I mentioned that in my comment, there are no opinion polls but the closes we get
is the opinion polls from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Washington Post, which shows a
massive support for the rebels. Which is no surprise as we are talking about an illegal
unconstitutional pro-nazi government seizing power.
"tthe locals were not supportive of independence.
-The support for rebels are as all sources show quite high, of course nobody wanted the
war, but that was forced on them by the unelected coup government. If Ukraine had just
language right of the Donbass people there would have been no war.
No, Kiev was not filled with Nazis. Russia engaged in fearmongering to get Crimeans to
vote for independence. And what happened? The Ukrainian Army in Crimea resisted all
provocations to start a war. Kiev thought that the international community would come to its
aid. Remember the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2014? Svoboda and Right Sector
barely had any public support at all. The lie that Kiev was filled with Nazis was just that -
a lie.
Again, your Frankfurter Allgemeine poll was less than 200 people who happened to be
willing to talk to Western journalists. Only 110 of them said they wanted independence, and
this was after living under martial law and Russian propaganda for months. There were plenty
of actual scientific polls conducted in April before the "referendum" which showed that there
was no support for secession - at most, people wanted decentralisation.
Well, depends on what you mean with proof I suppose, is an American marxist oligarchs
admitting they spent millions to training demonstrators to subvert Ukrainian democracy
proof?
Is the fact that 100% of NATO controlled media support the Ukrainian opposition proof?
Is that fact that USA leaders went down to Ukraine and gave out cookies to the undemocratic
opposition and held speeches encouraging them to overthrow their government proof?
Is leaked phone calls from USA telling Ukraine which leaders should be installed(which later
were installed) proof?
Is Obama openly admitting they handled the "transition of power" in Ukraine proof?
Is the fact that the fascist and ultra-nationalist groups used used to overthrow the
democratic government of Ukraine(OUN) known CIA assets proof? I mean, basically, it was the
most blatant coup in world history. But if you literally want the USA government to totally
in details describe and admit to every detail you will just have to wait a few years or
decades until it is released in a FOI report like the fact that USA created ISIS.
- I'm assuming you mean the $5 billion the US invested over 20+ years? Russia invested $40
billion in the same time frame - 8x as much as the US (see Sergey Glazyev's March 24, 2014
interview with National Review). Financial investments in democratic institutions are not
proof of a coup, but nice try.
- NATO controlled media? There's no such thing.
- Why is it such a big deal with Nuland giving out cookies?
- John McCain didn't encourage them to "overthrow their government". When did he say that?
He said "We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine
its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe."
- Did you know that government officials from European countries and the EU also
encouraged the protesters?
- Nuland and the US were clearly operating to keep the opposition united, and yes, they
pushed their interests by encouraging Yatsenyuk to take the lead. But Yatsenyuk, Klitschko,
and Tyahnybok were already established as opposition politicians in general, and had been
accepted by the Maidan protesters before the US arrived on the scene. And besides, the Feb
21st agreement was what the US wanted - it would have placed those three figures in a
coalition government with Yanukovych, followed by early elections. All of that considered,
the fact that they emerged as leaders after Yanukovych left is really not surprising.
- Obama admitted what everyone knew - the US had entered into the crisis on the side of
the EU to push Yanukovych to listen to the protesters. Russia, of course, was pushing
Yanukovych to crack down. I remember when RT and Sputnik tried to twist it to mean Obama was
claiming the US was behind a coup - it was the most blatant spin/propaganda I've ever seen.
Go back and watch Obama's interview with Fareed Zakaria.
- You'll have to provide at least an ounce of proof that ultranationalist, far-right, or
neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine are "CIA assets". Otherwise you're just another baseless
conspiracy theorist.
- Yes, the US and USSR (Russia) have engaged in regime changes in the past. There's zero
proof though, that there was a coup in Ukraine.
lol, yes, that is what is called a coup. Not only a coup but the most blatant coup in
history I would say, I can only imagine if Russia funded trained and funded demonstrators
Mexico, Russian leaders went to Mexico handing out cookies and giving support to the
demonstrators, and ordering the opposition which leaders should be installed after the coup
and so forth,and then afterwards openly admitting it did it.Hilarious. But I guess you are
paid troll, and even when FYI releases information where USA planned the entire thing in
detail, like it has with its creation of ISIS and al-qaeda you will deny it still.
Here is the head of Stratfor by the way, the "Shadow CIA" saying the exact same thing,
xD
"Head of Stratfor, 'Private CIA,' Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was 'The Most Blatant Coup
in History'"
http://www.washingtonsblog....
Watch the video of Obama's interview (
https://www.youtube.com/wat... - he clearly states "Yanukovych then fleeing after we had
brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." In other words, he openly admits to helping
form the February 21st "Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine". Obviously
he's not talking about the Rada removing Yanukovych from office.
Nuland's conversation backs this up. It shows the Obama administration was helping
Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok stay united. Yanukovych was individually offering them
posts in his government. The US was pushing them to resist those offers. This culminated in
the February 21st agreement, where the US and EU got additional concessions from Yanukovych -
a coalition government with those three leaders, early elections, and investigations of the
violence on Maidan.
As for the head of Stratfor, George Friedman went on to write an article in which he said
that his quote was completely taken out of context (
http://www.businessinsider.... .
You think handing out cookies means people are funding coups. I'll have to remember that
when giving cookies to my children.
Russia does not steal anything, the Crimean people voted to join Russia and that is their
democratic right.
"With two studies out of the way, both Western-based, it seems without question that the
vast majority of Crimeans do not feel they were duped into voting for annexation, and that
life with Russia will be better for them and their families than life with Ukraine. A year
ago this week, 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support
for reunification with their former Soviet parent."
https://www.forbes.com/site...
Crimea was a coup, initiated on February 27, 2014 when armed/masked militants (Spetsnaz?)
stormed the Crimean parliamentary building, raised the Russian flag over the building, and
barricaded themselves inside. During this occupation, an emergency parliamentary session was
called. It is unknown how many MPs participated - a number have said they were not there,
even though they were claimed to have been there. But in that emergency session, the Crimean
PM (Anatolii Mohyliov) was illegally removed and replaced with an unpopular pro-Russian MP
(Sergey Aksyonov). Aksyonov immediately called for the independence referendum. Just to
emphasize, all of this happened while the parliamentary building was under armed occupation
from unknown pro-Russian forces (most likely Spetsnaz), and against the will of the current
Crimean and Ukrainian governments. Interestingly, just the day before (February 26), the
Crimean government had told pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian protesters outside the building
that there would be no effort to seek independence from Ukraine.
Derp, there is quite literally a source right above you debunking your lies and linking to
several USA and Germany opinion polls verifying that the result of the referendum was
reflective of the democratic will of the Crimean people.
I didn't dispute the poll. What I said is that before the referendum Russia instigated a
coup, suppressed protests, and created a sense of fear in Crimea that drove people to think
Kiev was filled with Nazis. Of course they voted to join Russia after that.
Isn't that what happened throughout Ukraine when "protestors" (more accurately thugs) took
over the Regional Administration buildings and occupied them? Well, before the coup in Kiev,
numerous government buildings in other regions were occupied.
You said that it was a big propaganda exercise to portray being pro-Ukraine as being
pro-Nazi. Then why was the Euromaidan far right? Why were the most prominent activists and
leaders of the "revolution" associated with Svodoba and Right Sector? Why were there thugs
destroying monuments to Lenin? Why were many activists extolling Stepan Bandera and Roman
Shukhevych?
The people on the Maidan behaved like far-right lunatics and brigands. No wonder why there
it isn't difficult to conceive of them as Nazis.
If I were a woman in Crimea, I would be grateful that I am not living under the jackboot
of the Maidan thugs.
"... Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies. ..."
"... China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world. ..."
Russia has reduced and challenged the US pursuit of a uni-polar global empire following the
recovery of its sovereignty and economic growth after the disaster of the 1990's. With the
ascent of President Putin, the US-EU empire lost their biggest and most lucrative client and
source of naked pillage.
Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and
Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to
confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the
probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon.
Washington's efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed. Out of
frustration Washington has resorted to a growing series of failed provocations and conflicts
between the US and the EU, within the US between Trump and the Democrats; and among the
warlords controlling the Trump cabinet.
Germany has continued lucrative trade ties with Russia, despite US sanctions, underscoring
the decline of US power to dictate policy to the European Union. The Democratic Party and the
ultra-militaristic Clinton faction remains pathologically nostalgic for a return to the 1990's
Golden Age of Pillage (before Putin). Clinton's faction is fixated on the politics of
revanchism . As a result, they vigorously fought against candidate Donald Trump's campaign
promises to pursue a new realistic understanding with Russia. The Russia-Gate Investigation is
not merely a domestic electoral squabble led by hysterical 'liberals.' What is a stake is
nothing less than a profound conflict over the remaking of the US global map. Trump recognized
and accepted the re-emergence of Russia as a global power to be 'contained', while the
Democrats campaigned to roll-back reality, overthrow Putin and return to the robber baron
orgies of the Clinton years. As a result of this ongoing strategic conflict, Washington is
unable to develop a coherent global strategy, which in turn has further weakened US influence
in the EU in Europe and elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the intense Democratic onslaught against Trump's initial foreign policy
pronouncements regarding Russia succeeded in destroying his 'pivot to realism' and facilitated
the rise of a fanatical militaristic faction within his cabinet, which have intensified the
anti-Russia policies of the Clintonite Democrats. In less than a year, all of Trump's realist
advisers and cabinet members have been purged and replaced by militarists. Their hard core
confrontational anti-Russia policy has become the platform for launching a global military
strategy based on vast increases in military spending, demands that the EU nations increase
their military budgets, and open opposition to an EU-centered military alliance, such as the
one recently proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered
Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism
to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response
from past and present allies.
China
has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade
ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens
social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression
against a dynamic and changing world.
"... He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon. ..."
"... Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump. ..."
"... The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported. ..."
"... The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are usually secondary to his machinations ..."
"... Great development and exposure of this hillary-look-alike. Love the phrase 'pretend progressive,' as it describes Schumer to a T. Great piece. ..."
"... Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong. Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States. ..."
"... Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency. ..."
"... Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes me wonder what he knows? ..."
"... Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers ..."
"... Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerer of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah! ..."
"... Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor ..."
"... Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪ ..."
Thomas Hedges: In the 2007 book he published, Positively American, in the midst of his campaign against the war, Schumer
admitted that his opposition that year and the year before, was as much about ending a failed policy as it was about getting votes.
In reality Schumer had been one of the war's most ardent supporters, beyond his public display against the war carefully timed for
the 2006 Congressional elections, Schumer in fact pitted much of the blame on Iraqis themselves, arguing that Sunis, Shiites and
Kurds seemed more interested in starting a civil war in Iraq than in receiving help from the Americans and constructing any democratic
central government.
He even said, that in a similar future situation, he might vote again to authorize the use of force against a country like Iraq.
"Today," he wrote in his book, "I still believe that when our country is under attack the chief executive deserves a degree of latitude,
if God forbid, we were attacked again, I could well vote to give it to a future President, Democrat or Republican." And when a Real
News correspondent pressed Schumer in 2007 on US reparations to the Iraqi people, this is what he had to say.
Sam Husseini: Do we owe something to the Iraqi people other than just getting out? Do we owe them reparations for having
brought about this war?
Chuck Schumer: I don't believe that.
Ben Norton: It's hard to find a Democrat that's more gung-ho about war than Chuck Schumer. Not only did he support the
Iraq war, and fearmonger about weapons of mass destruction, he tepidly criticized the Bush administration for how it carried out
the war.
Thomas Hedges: In fact, tepid criticism seems to be Schumer at his most radical. In general, he is someone who supports
hard-line policy decisions, atoning for mistakes only years down the line, and usually because it's politically expedient to do so,
as in an election is about to take place.
Chuck Schumer: If you don't give up and you keep fighting and you're right, you win!
Thomas Hedges: In his early days, Schumer wasn't as focused on foreign policy, in the years before 911 would shift America's
attention to the Middle East, Congressman Schumer, along with the new Democrats like Bill Clinton among others, would exploit the
crime scare of the 1990's in order to gain more votes and more power. During those years, Schumer supported the Omnibus Crime Bill
of 1994, which spiked the prison population. And in 1995 he sponsored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, which became the foundation
from which the Patriot Act six years later, was built.
Ben Norton: When it comes to the war on terror he was a very enthusiastic supporter and remains so. He voted for the Patriot
Act, and again this is a supposed Democratic leader, who voted for the Bush administration to take away Americans civil liberties.
Thomas Hedges: In the years straddling 911, he supported many of the same policies Republicans supported. From his tough
on crime approach to supporting war in the Middle East, to defending the surveillance of Muslim groups in New York after 911. Schumer
and the GOP had very few differences, in fact despite shedding tears at a press conference earlier this year after the Muslim ban
that Trump implemented, Schumer himself had proposed something eerily similar.
Ben Norton: In November of 2015, not that long ago, less than two years ago, Schumer also said that the US government should
consider a so called pause on the re-settlement of Syrian refugees. He also, in one of the most egregious yet under reported aspects
of Schumer, previously said that torture should be considered in some places, and he said that, "Oh well if you oppose torture, you
say this now, but you need to put yourself in the shoes of people in these particular situations etc." So he really left torture
on the table.
Before Trump was President, he had actually donated money to Schumer, that of course, represents something, this is not a progressive
Democrat. Schumer actually represents the segment, the influential powerful segment of the Democratic Party, that has helped pave
the way for Donald Trump to carry out many of the policies he's already implementing.
Thomas Hedges: But for voters who have paid attention to Schumer for a long time, the Senator's policy choices are anything
but surprising.
Kevin Zeese:He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which
is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon.
Ariel Gold: He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and was very supportive
of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration,
when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously
upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law.
Ben Norton:Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other
country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that
was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes
it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump.
Thomas Hedges:The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to
launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported.
Chuck Schumer: On Syria, I salute the professionalism and skill of our armed forces, who took action last night. The
people of Syria have suffered untold horrors and violence at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his supporters in Tehran and in
Putin's Russia, making sure that Assad knows when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price, is the right thing
to do.
Thomas Hedges: But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his decision to oppose the Iran nuclear
deal, without which experts have warned, would put the United States and Iran on a collision course.
Ben Norton: Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and
he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about
the nuclear agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons etc.
Thomas Hedges: Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was consulting the most credentialed men
in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled
its democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war.
Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with excellence.
Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat again with Trump winning the election
we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see
come out of the Trump administration.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening for other undecided Democrats
to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.
News Anchor: Schumer's support here really would have been key for the White House, but coming out overnight against
this deal saying in a statement quote, "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable
option, not to challenge the path of dis-plomacy it is because, I believe Iran will not change."
Thomas Hedges: It also put him in yet the same camp as current President Donald Trump in terms of pursuing a Middle East
policy that is in line with Washington's most hawkish advocates. In the end, Schumer's a friend of the neo conservative foreign policy
agenda. While he may cry over Trump's Muslim ban and purport to have the same inclinations as America's most progressive members
of the Senate, he's fundamentally in agreement with the United States forceful efforts abroad.
Kevin Zeese:The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and
so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent.
Thomas Hedges: As the United States nears yet another arms deal with Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, this time for
a hundred billion dollars, and coupled with its four billion dollar annual aid to Israel, we can expect Schumer not only to support
an even more militarized Middle East, but to continue to rail against countries like Iran that pose a threat to US and Israel's hegemony
in the region.
Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are
usually secondary to his machinations
Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong.
Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States.
"I only take up causes in which I know I'll find no allies. And often I wait for a cause to become successful before
attacking it."
Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on
Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency.
Anything in the way of progressiveness that you suggest will be only, like Obama's eloquent blackness, to run cover for favors
for the war party. Which at this late date ought also be christened the "hastening to collective extinction" party.
Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and
his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes
me wonder what he knows?
Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better
for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers
♪ Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪
The Department of Homeland Security's first problem is its name. Mainstream American political
thought long celebrated the United States as a multicultural nation, one that forged a common civic
identity among people from disparate cultures. Except for the Native Americans, this country is no
one's "homeland," a word that evokes the blood-and-soil ethno-nationalism of the Old World.
"The word 'homeland' is a strange
word," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
mused
to his staff in one of his
infamous "snowflake" memos
in February 2001. "'Homeland' Defense sounds more German than
American. Also, it smacks of isolationism, which I am uncomfortable with."
But after the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration rallied around the phrase
to describe its anti-terrorism efforts, reportedly pulling it from a 1998 defense report that
called for an "
increased
emphasis on homeland defense
." The White House established an umbrella Office of Homeland
Security under former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, then proposed the creation of a massive,
Cabinet-level department by the same name to oversee the nation's domestic security.
It's now been more than 15 years since the U.S. government reorganized itself in response to a
terrorist attack committed by 19 people. International terrorism's threat to the United States has
largely receded: Al-Qaeda is a remnant of its former self, and the Islamic State has been largely
defeated in Iraq and Syria. At the same time, the bloated Department of Homeland Security turned
into a boondoggle -- an opinion shared across the political spectrum for years.
As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approached, in a
paper
for the libertarian Cato Institute, David Rittgers argued that the department's unusually
broad mandate is a recipe for waste and inefficiency. "This arrangement has not enhanced the
government's competence," he wrote. "Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is
simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu
epidemics." Matt Mayer, a Homeland Security official under President George W. Bush, argued in 2015
that DHS has too much responsibility. "It goes without saying that I observed up-close the
dysfunction, turf battles, and inherent limitations in an entity that does so much," he
wrote
in
Reason
magazine. "These problems are exacerbated due to the fact that, in many
cases, the activities DHS engages in require enormous coordination with entities embedded in other
federal departments."
Rittgers and Mayer both called for eliminating DHS and distributing its
responsibilities among various independent agencies. Vox's
Dara
Lind
and the Freedom of the Press Foundation's
Trevor Timm
argued likewise in 2015, largely on account of DHS' struggles with accountability
and waste. But the last year has seen the emergence of a deeper problem than mismanagement. Under
Trump, some of the department's agencies have turned openly abusive towards vulnerable members of
American society. The case for abolishing DHS has never been more urgent.
Washington began to rethink its national-security apparatus after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and in 1998 the Department of Defense established the Hart-Rudman Commission to study how
America should defend itself in the twenty-first century. The commission's
final report
proposed the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency, recommending the
Federal Emergency Management Agency as the NHSA's core, combined with the Customs Service from the
Treasury Department, the Border Patrol from the Justice Department, and the Coast Guard from the
Transportation Department.
"Bringing these organizations together under one agency will create important synergies," the
report said. "Their individual capabilities will be molded into a stronger and more effective
system, and this realignment will help ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to tasks
crucial to both public safety and U.S. trade and economic interests."
Creating such a department wasn't a priority for the Bush administration, even initially after
9/11. A
Washington Post
report on DHS's early days
noted
that its most determined early proponent was Joe Lieberman, then a Democratic senator
from Connecticut, who faced resistance from administration officials like Vice President Dick
Cheney. But in June 2002, the Bush administration endorsed the calls for a cabinet-level department
to handle homeland security, an
announcement
that came as Bush officials were facing tough questions on Capitol Hill about what
clues they had missed about the imminent attacks.
Altogether, the department's creation amounted to the most sweeping reorganization in the federal
government's history. As the Hart-Rudman Commission had proposed, DHS incorporated FEMA and the
Coast Guard. The department also absorbed the entire Immigration and Naturalization Service,
merging the Border Patrol and the Customs Service to create Customs and Border Protection and
moving the INS' domestic enforcement functions into Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Coast
Guard and Secret Service were brought under DHS, too. All told, the department combined 22 agencies
from across the government.
The result was a sprawling new federal bureaucracy. In its current form, DHS employs almost a
quarter-million people and doles out tens of billions of dollars in grants and programs each year.
Its missions include taking the lead on counter-terrorism programs, helping Americans recover from
natural disasters, protecting and regulating the U.S. border, and defending the nation from
cyberattacks. In all these efforts, DHS has been either incompetent, wasteful, redundant, or
abusive -- and Congress knows it.
In January 2015, on his final day in office, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
released a report
summarizing what he'd seen during his tenure on the Senate Homeland Security
Committee. "Despite spending nearly $61 billion annually and $544 billion since 2003, the
Department of Homeland Security is not successfully executing any of its five main missions," the
report found. DHS is focused on counterterrorism, Coburn wrote, "but a review of DHS's programs
shows that DHS's main domestic counterterrorism programs -- including its intelligence initiatives and
homeland security grants -- are yielding little value for the nation's counterterrorism efforts."
But lawmakers are hesitant to cut funding for a department designed to fight terrorism, and
reports of wasteful spending abound. Critics often point to so-called fusion centers -- regional hubs
for information sharing -- as the quintessential DHS boondoggle. In theory, these centers should
enable the sort of inter-agency cooperation that may have prevented the 9/11 attacks. But the
reality has fallen far short. A damning 2012 Senate Homeland Security Committee report
found
that the 77 fusion centers scattered across the United States "often produced irrelevant,
useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting
whatsoever."
Fusion centers aren't the only program to draw scrutiny. By 2008, the Government Accountability
Office
reported
that DHS had overseen almost $15 billion in failed contracts. In 2011, for example,
the department
canceled
a radiation-detection project that cost $230 million over five years after watchdogs
raised questions about its efficacy. A 2013 GAO
analysis
on
a $900 million program to staff Transportation Security Administration checkpoints with
behavioral-detection officers "found that the ability of human observers to accurately identify
deceptive behavior ... is the same as or slightly better than chance." The list of such failures is
long
.
DHS also has a poor track record on disaster relief. The department failed its first major test
when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005. FEMA Director Michael Brown resigned amid
widespread public criticism for the federal government's slow response to the crisis. An inspector
general's
report
issued the following year concluded that "much of the criticism is warranted" and found
shortcomings in communications, management, response plans, and implementation during the disaster.
FEMA handled subsequent hurricanes with less controversy, but in 2017 the department again drew
criticism for its slow reaction after two hurricanes devastated Puerto Rico. At one point, FEMA
tapped
an inexperienced Atlanta entrepreneur to provide 30 million meals for the island; she
only delivered 50,000 before the agency ended her contract.
The department also has a responsibility to protect the nation from cyber-attacks, but took a
sluggish approach to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Many states
didn't find out
their systems had been targeted until the department notified them almost a
year after the election. After when they did find out, California and Wisconsin officials
accused DHS
of giving them flawed information about the Russian attacks on their systems, an
allegation department officials denied. (In fairness to the department,
institutional paralysis
also characterized much of the Obama administration's response to the
attack on American democracy.)
No agency within Homeland Security has received as much scorn as Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and for good reason. "Every year," according to a recent
New Yorker
report
, "the branch of the agency tasked with making immigration arrests, called Enforcement
and Removal Operations, detains at least a hundred thousand people -- more arrests per year than the
F.B.I., the U.S. Marshals, and the Secret Service make combined." In 2017, under Trump, that figure
surged
by 40 percent. And the arrest of people without criminal records
doubled
after Trump reversed Obama-era guidelines that prioritized undocumented immigrants with
convictions.
In effect, ICE has become the "deportation force" that Trump, as a
candidate, had
threatened
to build. Agents have carried out arrest operations at
courthouses
,
hospitals
, and
schools
where its targets were dropping off their children. With astonishing cruelty, the
agency targets undocumented immigrants with jobs, families, and deep roots in American society. ICE
seized
Syed Jamal, a chemistry professor in Kansas who has lived in the U.S for 30 years and
has no criminal record, on his front lawn while he was getting his kids ready for school. Lukasz
Niec, a Polish-born doctor from Michigan who came to the U.S. when he was 5 years old,
faces deportation
to a country whose language he doesn't speak.
The agency has also become nakedly political. After California
passed
a sanctuary-state law last October, ICE ramped up its enforcement in the state,
apparently in retaliation
for the move. Thomas Homan, ICE's acting director,
called for
local and state officials in sanctuary cities to face criminal prosecution for not
cooperating with his crackdown. "We've got to take these sanctuary cities on," he
said
on Fox News last month. "We've got to take them to court and we've got to start charging
some of these politicians with crimes."
It's not just ICE, either. Customs and Border Protection has taken a disturbing turn since Trump
took office. The DHS inspector general
found
that CBP officers violated multiple federal court orders in their zeal to aggressively
enforce the first version of the president's travel ban targeting seven Muslim-majority countries
last January. And like ICE, CBP has a cruel streak. Last month, a nonprofit group released footage
showing
Border Patrol agents pouring out water jugs and destroying other humanitarian supplies
left for migrants crossing the deadly desert between the U.S. and Mexico.
If these issues were found in only one part of DHS and its subsidiary agencies, there might be
an option for reform. But the problem is both cultural and systemic. The department will always be
the hastily assembled product of a dark, paranoid moment in American history. It also helps give
permanence to that moment, preventing the country from moving beyond the post-9/11 era.
The solution: Reverse the 2003 law and send almost every agency back to where it came from.
Abolish ICE and return its deportation powers to the Justice Department, whose internal culture is
far more professionalized and less susceptible to systemic abuse. Immigration and citizenship
responsibilities can be transferred to the State Department, which is far better equipped for the
task. Transfer Customs and Border Protection to the Treasury, where the Customs Service existed for
decades.
Not everything will necessarily fit somewhere else. After a
wave of scandals
in recent years, the Secret Service might fare better under the president's
direct oversight. Whatever else is left of DHS can be reorganized under a Federal Emergency
Management Agency that's independent once more. Congress could even change FEMA's name to something
more encompassing of its broadened mission -- just as long as it's less Germanic than what came
before.
Ukraine is crucial in this Russian sense of territorial imperative. It's a tragically split
country, with part tilting toward the West and part facing eastward toward Russia. That makes
for a delicate political and geopolitical situation, but for centuries that delicate political
and geopolitical situation has been overseen by Russia. Now the West wants to end that.
Upending a duly elected (though corrupt) Ukrainian president was part of the plan. Getting
Ukraine into NATO is the endgame.
Note that the Ukrainian revolution occurred in 2014, which just happened to be the year,
according to the U.S. indictments, that Russia initiated its grand program to influence
America's 2016 elections. Kennan was right: Russia inevitably would react badly to the NATO
encirclement policy, and then America's anti-Russian cadres would cite that as evidence that
the encirclement was necessary all along. That's precisely what's happening now.
Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder. Given all
that's happened in U.S.-Russian relations this century, there probably wasn't much prospect
that those relations could ever be normalized, much less made cordial. But that is now utterly
impossible.
Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of seeking better relations with Russia. After getting
elected he repeatedly asserted in his first news conference that it would be "positive,"
"good," or "great" if "we could get along with Russia." Unlike most of America's elites, he
vowed to seek Moscow's cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the
two countries' sour relations, and acknowledged "the right of all nations to put their
interests first."
This suggested a possible dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations -- an end to the
encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and
serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine. That was
largely put on hold with the narrative of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and vague
allegations of campaign "collusion" with Russia on behalf of Trump's presidential
ambitions.
It doesn't appear likely that investigators will turn up any evidence of collusion that
rises to any kind of criminality. But it doesn't matter now, in terms of U.S.-Russian
relations, because these indictments will cement the anti-Russian sentiment of Americans for
the foreseeable future. No overtures of the kind envisioned by Trump will be possible for any
president for a long time. It won't matter that every nation does it or that America in
particular has done it or that the West's aggressive encirclement contributed to the Russian
actions. The U.S.-Russian hostility is set. Where it leads is impossible to predict, but it
won't be good. It could be tragic.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
editor of The American Conservative . His latest book,President McKinley: Architect of the American Century, was
released in September.
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Here is an interesting article that points to the new American strategy with respect to Iran and central Asia. Iran is already
being attacked from West and East in the North. And central Asia is next. This might force Iran to pull back some forces from Syria
and Iraq.
THE EARTHQUAKE that shook Haiti's capital Port-au-Prince on January 12 is one of the worst
disasters in human history. The quake flattened houses, hotels, and government buildings,
including the National Palace and UN headquarters. By some estimates, 60 percent of
Port-au-Prince's buildings collapsed. Even more damage struck some of the smaller towns near
the capital like Leogane and Jacmel. At least 230,000 people were left dead, 300,000 in need of
medical attention, 1.5 million homeless, and over 2 million bereft of food and water.
The Obama administration reacted immediately. "I have directed my administration to respond
with a swift, coordinated, and aggressive effort to save lives," Obama told the nation in a
speech he delivered the day after the quake. "The people of Haiti will have the full support of
the United States in the urgent effort to rescue those trapped beneath the rubble, and to
deliver the humanitarian relief -- the food, water, and medicine -- that Haitians will need in
the coming days. In that effort, our government, especially USAID and the Departments of State
and Defense are working closely together and with our partners in Haiti, the region, and around
the world." 1
This seemed a far cry from the reaction of the Bush administration to Hurricane Katrina,
where tens of thousands of the city's poor, mostly Black, residents were left stranded and
without help as Bush sent troops and Blackwater paramilitaries to police the city. The lack of
a prompt humanitarian response prompted rap artist Kanye West to famously state, "George Bush
doesn't care about Black people."
Yet while Obama said all the right things, the gap between his words and deeds has been
immense. When all is said and done, the Haitian relief effort looks eerily like a replay of
Katrina, only on a larger scale. A month into the disaster, the U.S. and UN were managing to
feed only 1 million people, leaving more than a million people without relief aid. 2
Instead of mobilizing to provide water, food, and housing for the victims, the U.S. focused on
occupying the country with 20,000 U.S. troops and surrounding it with a flotilla of U.S. Navy
and Coast Guard ships.
This military effort actually impeded the delivery of urgent aid. In an op-ed piece in the
Wall Street Journal entitled "Haiti: Obama's Katrina," three doctors who volunteered
to provide emergency services wrote, "Four years ago the initial medical response to Hurricane
Katrina was ill equipped, understaffed, poorly coordinated and delayed. Criticism of the paltry
federal efforts was immediate and fierce. Unfortunately, the response to the latest
international disaster in Haiti has been no better, compounding the catastrophe." After they
describe the horrific conditions in Haiti's hospitals, the doctors continue, "The U.S. response
to the earthquake should be considered an embarrassment. Our operation received virtually no
support from any branch of the U.S. government, including the State Department . Later, as we
were leaving Haiti, we were appalled to see warehouse-size quantities of unused medicines, food
and other supplies at the airport, surrounded by hundreds of U.S. and international soldiers
standing around aimlessly." 3
The U.S. government and media have covered up these realities with puff pieces about the
supposed success of U.S. relief efforts. They have also wrongly portrayed this catastrophe as
simply a natural disaster, ignoring the historical and social causes of Haiti's poverty --
principally the imperialist stranglehold over the nation -- that exacerbated the impact of the
earthquake.
If the military flotilla is not there to deliver aid, why is it there? The Obama
administration has used the cover of humanitarian aid to occupy the country in pursuit of
several goals. First and foremost, after disastrous wars that have discredited U.S.
interventionism, Obama hopes through the operation in Haiti to win back domestic support for
military intervention. What better means to do that than to present a military invasion and
occupation as a humanitarian relief effort?
With a flotilla of ships surrounding the country, the U.S. also aims to repatriate desperate
Haitians and prevent a wave of refugees reaching Florida. Through this assertion of power, the
U.S. aims also to reassert its dominance in the Caribbean and Latin America over regional
rivals like Venezuela and international ones like China. Finally, the U.S. intends to impose a
traditional neoliberal economic program on Haiti itself in the interest of U.S. multinational
corporations and the Haitian ruling class.
Not just a natural disaster
Most of the media reported the earthquake as a natural disaster. While this is no doubt true,
that is only part of the story. Certainly, there was talk of Haiti being the poorest country in
the Western Hemisphere, with over 80 percent of its population making about $2 a day. Media
acknowledged that the Haitian state was completely unprepared and unable to respond to the
crisis not only in Port-au-Prince, but throughout the country. However, the reason for these
conditions -- the historical context -- is left out. The story of Haiti's poverty is merely an
excuse to further justify why Haiti needs help from the United States, even though the "help"
Haiti has received from the U.S. and other world powers is precisely the reason for Haiti's
extreme poverty.
Some conservative commentators blamed Haitians for their situation. Pat Robertson on The
700 Club claimed that the disaster was the result of a pact that Haitians made with the
devil during their revolution from 1791 to 1804. The devil was merely taking his revenge on
Haitians more than 200 years later. 4 In a more polite, but no less racist manner,
David Brooks argued that the root cause of the social problems in Haiti was their
"progress-resistant" culture. He claimed,
There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is
capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is
often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and
harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10. We're all supposed to politely respect each other's
cultures. But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy
was just exacerbated by one of them. 5
These are extreme versions of a dominant media story that essentially blames the victims of
the earthquake. None of this answers the real questions. Why are the majority of Haitians so
poor? Why according to the mayor of Port-au-Prince, were 60 percent of the buildings unsafe in
normal conditions? Why is there no building regulation in a city that sits on a fault line? Why
was the Haitian state so weak and disorganized before and after the earthquake? To answer these
questions, we must delve into Haiti's history.
European slavery, revolution, and U.S. domination
The answer lies in Haiti's history of European conquest, slavery, resistance, and U.S. imperial
domination. At every step, instead of aiding the Haitian majority, the U.S. has manipulated the
country's politics and exploited its poverty in pursuit of profit, and used it as a pawn in its
competition with regional and international rivals. In doing so the U.S. has reduced Haiti to
abject poverty and incapacitated its government to manage the society and the current crisis.
This history, a second and unnatural fault line, interacted with the natural one to make the
earthquake so devastating.
Columbus set off the first tremors when he landed on the island he called Hispaniola in
1492. He proceeded to enslave the Taino natives, whose population was estimated to be more than
half a million. The combination of European disease, massacre, and brutal exploitation led to
the genocide of the native population. Spain ceded the western section of the island in 1697 to
France, which renamed it San Domingue. Spain remained in control of the eastern section of the
island, Santo Domingo, which would become the Dominican Republic. French merchants and planters
turned their colony into a vast slave plantation and slaves from Africa replaced Indians and
white indentured servants. The colony was a killing field where slaves were literally worked to
death -- half the African slaves who arrived died within a few years. But it was an enormously
profitable one. San Domingue was the richest colony in the new world; the slave plantations
produced half of the world's coffee, 40 percent of its sugar, as well as a host of other
commodities. 6
In 1791, Toussaint L'Ouverture, a literate freed slave, led the world's first successful
slave revolution. Toussaint defeated the three great empires of the age -- France, Spain, and
England -- which all attempted to defeat the great slave army. During the struggle, the French
managed to kidnap Toussaint and jail him in France, where he died. His second-in-command,
Jean-Jacques Dessalines, led the final victory and established the new nation of Haiti in
1804.
Haiti's very existence was a threat to all the empires and their colonies. They all lived
off profits from plantation slavery. So the great powers quarantined the country, attempting to
prevent the spread of slave revolution. France finally recognized Haiti in 1824, but on the
condition that it pay reparations to France for the loss of its property -- its slaves. In
today's terms this sum amounted to $21 billion. Thus France shackled Haiti with debt at its
birth that it did not finish repaying until 1947, fundamentally distorting the nation's
development. 7
Under the eagle
The U.S. was one of the last powers to recognize Haiti, finally doing so in 1862. It became
interested in Haiti not to help it, but instead to plunder it. In the late nineteenth century
the U.S. became an imperialist power, extending its talons to snatch control of the Caribbean,
Latin America, and the Pacific from potential rivals like Spain, Britain, and Germany. The U.S.
launched its imperial conquest under the guise of liberating Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the
Philippines from Spain. Puerto Rico and the Philippines became U.S. colonies -- U.S. marines
killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to conquer the island -- while Cuba became a colony
in all but name. The U.S. then policed the Caribbean as if it were an American lake. The number
of occupations and invasions over the following decades is too many to list.
A leader of this conquest was Major General Smedley Butler, who became one of the most
decorated marines in history. After he turned against U.S. imperialism later in life, he summed
up his experience:
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this
country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps . And during that period, I spent most
of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism . I helped make Mexico,
especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown
Brothers in 1909–1912 . I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar
interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking
back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to
operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. 8
The U.S. saw Haiti as one of the key sites to establish client governments to protect U.S.
interests in the Caribbean. 9 In 1915 the U.S. used the pretext of political turmoil
in Haiti to invade the country and occupy it until 1934. The U.S. plundered the island, forced
it to repay its debts to the U.S., and established involuntary corvee gang labor to build
roads. United States corporations, hoping to take advantage of Haiti's cheap labor, gained
control of 266,000 acres of Haitian land, displacing thousands of Haitian peasants. Haitians
rose up against this exploitation in a mass liberation movement, the Cacos Rebellion, led by
Charlemagne Peralte. The U.S. slaughtered thousands of resistance fighters, crucifying Peralte
in Port-au-Prince.
The U.S. also established one of the most reactionary institutions in Haitian society, the
Haitian National Army. The U.S. designed that army not to fight foreign wars but to repress the
country's peasant masses.
The neoliberal "plan of death"
While the U.S. ended its occupation of Haiti -- prompted in part by a renewed wave of protests
and strikes by workers and students -- it continued to intervene in the country's politics and
economics with devastating consequences. From 1957 to 1986, the U.S. supported the father-son
dictatorship of Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier and Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. The
Duvaliers' dictatorship maintained power through the army and a vast network of death squads
called the Tonton Macoutes. The U.S. backed them as a counterweight to Fidel Castro who had
aligned Cuba with Russia in the Cold War struggle for Latin America and the Caribbean. Most
observers believe that Papa Doc Duvalier's Macoutes killed tens of thousands. 10 The
Duvaliers' economic vision for Haiti -- one that has continued to motivate U.S. plans for Haiti
-- was to establish Haiti as low-tax, low-wage, non-union offshore assembly site for U.S.
corporations.
Though half of Haitians lived in dire poverty, Haiti until the mid–1980s was
self-sufficient in the production of rice, its most important staple. All this changed with the
imposition of neoliberal policies, pushed by the United States, that required Haiti to slash
tariffs, privatize state-owned industries, and cut the state's agricultural budget. Haitian
activists would come to call it a "plan of death."
President Reagan pushed this plan as part of his Caribbean Basin Initiative that aimed to
open up the area to U.S. corporations and U.S. agricultural products. Baby Doc opened up the
Haitian market to a wave of U.S. agribusiness exports like rice and wheat, which are heavily
subsidized. The Haitian peasants were simply unable to compete with these cheap, subsidized
imports, and Haiti's rural economy gradually collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of peasants
abandoned the countryside for the cities to seek some kind of employment. Deprived of their
livelihood, peasants turned to cutting down trees to make charcoal for cooking fuel, leading to
the massive deforestation of the country, and the further destruction of Haiti's already
depleted soil. 11 As a result, Port-au-Prince, which had been a small town of 50,000
in the 1950s, exploded in size to nearly 800,000 in the 1980s and well over 2 million today.
12
Reagan and Baby Doc claimed that they would absorb these dislocated peasants into an
enlarged sweatshop industry. But the various factories in the export processing zones only
created about 60,000 jobs. As a result, the masses in Port-au-Prince gathered in slums, left to
survive on remittances from relatives who had fled abroad and income scraped together in a
highly unstable informal economy.
Finally, the U.S. tried to subject Haiti to the same tourist industry that swept the rest of
the Caribbean. Baby Doc cut deals with Club Med and various hotel chains to offer the country's
beaches for tourism. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton first came to Haiti on their honeymoon as
part of the jet set that Baby Doc welcomed into the swank resorts on the island. It would not
be the last time the Clintons played around in Haiti.
Baby Doc took out $1.9 billion in loans from the U.S., other powers, and international
financial institutions to bankroll this neoliberal "reform" of the country. 13
Meanwhile, Haitians suffered a calamitous drop in their standard of living; during the 1980s,
absolute poverty increased by 60 percent -- from 50 to 80 percent of the population.
14 The dictator and his family joined the American and Haitian ruling class to party
and profit at the expense of Haitian peasants, workers, and the urban poor.
Killing social reform
Peasants, workers, and the urban poor rose up against Baby Doc in opposition to this social
catastrophe in a tremendous social movement called Lavalas (the Creole word for a cleansing
flood). A young Catholic priest and advocate of liberation theology, Jean-Bertrand Aristide,
became the spokesperson of the struggle. In 1986, Lavalas succeeded in driving Baby Doc from
power. The U.S. whisked him away into exile in France along with $505 million stolen from the
country. 15 Duvalier left behind a shattered country, shackled again with the odious
debt accrued by a dictator to finance the neoliberal disaster.
Under pressure from the movement -- but also to stem the tide of impoverished Haitian
refugees pouring out of the country -- the U.S. and Haitian governments finally agreed to hold
elections in 1990. The U.S. spent $36 million to try to get their candidate, a former World
Bank employee, elected. He received only 14 percent of the vote. Aristide defeated fourteen
rivals, winning two-thirds of the vote, on a platform of extensive popular social reforms. The
U.S. and the Haitian ruling class literally saw red. They thought that, in the words of a U.S.
embassy official in Port-au-Prince, a "Marxist maniac" had been elected to the Haitian
government. 16 President George Bush Sr. backed a military coup against Aristide in
1991 and tacitly backed the brutal regime that ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994.
The military massacred thousands of Lavalas activists and drove 38,000 more out of the
country. Bush Sr. and his successor President Bill Clinton repatriated most of these refugees
and jailed others in Krome Detention Center in Florida and Guantánamo in Cuba. After an
international outcry, the U.S. opted for a face-saving intervention to restore Aristide to
power in 1994, but on the condition that he agree to the neoliberal plan of death. Aristide
signed on to the deal but resisted its full implementation during his remaining two years in
office. He did abolish the Haitian military in 1995 -- a great victory for the movement -- and
implemented some reforms, but it was far from what he had promised during the struggle against
Duvalier. "The author of a text entitled 'Capitalism is a Mortal Sin,'" wrote Paul Farmer at
the time,
now meets regularly with representatives of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and AID [U.S. Agency for International Development]. He was once the priest of the
poor; now he's president of a beleaguered nation, run into the ground by a vicious military
and business elite and by their friends abroad. Aristide finds himself most indebted to the
very people and institutions he once denounced from the pulpit. 17
Aristide's Lavalas ally and successor, René Préval, implemented much of the
U.S. neoliberal agenda during his term from 1996 to 2000. 18
Aristide would again run for and win the presidency in 2000, to the great irritation of
Clinton and then-President George W. Bush. In his second term, Aristide implemented reforms
such as raising the minimum wage and building schools. He also began to demand that France
refund the $21 billion that it forced Haiti to pay from 1824 to 1947. 19 At the same
time, however, Aristide backed new sweatshop developments in Ounaminthe and agreed to other
neoliberal measures. 20 But the U.S. was not appeased and France was outraged.
Another coup and U.S. occupation
The U.S., France, and Canada used the pretext of charges that Aristide manipulated the
parliamentary elections, something they usually tolerate with their own allies, to justify a
destabilization campaign against Aristide and yet another coup. Bush, of course, had no ground
to stand on as he himself had stolen the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Nevertheless, the
U.S., Canada, and France imposed economic sanctions, mounted a vast propaganda campaign against
Aristide, backed the ruling-class political opposition in the Group of 184, and aided the
right-wing death squads. Finally, in 2004, as the death squads swept through the country, the
U.S. kidnapped Aristide, whisked him out of the country to temporary exile in the Central
African Republic and to final exile in South Africa. Thus, on the two hundredth anniversary of
its declaration of independence, Haiti was occupied by the U.S., yet again.
Soon the U.S. delegated the occupation to the UN and its 9,000 mostly Brazilian troops, who
continue to patrol the country to this day. This UN force, MINUSTAH, protected the
U.S.-installed puppet regime headed up Gérard Latortue who they brought out of
retirement from Boca Raton, Florida. The coup regime was utterly corrupt and brutal. With its
death squad allies, the regime conducted a terror against the remnants of the social movements
and Aristide's party, Fanmi Lavalas. The combination of death squad and UN repression killed an
estimated 3,000 people. 21 The UN troops either joined the slaughter or stood aside
while repression swept the island. 22
While the U.S. and UN allowed elections in 2006, they banned Aristide's party, the most
popular party in the country. Aristide's former ally, René Préval, again won the
presidency, but by this time he had become a servant for the U.S. political and economic agenda
in Haiti. For example, Préval banned Fanmi Lavalas from running in elections and refused
to sign a bill passed in the parliament to raise the minimum wage. 23 In fact, the
real power was no longer in the hands of the Haitian government. The U.S.- backed UN occupation
rules the country in colonial style, dictating policy to the Haitian government.
The occupation has completely failed to develop the country. It has done nothing to improve
living conditions for Haitians, to rebuild the country's ravaged infrastructure, or to reforest
the countryside. Before the earthquake, two rounds of natural disasters swept Haiti and exposed
the U.S. and UN's callous neglect of the country. Hurricanes hit in 2004 and 2008, killing
thousands. 24 The pattern of impoverishment, deforestation, and degradation of the
country's infrastructure, which has accelerated in recent years, has rendered natural disasters
in Haiti far more devastating than anywhere else. In what is perhaps the worst exposure of the
result of U.S. and UN refusal to improve conditions in Haiti, the food crisis in Haiti spiraled
out of control on their watch. Even before the food crisis in 2008, the urban poor were reduced
to eating mud cakes flavored with salt as a regular meal. When capitalists speculated on the
international food market, they drove up the prices of Haiti's imported staples, especially
rice. In response Haitians rioted, only to be repressed by the UN troops. 25
Imposing a new plan of death on Haiti
During the UN occupation, the U.S. imposed the same neoliberal economic plan on Haiti in the
interests of multinational capital and the Haitian ruling class. UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon appointed Bill Clinton as special envoy to Haiti in 2009 and tasked him with
revitalizing the country's economy. Clinton developed a new version of the plan of death along
with Oxford economics professor and former research director for the World Bank, Paul Collier.
Collier outlined their program in his paper, "Haiti: From natural catastrophe to economic
security." 26 It advocated investment in the tourist industry, redevelopment of the
sweatshop industry in cities, export-oriented mango plantations in the countryside, and
construction of infrastructure to service that development.
As Polly Pattullo documents in Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean ,
the tourist industry is largely controlled by U.S. multinational corporations. She quotes one
critic of the tourist industry who argues, "When a third world economy uses tourism as a
development strategy, it becomes enmeshed in a global system over which it has little control.
The international tourism industry is a product of metropolitan capitalist enterprise. The
superior entrepreneurial skills, resources and commercial power of metropolitan companies
enable them to dominate many third world tourist destinations." 27
Clinton has orchestrated a plan for turning the north of Haiti into a tourist playground, as
far away as possible from the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. He lured Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines into investing $55 million to build a pier along the coastline of Labadee, which it has
leased until 2050. From there, Haiti's tourist industry hopes to lead expeditions to the
mountaintop fortress Citadelle and the Palace of Sans-Souci, both built by Henri Christophe,
one of the leaders of Haiti's slave revolution. 28
For the cities, Collier promotes sweatshop development. Without a hint of shame, he notes,
"Due to its poverty and relatively unregulated labor market, Haiti has labor costs that are
fully competitive with China, which is the global benchmark. Haitian labor is not only cheap it
is of good quality. Indeed, because the garments industry used to be much larger than it is
currently, there is a substantial pool of experienced labor." 29 Given the abolition
of tariffs on many Haitian exports to the U.S., Haiti is primed, according to Collier, for a
new sweatshop boom.
But this is no sustainable development plan in the interests of Haitian workers. At best,
Collier promises 150,000 or so jobs. As anthropologist Mark Shuller argues, "subcontracted,
low-wage factory work does not contribute much to the economy besides jobs. Being exempt from
taxes, it does not contribute to the financing of Haiti's social services." 30
Moreover these jobs themselves do not even pay enough to support life -- they pay for transport
and lunch at about $1.60 a day. The U.S. will want to keep these wages low, since that is the
profitable basis for the investment.
For the peasant majority in the country, Clinton and Collier advocate the construction of
vast new mango plantations. According to them, such new plantations will both create an export
crop and aid the reforestation of the country. While it may create jobs for poor peasants, such
plantations will not rebuild the agricultural infrastructure of the country so that it can
return to the self-sufficient food system it had before the 1980s. As TransAfrica founder
Randall Robinson told Democracy Now! , "That isn't the kind of investment that Haiti
needs. It needs capital investment. It needs investment so that it can be self-sufficient. It
needs investment so that it can feed itself." 31 Such self-sufficiency runs against
the grain of U.S. policy to control the international food market with its subsidized
crops.
Collier finally argues for investment in infrastructure -- airports, seaports, and roads --
not so much to meet people's needs as to service these new investments in tourism, sweatshops,
and plantations. As a result, Collier's plan will actually increase infrastructural inequities;
businesses will get what they need to export their products, while the Haitian masses'
infrastructural needs, like navigable roads, will be left unaddressed. Even worse, Collier
advocates increased privatization of Haiti's infrastructure, especially the port and the
electrical system.
It is not incidental that Collier is also the author of The Bottom Billion ,
32 a book that calls for outside intervention by wealthy nations such as the United
States into what he calls "post-conflict" poor nations, combining targeted aid and economic
restructuring under long-term military occupation. In a modern recasting of the old colonialist
"civilizing mission," this is meant to lift these nations out of a vicious cycle of violence
and poverty.
On his whirlwind tour of the country in 2009, Bill Clinton promised investors that Haiti was
open for business with Aristide and Lavalas out of the way and the U.S. and UN in effective
control of the country. "Your political risk in Haiti" he declared at a press conference "is
lower than it has ever been in my lifetime." 33
Failing to deliver relief to victims
In the aftermath of the earthquake, the press has cooperated with the Obama administration in
giving the impression that the U.S. military has been busy delivering aid to desperate
Haitians. The facts don't bear this out. To begin with, Obama's promise of $100 million in aid
to the country is a pittance -- less than the winnings of a Kentucky couple in a recent
Powerball lottery. 34 It is a paltry amount compared to the hundreds of billions
that the U.S. shelled out to American banks and the $3 trillion the U.S. will have expended on
the Iraq War alone.
There were early warning signs that this humanitarian mission was not all it was cracked up
to be. Obama's decision to appoint former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to oversee
the collection of donations through the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund displays incredible callousness
toward the Haitian masses. Clinton imposed the plan of death on Lavalas. Bush let New Orleans
get washed out to sea and backed the 2004 coup that overthrew Aristide. Appointing Bush is like
putting Nero in charge of the fire department.
Aid was slow to arrive, and what did turn up was inadequate. Amid a crisis where the first
forty-eight hours are decisive in saving people's lives, the U.S. and UN failed to come
anywhere near addressing the needs of the 3 million people impacted by the earthquake. Every
minute that aid was delayed meant more people died from starvation, dehydration, injury, and
disease. It also meant that the hospitals and doctors desperately trying to help the victims
were left stranded without the basics to heal the injured.
As Dr. Evan Lyon of Partners in Health, speaking from Port-au-Prince's main hospital just as
heavily-armed U.S. troops were arriving, told Democracy Now! ,
In terms of supplies, in terms of surgeons, in terms of aid relief, the response has been
incredibly slow. There are teams of surgeons that have been sent to places that were, quote,
"more secure," that have ten or twenty doctors and ten patients. We have a thousand people on
this campus that are triaged and ready for surgery, but we only have four working ORs without
anesthesia and without pain medications. And we're still struggling to get ourselves up to
twenty-four-hour care. 35
In the week after the quake, Partners in Health estimated as many as 20,000 Haitians were
dying daily from lack of surgery. 36
The U.S. and UN used all sorts of technical alibis to justify the delay in meeting people's
needs. They complained that the damage done to Haiti's airport, seaport, and roads impeded
delivery of doctors, nurses, food, water, and rescue teams. Such claims are unconvincing.
Clearly the means exist to deliver aid quickly to a country only 700 miles away from Miami,
Florida, and only 156 miles from a fully functional international airport in the Dominican
Republic. Other countries had no difficulty sending planes of aid and volunteers. China, from
half way around the world, got a plane of aid to Haiti earlier than the United States. Iceland
sent a rescue team within forty-eight hours of the quake. Cuba sent dozens of doctors to join
the several hundred doctors already working the country.
This failure of the U.S. to respond produced a chorus of denunciations from relief experts.
One official from the Italian government, Guido Bertolaso, who was acclaimed for his successful
handling of the April 2009 earthquake in Italy, denounced the U.S. effort as a "pathetic
failure." He declared, "The Americans are extraordinary but when you are facing a situation in
chaos they tend to confuse military intervention with emergency aid, which cannot be entrusted
to armed forces. It's truly a powerful show of force but it's completely out of touch with
reality." 37
Guns over aid
As with Katrina, Obama prioritized the deployment of the U.S. military over provision of aid.
He sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Haiti right away to get President Préval
to secure emergency powers. "The decree would give the government an enormous amount of
authority, which in practice they would delegate to us," she stated. 38 The U.S. has
taken effective control of Haiti. It has secured control of the airport and seaport and
deployed 20,000 U.S. troops to bolster the enlarged UN force of 12,500 already in the country.
Thus, for the fourth time since 1915, Haiti is under a U.S. occupation.
How did the U.S. justify the fact that six days into the relief effort only a trickle of aid
had gotten through to those who needed it? The U.S. government claimed that aid could not be
delivered properly until security was first established. When asked why the U.S. hadn't used
its C-130 transport planes to drop supplies in Port-au-Prince, Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates said, "Air drops will simply lead to riots." 39 However, precisely the
opposite is the case; people will riot because they lack food and water.
In lockstep, the corporate media's coverage shifted from its initial sympathy with victims
of the disaster to churning out scare stories. "Marauding looters emptied wrecked shops and
tens of thousands of survivors waited desperately for food and medical care," Reuters claimed.
"Hundreds of scavengers and looters swarmed over wrecked stores in downtown Port-au-Prince,
seizing goods and fighting among themselves." 40
These scare stories in turn became an excuse for not delivering aid. Writer Nelson Valdes
reported,
The United Nations and the U.S. authorities on the ground are telling those who directly
want to deliver help not to do so because they might be attacked by "hungry mobs." Two cargo
planes from Doctors Without Borders have been forced to land in the Dominican Republic
because the shipments have to be accompanied within Port-au-Prince by U.S. military escorts,
according to the U.S. command. 41
The scare stories led relief workers and military personnel to treat Haitians in a
dehumanizing fashion. Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman reported an incident where an aid
helicopter refused to distribute food on the ground and instead dropped it on people. An
angry Haitian compared the incident to "throwing bones to dogs." 42
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), because of their close relation with the U.S.,
have adopted a paranoid obsession with security to the detriment of providing relief. Ecologist
and human rights activist Sasha Kramer reported on Counterpunch,
One friend showed me the map used by all of the larger NGOs where Port-au-Prince is
divided into security zones, yellow, orange, red. Red zones are restricted, in the orange
zones all of the car windows must be rolled up and they cannot be visited past certain times
of the day. Even in the yellow zone aid workers are often not permitted to walk through the
streets and spend much of their time riding through the city from one office to another in
organizational vehicles. The creation of these security zones has been like the building of a
wall, a wall reinforced by language barriers and fear rather than iron rods, a wall that,
unlike many of the buildings in Port-au-Prince, did not crumble during the earthquake. Fear,
much like violence, is self-perpetuating. When aid workers enter communities radiating fear
it is offensive, the perceived disinterest in communicating with the poor majority is
offensive, driving through impoverished communities with windows rolled up and armed security
guards is offensive . Despite the good intentions of the many aid workers swarming around the
UN base, much of the aid coming through the larger organizations is still blocked in storage,
waiting for the required UN and U.S. military escorts that are seen as essential for
distribution, meanwhile people in the camps are suffering and their tolerance is waning.
43
Yet this disastrous "beware of the Haitian people" line is simply not borne out by reports
coming from Haiti. "There are no security issues," argues Dr. Lyon:
I've been with my Haitian colleagues. I'm staying at a friend's house in Port-au-Prince.
We're working for the Ministry of Public Health for the direction of this hospital as
volunteers. But I'm living and moving with friends. We've been circulating throughout the
city until 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning every night, evacuating patients, moving materials.
There's no UN guards. There's no U.S. military presence. There's no Haitian police presence.
And there's also no violence. There is no insecurity. 44
As the real nature of the U.S. operation became clear, an array of forces criticized the
U.S. for imposing an occupation, not supplying relief. Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez
rightly declared on his weekly television show, "Marines armed as if they were going to war.
There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals --
that's what the United States should send. They are occupying Haiti undercover."
45
Impeding relief
The U.S. occupation actually prevented relief efforts. Once the U.S. was in charge of the
airport it prioritized military flights over relief flights. Jarry Emmanuel, the air logistics
officer for the World Food Program, complained, "There are 200 flights going in and out every
day, which is an incredible amount for a country like Haiti. But most of those flights are for
the United States military. Their priorities are to secure the country." 46
Hillary Clinton herself brought relief missions to a halt when she flew into Port-au-Prince
to seize emergency powers from Préval. The U.S. military shut the airport down for three
hours, preventing the desperately needed delivery of aid. Outraged, Alain Joyandet, the French
Cooperation Minister, called on the UN to investigate America's dominant role in the relief
effort and protested: "This is about helping Haiti, not occupying it." 47
The chorus of complaints further escalated not only from governments but also from aid
organizations. Richard Seymour reports that,
Since the arrival of the troops, however, several aid missions have been prevented from
arriving at the airport in Port-au-Prince that the U.S. has commandeered. France and the
Caribbean Community have both made their complaints public, as has Médecins Sans
Frontières [MSF] on five separate occasions. UN World Food Program flights were also
turned away on two consecutive days. Benoit Leduc, MSF's operations manager in
Port-au-Prince, complained that U.S. military flights were being prioritized over aid
flights. 48
The U.S. military has even turned back masses of health care workers who wanted to volunteer
to provide needed medical care in Haiti. The National Nurses Union organized an emergency
conference call to mobilize thousands of nurses to go to Haiti. More than 1,800 nurses called
in and they proceeded to recruit 11,000 others to the project. Initially the U.S. military said
that it would accept them, but then, inexplicably, they reversed themselves and told them that
the U.S. had plenty of military personnel to address the health care disaster in Haiti. Nothing
could be further from the truth. 49
The U.S. military, Florida's state government, and the Obama administration also colluded in
one of the worst examples of the callous treatment of Haitian victims. They refused to allow
landing of planes loaded with injured people in desperate need of medical treatment. The Obama
administration and Florida's governor were locked in a battle over who would pay for the cost
of the medical care. So for five days, the U.S. let injured people suffer in Haiti because
budget battles mattered more than people's lives. 50
Al Jazeera captured the nature of the U.S. and UN military occupation in a January
17 report:
Most Haitians here have seen little humanitarian aid so far. What they have seen is guns,
and lots of them. Armored personnel carriers cruise the streets. UN soldiers aren't here to
help pull people out of the rubble. They're here, they say, to enforce the law. This is what
much of the UN presence actually looks like on the streets of Port-au-Prince: men in uniform,
racing around in vehicles, carrying guns. At the entrance to the city's airport where most of
the aid is coming in, there is anger and frustration. Much-needed supplies of water and food
are inside, and Haitians are locked out. "These weapons they bring," [an unidentified Haitian
says], "they are instruments of death. We don't want them; we don't need them. We are a
traumatized people. What we want from the international community is technical help. Action,
not words." 51
Problems with the NGOs
Haiti has approximately 10,000 NGOs operating within its borders, one of the highest numbers
per capita in the world. The international NGOs are unaccountable to either the Haitian state
or Haitian population. So the aid funneled through them further weakens what little hold
Haitians have on their own society. These NGOs have taken deep hold in Haiti at the very same
time that the conditions in the country have gone from bad to apocalyptic.
Amid this crisis, some of the NGOs and their employees have tried valiantly to fill the
vacuum left by the U.S. and UN. But most of them did not have real forces inside the country to
respond to the disaster. The Red Cross, for example, only had 15 employees on the ground, but
has received the bulk of donated money -- more than $200 million -- from people around the
world. Add to this the reluctance of the big NGOs to act without "security," as mentioned
above.
Moreover, as the British medical journal The Lancet argues, many of the international NGOs
are engaged in a fierce battle for funds and have allowed that competition to distort their
provision of food, water, medical aid, and services amidst the crisis. After calling aid an
"industry in its own right," the Lancet noted that NGOs are
jostling for position, each claiming that they are doing the most for earthquake
survivors. Some agencies even claim that they are "spearheading" the relief effort. In fact,
as we only too clearly see, the situation in Haiti is chaotic, devastating, and anything but
coordinated. Polluted by the internal power politics and the unsavory characteristics seen in
many big corporations, large aid agencies can be obsessed with raising money through their
own appeal efforts. Media coverage as an end in itself is too often an aim of their
activities. Marketing and branding have too high a profile. Perhaps worst of all, relief
efforts in the field are sometimes competitive with little collaboration between agencies,
including smaller, grass-roots charities that may have better networks in affected countries
and so are well placed to immediately implement emergency relief. 52
Repatriating and jailing refugees
As Haitians' needs continued unmet, the U.S. occupation devolved into policing the disaster,
including preventing the flight of refugees from Haiti. It is true that activists finally
compelled Obama to grant Haitians Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Obama's decision delayed
the deportation of 30,000 Haitians and will make TPS available to 100,000 to 200,000 more.
These provisions, however, have strict limitations.
First of all, the U.S. plans to exclude victims of the earthquake, offering TPS only to
those who arrived in the U.S. without legal documents before January 12. Those who quality must
prove they are indigent and at the very same time pay $470 in application fees. 53
Those Haitians who are granted TPS will only be allowed to stay in the U.S. for eighteen months
before they must return to Haiti. If they do qualify for the program they will become known to
the authorities and thus make themselves more vulnerable to repatriation. Moreover, given the
scale of destruction in Port-au-Prince, there is no way that the city or country will be in
better condition in a year and a half. So if the U.S. enforces this eighteen-month limitation,
it will return Haitians to an ongoing disaster area.
To enforce the bar on Haitians coming to the U.S., a flotilla of military vessels has
surrounded the country. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to spin this in
humanitarian terms. "At this moment of tragedy in Haiti," she lectured, "it is tempting for
people suffering in the aftermath of the earthquake to seek refuge elsewhere, but attempting to
leave Haiti now will only bring more hardship to the Haitian people and nation." 54
In a far more blunt statement of the actual policy, Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander Chris
O'Neil, in charge of Operation Vigilant Sentry declared, "The goal is to interdict them at sea
and repatriate them." 55
The U.S. made sure to broadcast this threat to Haitians. A U.S. Air Force transport plane
spends hours in the air above Haiti every day, not ferrying food and water, but broadcasting a
radio statement in Creole from Haiti's ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Joseph. "I'll be honest
with you," Joseph says, according to a transcript on the State Department's Web site. "If you
think you will reach the U.S. and all the doors will be wide open to you, that's not at all the
case. And they will intercept you right on the water, and send you back home where you came
from." 56
To prepare for the eventuality that some Haitians may get through the military cordon around
Haiti, Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, has prepared jail space to incarcerate refugees
at Krome Detention Center in Florida and at the U.S. military base in Guantánamo, Cuba.
57
Asserting who's boss in Latin America
Days after the quake, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation posted an article
detailing what it considered should be Washington's aims in occupying Haiti. The U.S. military
presence, they argued, in addition to preventing "any large scale movements by Haitians to take
to the sea to try to enter the U.S. illegally," also "offers opportunities to re-shape Haiti's
long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United
States in the region." At the same time, it argues, the U.S. military presence could "interrupt
the nightly flights of cocaine to Haiti and the Dominican Republic from the Venezuelan coast
and counter the ongoing efforts of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to destabilize the
island of Hispaniola." There is no evidence of Venezuelan cocaine flights or efforts to
"destabilize" Haiti, but the point is clear: The U.S. sees Haiti as part of an effort to assert
more control over the region and contain "unfriendly" regimes. 58
The military response to Haiti's crisis cannot be separated from Washington's regional
interests. As Greg Gandin writes in the Nation ,
In recent years, Washington has experienced a fast erosion of its influence in South
America, driven by the rise of Brazil, the region's left turn, the growing influence of China
and Venezuela's use of oil revenue to promote a multipolar diplomacy. Broad social movements
have challenged efforts by US- and Canadian-based companies to expand extractive industries
like mining, biofuels, petroleum and logging. 59
Faced with such regional and international competition, the U.S. under Bush and now Obama is
angling to launch a counteroffensive. The U.S. tried to topple Chávez in 2002, it
succeeded in overthrowing Aristide in 2004, and last year backed the coup against President
Zelaya in Honduras. As Grandin reports, the U.S. is actively promoting the right-wing
opposition to the various reform socialist governments in the region. It is backing up this
political initiative with an expansion of its military bases in the region, particularly in
Colombia. "In late October," Grandin writes, "the United States and Colombia signed an
agreement granting the Pentagon use of seven military bases, along with an unlimited number of
as yet unspecified 'facilities and locations.' They add to Washington's already considerable
military presence in Colombia, as well as Central America and the Caribbean." 60
Haiti is thus a stepping-stone for further U.S. interventions in the region.
"Shock doctrine" for Haiti
For Haiti itself, the U.S. is preparing to impose its old neoliberal plan at gunpoint. In
The Shock Doctrine , Naomi Klein documents how the U.S. and other imperial powers take
advantage of natural and economic disasters to impose free-market plans for the benefit of the
American and native capitalists. The U.S., other powers, the IMF, and World Bank had their
shock doctrine for Haiti immediately on hand. Hillary Clinton declared, "We have a plan. It was
a legitimate plan, it was done in conjunction with other international donors, with the United
Nations." 61 This is the Collier Plan, the same old plan of sweatshops, plantations,
and tourism.
The U.S., a few other imperial powers, a few lesser countries, and the UN convened a meeting
on January 26 in Montreal to profess their concern and promises to aid Haiti. The fourteen
so-called "Friends of Haiti" made sure to include the Haitian prime minister, Jean-Max
Bellerive, to at least give the illusion of respect for the country's sovereignty. But outside
a protest organized by Haiti Action Montreal opposed the meeting with signs demanding "medical
relief not guns," "grants not loans," and "reconstruction for people not profit."
In the Guardian , Gary Younge criticized the summit for failing to produce any
solutions to the crisis in Haiti. "Even as corpses remained under the earthquake's rubble," he
wrote, "and the government operated out of a police station, the assembled 'friends' would not
commit to canceling Haiti's $1 billion debt. Instead they agreed to a 10-year plan with no
details, and a commitment to meet again -- when the bodies have been buried along with coverage
of the country -- sometime in the future." 62
By contrast, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and his Latin American and Caribbean allies
assembled in the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) announced their opposition to
America's shock doctrine. They denounced Washington's neoliberal plans, called for relief not
troops and for the cancellation of Haiti's debt. Venezuela itself immediately cancelled Haiti's
debt and began sending shiploads of relief offering over $100 million in humanitarian aid with
no strings attached. 63
No such humanitarian motives animate the U.S., its capitalist corporations, and the
international financial institutions. These vultures began circling above Haiti almost
immediately. The Street, an investment Web site, published an article misleadingly entitled,
"An opportunity to heal Haiti," that lays out how U.S. corporations can cash in on the
catastrophe. "Here are some companies," they write, "that could potentially benefit: General
Electric (GE), Caterpillar (CAT), Deere (DE), Fluor (FLR), Jacobs Engineering (JEC)."
64 The Rand Corporation's James Dobbins wrote in the New York Times, "This disaster
is an opportunity to accelerate oft-delayed reforms." 65
Over the last few years, the U.S. has been trying to give a facelift to the international
financial institution that it uses to impose its plans in Haiti. As Jim Lobe reports,
Last June, 1.2 billion dollars in Haiti's external debt, including that owed to the
Washington-based International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), was cancelled after the Préval government completed a
three-year Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) program. Over half of that debt had been
incurred by Haiti's dictatorships, notably the Duvalier dynasty that ruled the country from
1957 to 1986. But the cancellation covered debt incurred by Haiti only through 2004. In the
last five years, the country has received new loans -- some of them to help it recover from
the floods and other hurricane damage -- totaling another 1.05 billion dollars.
66
In other words, the U.S. and the financial institutions exchanged the old debts for new
so-called "legitimate loans," trapping Haiti yet again in debt. Eric Toussaint and Sophie
Perchellet call this "a typical odious debt-laundering maneuver." 67
In the wake of the crisis, the bankers were at Haiti's door yet again, ready, incredibly, to
loan Haiti money with the usual conditions. The IMF offered Haiti a new loan of $100 million
with the usual strings attached. As the Nation 's Richard Kim writes,
The new loan was made through the IMF's extended credit facility, to which Haiti already
has $165 million in debt. Debt relief activists tell me that these loans came with
conditions, including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public
employees except those making minimum wage, and keeping inflation low. They say that the new
loans would impose these same conditions. In other words, in the face of this latest tragedy,
the IMF is still using crisis and debt as leverage to compel neoliberal reforms.
68
Debt cancellation activists like Jubilee pushed back against the IMF and scored a victory
over it. "On Jan. 21," Lobe reports,
the World Bank announced a waiver of Haiti's pending debt payment for five years and said
it would explore ways that the remaining debt could be cancelled. The IDB [Inter-American
Development Bank] has said it is engaged in a similar effort and will present alternatives
for reducing or canceling the debt to its board of governors. On Jan. 27, the IMF, which
lacks the authority to provide outright grants, announced that it would give Haiti a 102
million-dollar loan at zero-percent interest and that would not be subject to any of the
Fund's usual performance conditions. 69
The pressure even forced the U.S. to call for all new monies extended to Haiti to be in the
form of grants, and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called for debt relief in the run
up to the G-7 conference in February. 70
While activists can claim these concessions by the U.S. and the international financial
institutions as victories that open up the possibility for even more progress in demanding full
cancellation of Haiti's debt and all third world debt, no one should look at this situation
through rose-colored glasses. The U.S. is using this promise -- and it is just a promise at
this point -- to cover up its determination to implement the Collier Plan for tourism,
sweatshops, and mango plantations to exploit Haiti's desperately poor workers and peasants. In
fact, the U.S. does not need to use the leverage of debt to force Haiti to agree to the plan;
it has secured colonial rule over the country and can impose its plans directly at
gunpoint.
Resistance and solidarity
The left has a responsibility to cut through the propaganda of the Obama administration and the
mainstream media. The U.S. is not engaged in humanitarian relief, but old-fashioned imperialism
in Haiti. Humanitarianism has long been one of the means the U.S. uses to provide a cover story
for its military actions abroad. But whether it was saving the Cuban people from Spanish
brutality, sending the marines into Mogadishu in 1993 to feed starving Somalis, or overthrowing
the Taliban to "liberate women," the real aims and practical results of these interventions
diverged radically from their alleged noble intentions.
Humanitarian military intervention was heavily promoted in the 1990s during the latter part
of the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration -- in particular during the
wars in the former Yugoslavia. Its purpose was to reestablish the legitimacy of U.S. military
intervention in the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, as part of a policy intended to erase
what was known as the "Vietnam syndrome." It is being revived again in the wake of the
unpopularity of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and weariness toward the "war on
terror," for similar reasons. The U.S. hopes that it can re-legitimize its military as a force
for good so that it can lay the groundwork for more U.S. interventions in the region and around
the world.
Even if the U.S. gets away with its new plans for Haiti, it will inevitably breed resistance
in the population and throughout the region where through bitter experience workers and
peasants have learned to oppose U.S. designs on their countries. In Haiti, workers and peasants
will find their way to organize in the countryside on the plantations, in the sweatshops, and
in the shantytowns.
Already Haitian organizations have come out against the U.S. agenda. A statement issued on
January 27 from the Coordinating Committee of Progressive Organizations announced:
We must declare our anger and indignation at the exploitation of the situation in Haiti to
justify a new invasion by 20,000 U.S. Marines. We condemn what threatens to become a new
military occupation by U.S. troops, the third in our history. It is clearly part of a
strategy to remilitarize the Caribbean Basin in the context of the imperialist response to
the growing rebellion of the peoples of our continent against neo-liberal globalization. And
it exists also within a framework of pre-emptive warfare designed to confront the eventual
social explosion of a people crushed by poverty and facing despair. We condemn the model
imposed by the U.S. government and the military response to a tragic humanitarian crisis. The
occupation of the Toussaint L'Ouverture international airport and other elements of the
national infrastructure have deprived the Haitian people of part of the contribution made by
Caricom, by Venezuela, and by some European countries. We condemn this conduct, and refuse
absolutely to allow our country to become another military base. 71
The Haitian left has thus already started building opposition to the U.S. occupation and the
Collier Plan. Every year since the U.S. coup in 2004, activists have marched on February 28 in
Port-au-Prince against the UN occupation and to demand the end of Aristide's exile. Workers'
organizations just last year protested in the thousands for an increase in the minimum wage
that Préval opposed. Lavalas activists had protested before the earthquake against their
exclusion from the scheduled parliamentary elections. Now amid crisis and occupation,
Préval, who has proved to be a puppet for the U.S. agenda, thus losing what little
political support he had, has cancelled those elections. No doubt Préval's behavior will
provoke political opposition from below against his government's collaboration with the United
States.
Outside Haiti, the left must build solidarity with that struggle and make several demands on
the Obama administration. First, Obama must immediately end the military occupation of Haiti,
and instead flood the country with doctors, nurses, food, water, and construction machinery.
Second, the U.S. must also stop its enforcement of Jean-Bertrand Aristide's exile and the ban
on his party, Fanmi Lavalas, from participating in elections. Haitians, not the U.S., should
have the right to determine their government.
Third, the left must demand that the U.S., other countries, and international financial
institutions cancel Haiti's debt, so that the aid money headed to Haiti will go to food and
reconstruction, not debt repayment. More than that -- France, the U.S., and Canada, the three
countries that have most interfered with Haiti's sovereignty -- should pay reparations for the
damage they have done. France can start by repaying the $21 billion dollars that it extracted
from Haiti from 1824 to 1947. Fourth, leftists must agitate for Obama to indefinitely extend
Temporary Protected Status to Haitians in the U.S. -- and open the borders to any Haitians who
flee the country. Finally, the left must direct all its funds to Haitian grass-roots
organizations to provide relief and help rebuild resistance to the U.S. plan for Haiti.
Only through agitating for these demands can we stop the U.S. from imposing at gunpoint its
shock doctrine for Haiti. In this struggle, the left must educate wider and wider layers of
people, already suspicious of U.S. motives after Hurricane Katrina, and the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, that the U.S. state never engages in military actions for humanitarian
motives. As the great American revolutionary journalist John Reed declared, "Uncle Sam never
gives anybody something for nothing. He comes along with a sack stuffed with hay in one hand
and a whip in the other. Anyone who accepts Uncle Sam's promises at their face value will find
that they must be paid for in sweat and blood." 72
"President Obama on U.S. rescue efforts in Haiti, www.America.gov .
Bill Quigley, "Haiti: still starving 23 days later," Huffington Post, posted
February 4, 2010.
Soumitra Eachempati, Dean Lorich, and David Helfet, "Haiti: Obama's Katrina," Wall
Street Journal , January 26, 2010.
Rich Schapiro, "Rev. Pat Robertson says ancient Haitians' 'pact with the devil' caused
earthquake," New York Daily News , January 13, 2010.
David Brooks, "The underlying tragedy," New York Times , January 14, 2010.
For an overview of the French colony and the slave revolution see Ashley Smith, "The
Black Jacobins," International Socialist Review (ISR) 63, January–February
2009.
Peter Hallward, Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politicsw of
Containment (New York: Verso Books, 2007), 12.
Quoted in Sidney Lens, The Forging of the American Empire (Chicago: Haymarket
Books, 2003), 270.
For an overview of the history of U.S. imperialism in Haiti see Helen Scott, "Haiti under
siege," ISR 35, May-June 2004.
Paul Farmer, The Uses of Haiti (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994),
108.
Alex Dupuy, Haiti in the New World Order (New York: Westview Press, 1996),
37.
For an analysis of Baby Doc's neoliberal plans see chapter 2 of Alex Dupuy, The
Prophet and the Power (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).
Eric Toussaint and Sophie Perchellet, "Debt is Haiti's real curse," Socialist
Worker , January 20, 2010.
Regan Boychuck, "The vultures circle Haiti at every opportunity, natural or man-made,"
Znet, February 3, 2010.
Dupuy, Haiti in the New World Order , 31.
Quoted in Amy Wilentz, The Rainy Season (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989),
137.
Quoted in Ashley Smith, "The new occupation of Haiti: Aristide's rise and fall,"
ISR 35, May–June, 2004.
For an analysis of Lavalas after Aristide's restoration see chapter 5 of Robert Fatton,
Haiti's Predatory Republic (Boulder: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 2002).
For a perhaps overly generous portrait of Aristide in his second term see chapters 6 and
7 of Peter Hallward, Damming the Flood .
Clara James, "Haiti free trade zone," Dollars and Sense , November/December
2002.
"... From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role. ..."
"... Note: this article is part of a ..."
"... included in the March/April 2018 issue of the ..."
"... George Beebe is director of the Center for the National Interest's intelligence program. He formerly served as chief of Russia analysis at the CIA, and as special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia and the former Soviet Union. ..."
From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role.
Tweet
Share
ShareMarch-April 2018Note: this article
is part of asymposium
included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
FEW QUESTIONS have greater import for the health and integrity of any republic than the question of whether important parts of
its government's national-security apparatus are abusing their power for political purposes. This is particularly true in the United
States, where the departments and agencies known collectively as the Intelligence Community (IC) have grown so large and capable,
where faith in the integrity of our democratic institutions is so vital to the effective functioning of our system, and where suspicions
about secret police and intelligence organizations are baked so deeply into our country's political culture.
The United States has faced this question several times in its recent history. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations
all used -- or attempted to use -- the FBI and CIA to gather intelligence on U.S. citizens they suspected of collaboration with communist
agents, with too little regard for statutory regulations and prohibitions of such practices, and too great a tendency to view their
political enemies as national-security threats. Lyndon B. Johnson believed, without much justification, that the CIA had conspired
against him at the 1960 Democratic convention to ensure that John F. Kennedy won the presidential nomination. Richard Nixon was equally
convinced that the CIA had helped to swing the subsequent presidential election to Kennedy. These misperceptions barely surfaced
in public at the time and did little to shake voters' faith in the outcome of the election, but they had significant implications
for the working relationships of both Johnson and Nixon with the CIA once in office. Johnson's suspicions probably increased his
inclination to side with the Defense Department's optimistic assessments of the Vietnam War over the CIA's more pessimistic -- and,
in retrospect, more accurate -- analyses. Nixon's suspicions fueled his determination to build a small intelligence-gathering and
covert-action group within the White House, which ultimately led to the Watergate break-in and cover-up that destroyed his presidency.
Investigations in the 1970s into various IC abuses, including efforts to collect intelligence on the political activities of U.S.
citizens, led to the creation of specially designated congressional oversight committees -- the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- with the power and authorization to ensure that the CIA, NSA,
FBI, and other IC bodies conduct their activities strictly within the bounds of law. The investigations also resulted in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which imposed strict limits on the government's ability to surveil the communications
and activities of U.S. persons, requiring warrants issued by a special FISA court based on probable cause to believe that the target
is a foreign power or its agent. The act established "minimization" requirements for disclosing the identities of U.S. persons being
surveilled, allowing for "unmasking" -- that is, revealing their names to authorized government officials -- only when there is strong
reason to believe they have committed a crime or when their identities are necessary to understand the intelligence information.
The now-infamous Iraq WMD estimate of 2002 raised questions of the political misuse of intelligence in a different form. Seldom
had intelligence figured more prominently in the public justifications for a decision to go to war, and seldom had it been proven
more spectacularly wrong in retrospect. Years of efforts by the CIA to increase its relevance had paid off in an unprecedentedly
close relationship to the White House, but its unique ability to provide policymakers with the skepticism of a disinterested party
suffered. The reorganization and reform of the IC mandated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 were designed
less to prevent political abuses of intelligence than to make the IC less prone to such consequential errors. This required something
new of intelligence overseers: not only to ensure that IC activities remained within the bounds of law, but also to encourage qualitative
improvements to its analytic rigor, information sharing and collaboration.
In principle, no one disputes that intelligence operations should be conducted strictly within the bounds of law, and that intelligence
and law-enforcement professionals should be guided solely by evidence and analytic rigor in producing their assessments. Human nature
being what it is, however, two temptations will be a never-ending challenge: for the IC, to please its White House masters, and for
the presidency, to conflate its political enemies with those of the country as a whole. Aspects of both these temptations are evident
in the controversies over the 2016 presidential election.
The use of the IC's vast capabilities to gather intelligence on opposition political campaigns should occur only in the rarest
of circumstances, justified by solid evidence of treasonous activities warranted by the FISA court. The so-called Steele dossier,
a piece of Clinton-funded opposition research gathered from London through unsecure communications with unnamed contacts in Russia,
does not meet that standard of evidence. If, as is alleged but not proven, the FBI relied on this unverified document to justify
a FISA warrant for collecting intelligence on Trump campaign officials, then the Obama administration crossed an important ethical,
though probably not legal, line. Is there a deep state in the United States? Yes, if that means that important parts of our national-security
apparatus have the capability, albeit not the legal authority, to abuse intelligence to alter the outcomes of national elections
or distort public-policy debates. But we have processes in place to minimize this danger if the oversight provisions established
by our laws are properly implemented and our independent media play their informal oversight role effectively. The IC, Congress,
judiciary and media all appear to have fallen short of the standards our country should expect.
George Beebe is director of the Center for the National Interest's intelligence program. He formerly served as chief of Russia
analysis at the CIA, and as special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia and the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Beebe, crossed an ethical but probably not legal line??? Really, appalling. FBI/DOJ operatives using the national level
intel services to spy against a political opponent? Corruption, deception, lying to judges? Then there's this little aspect of
a "cover up." Remember Nixon and Watergate, the break in was small potatoes, it was the lying and cover up that cost Nixon the
Presidency. These two questions MUST be asked: What did they know and when did they know it??? Lynch, Holder, Brennan, Comey,
Panetta, Biden and especially Obama. The truth will come out, eventually.
CIA and Intelligence community in common are parts of the American political system;their successful functioning is basis of
success and victory of the USA as civil country;its alpha and omega of practical politics!
The American so-called "Intel community" is a very peculiar phenomenon. Including this very term. Any intelligence agency is
a military organisation with a very strict discipline directly subordinated to the commander in chief. Its activity is strictly
secret and the commander in chief is the only recipient of the intelligence they acquire.
The Chinese book of military strategy "Sun Tzu" says that if the information of an agent became known to anyone before it was
reported to the superior commander, both the agent and the recipient must be executed: the former for his loose tongue, the latter
for his inappropriate curiocity. This implies that a particular branch of the intelligence service cannot distribute the information
even to the adjacent branches, leaving alone the media.
In the US these rules seems to be entirely foreign. The intelligence officers actively discuss everything both with each other
and with the media so that the commander in chief is often the last receiving the information. In a normal country this behaviour
would have been stopped by executing the first 100 caught in leaking. The rest would learn the lesson.
I agree but i would say these people are obviously Obama lovers... We both know the realities of today wouldn't allow for executions
but it would stop ot and i do agree... The only answer is smaller government but it's to late for that..
Another worthless article - how can you mention the Deep State and Nixon and not mention the mighty James Schlesinger and the
Family Jewels? I think the Master Old Boy talked about peak oil in his later years too - nah, no such thing as the Limits to Growth
eh boys?
"... Michael Lind is a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author, with Robert D. Atkinson, of ..."
"... (MIT Press, March 2018). ..."
"... The rise of the power elite has long been a serious problem in many Western societies, but trying to forcibly overthrow it will only create a new and potentially more dangerous elite in turn. ..."
"... Information is the key to winning any war between the people and the elite ..."
"... Would have been nice to mention that all this was possible post-1991 because there was no longer a peer competitor to the US, and thus Western business elite no longer was constrained to be allied with Western workers. Since 2014, that has all changed. There are now two near-peer competitors to the US. ..."
Political scientists often divide explanations of democratic politics in the United States and similar nations among theories
of pluralism, state autonomy and elitism. The pluralist theory holds that the American elite, like the population, is divided among
competing centers of power and authority with different values and interests. The state-autonomy theory holds that government agencies
and military and intelligence organizations are independent actors in politics. The elitist theory holds that in most democracies
most of the time, no matter how many political parties there may be, there is a dominant elite, which includes most of the leaders
of politics, the economy and civil society and shares a broad consensus.
... ... ...
In my view, the elitist approach best explains the Trump phenomenon, along with contemporary populism on both sides of the Atlantic.
Since the end of the Cold War, highly homogeneous social elites in North America and Europe have liberated themselves from the constraints
of the institutions that restrained them between 1945 and 1989 -- institutions including strong labor unions, grassroots political
parties and, in the United States, a distinct Southern oligarchy that by now has largely lost its identity and power and has been
absorbed into the national ruling class.
Elites in the United States, Britain, Germany and other Western nations under post–Cold War leadership have deliberately weakened
the bargaining power of workers in their nations by a combination of austerity-induced unemployment, offshoring, permitting Western-controlled
corporations to play nation-states against one another and mass low-skilled immigration, creating a low-wage "reserve army of labor"
in Western countries.
While restructuring the global economy to crush organized labor, transatlantic elites have simultaneously restructured government
to minimize democratic accountability, by shifting decisionmaking from legislatures to executive and judicial agencies within the
nation-state, and by enabling treaties and transnational agencies like the European Union, which are more insulated from voters,
to replace or modify national statutory law. In both of the cases of anti-worker economic restructuring and de-democratization, American
and European oligarchs have claimed that a mysterious, unstoppable force called "globalization" compelled them to do what they wanted
to do anyway. This post–Cold War oligarchic revolution from above might be described as a conspiracy, but it is not a secret conspiracy
perpetrated by the deep state. It was a program carried out in broad daylight by Bill Clinton and George Bush, Tony Blair and centrist
European leaders. And it succeeded in its two goals of weakening the economic leverage and political power of the working-class majorities
in the United States, the UK and other Western nations.
The populist rebellions of the second decade of the twenty-first century, which have been led by right-wing tribunes like Trump
or left-wing demagogues like Sanders and Corbyn, can only be understood as a long-delayed reaction by populations to the replacement
of the cross-class compromises of the post–World War II period by untrammeled oligarchy. America's newly empowered ruling class has
closed ranks against Trump, but it would also close ranks against any other outsider president who challenged its post–Cold War dominance
of American society, including Bernie Sanders. Deep divide? Yes. Deep state? No.
A bizarre misreading of history, though good points are made as well.
This is a classic example of a dishonest person analyzing something they disagree with, and instead of sticking to reality,
they build a straw man bugaboo to assign blame to, and make their side into a victim:
"deliberately weakened the bargaining power of workers in their nations by a combination of austerity-induced unemployment,
offshoring, permitting Western-controlled corporations to play nation-states against one another and mass low-skilled immigration,
creating a low-wage "reserve army of labor" in Western countries"
He pretends that he isn't calling it a conspiracy, but that is exactly what he's doing, and some have done what he describes,
but where he willfully jumps off the cliff of dishonesty is in claiming to know why ("deliberately") these actions were taken
by so many people, over such a long period of time.
That's an obvious lie. Unless Mr. Lind is Professor X, using science fiction psychic magnifying machines to read thousands
of minds, both past and present, there is no way anyone could honestly make that claim.
His use of conspiracy theory makes it doubly interesting in how he deconstructs the conspiracy theory many on the right are
pushing about the 'deep state'.
Turn that skeptic's lens back on yourself, Mr. Lind.
The rise of the power elite has long been a serious problem in many Western societies, but trying to forcibly overthrow it
will only create a new and potentially more dangerous elite in turn.
Information is the key to winning any war between the people and the elite.
Would have been nice to mention that all this was possible post-1991 because there was no longer a peer competitor to the US,
and thus Western business elite no longer was constrained to be allied with Western workers. Since 2014, that has all changed.
There are now two near-peer competitors to the US.
"... Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com . ..."
The hawks and internationalists who set our house on fire don't now deserve the contract to rebuild it.
While it may have significant popular support, much of the anti-Trump "Resistance" suffers from a severe weakness of message.
Part of the problem is with who the Resistance's leading messengers are: discredited neoconservative poltroons like former president
George W. Bush, unwatchable alleged celebrities like Chelsea Handler, and establishment Republicans who routinely
slash and burn the middle class like Senator Jeff Flake. Furthermore, what exactly is the Resistance's overriding message? Invariably
their sermonizing revolves around vague bromides about "tolerance," diversity, unrestricted free trade, and multilateralism. They
routinely push a supposed former status quo that was in fact anything but a status quo. The leaders of the Resistance have in their
arsenal nothing but buzzwords and a desire to feel self-satisfied and turn back to imagined pre-Trump normality. A president like
Donald Trump is only possible in a country with opposition voices of such subterranean caliber.
Remember when Trump steamrolled a crowded field of Republicans in one of the greatest electoral upsets in American history? Surely
many of us also recall the troupes of smug celebrities and Bushes and Obamas who lined up to take potshots at Trump over his unacceptably
cruel utterances that upset their noble moral sensibilities? How did that work out for them? They lost. The more that opposition
to Trump in office takes the same form as opposition to him on the campaign trail, the more hypocritical and counterproductive it
becomes. Further, the resistance to Trump's policies is coming just at the moment when principled opposition most needs to up its
game and help turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock. It's social conservatives who are also opposed to war and exploitation of
the working class who have the best moral bona fides to effectively oppose Trump, which is why morally phrased attacks on Trump from
the corporate and socially liberal wings of the left, as well as the free market and interventionist conservative establishment,
have failed and will continue to fail. Any real alternative is going to have to come from regular folks with hearts and morals who
aren't stained by decades of failure and hypocrisy.
A majority of Democrats now have
favorable views
of George W. Bush, and that's no coincidence. Like the supposedly reasonable anti-Trump voices on their side, Bush pops up like a
dutiful marionette to condemn white supremacy and
"nativism," and to
reminisce about the good old days when he was in charge. Bush also lectures about how Russia is ruining everything by meddling in
elections and destabilizing the world. But how convincing is it really to hear about multilateralism and respect for human rights
from Bush, who launched an unnecessary war on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left thousands of American
servicemen and women dead and wounded? How convincing is it when former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously remarked
that an estimated half a million Iraqis dead from our 1990s sanctions was "worth it," haughtily claims that she's
"offended" by Trump's travel ban ? "Offended" -- is that so, Madame Secretary? I have a feeling millions of Muslims in the Middle
East may have also been "offended" when people like you helped inflame their region and turned it into an endless back-and-forth
firestorm of conflict between U.S.-backed dictators and brutal jihadists, with everyone else caught in between.
Maybe instead of being offended that not everyone can come to America, people like Albright, Kerry, and Bush shouldn't have contributed
to the conditions that wrecked those people's homes in the first place? Maybe the U.S. government should think more closely about
providing military aid to 73 percent of the world's dictatorships? Sorry, do excuse the crazy talk. Clearly all the ruthless
maneuvering by the U.S. and NATO is just being done out of a selfless desire to spread democratic values by raining down LGBT-friendly
munitions on beleaguered populations worldwide. Another congressman just gave a speech about brave democratic principles so we can
all relax.
Generally, U.S. leaders like to team up with dictators before turning on them when they become inconvenient or start to upset
full-spectrum dominance. Nobody have should been surprised to see John Kerry fraternizing in a friendly manner with Syrian butcher
Bashar al-Assad and then moralistically threatening him with war several years later, or Donald Rumsfeld grinning with Saddam Hussein
as they cooperated militarily before Rumsfeld did an about-face on the naïve dictator based on false premises after 9/11. Here's
former president Barack Obama
shaking Moammar Gaddafi's hand in 2009 . I wonder what became of Mr. Gaddafi?
It's beyond parody to hear someone like Bush sternly opine that there's
"pretty clear evidence" Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Even if that were deeply significant in the way some argue, Bush
should be the last person anyone is hearing from about it. It's all good, though: remember when Bush
laughed about how there hadn't been weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004? It's all just a joke; don't you get it? (Maybe Saddam Hussein had already
used all the chemical weapons
the U.S. helped him get during the 1980s on Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which killed over one million people by the time the coalition
of the willing came knocking in 2003). That's the kind of thing people like Bush like to indirectly joke about in the company of
self-satisfied press ghouls at celebratory dinners. However, when the mean man Mr. Trump pals around with Russian baddie Vladimir
Putin, mistreats women, or spews out unkind rhetoric about "shitholes," it's far from a joke: it's time to get out your two-eared
pink hat and hit the streets chanting in righteous outrage.
To be fair, Trump is worthy of opposition. An ignorant, reactive egotist who needs to have his unfounded suppositions and inaccuracies
constantly validated by a sycophantic staff of people who'd be rejected even for a reality show version of the White House, he really
is an unstable excuse for a leader and an inveterate misogynist and all the other things. Trump isn't exactly Bible Belt material
despite his stamp of approval from Jerry Falwell Jr. and crew; in fact he hasn't even succeeded in
getting rid of the Johnson Amendment and allowing churches to get more involved in politics, one of his few concrete promises
to Christian conservatives. He's also a big red button of a disaster in almost every other area as commander-in-chief.
Trump's first military action as president reportedly killed numerous innocent women and children (some unnamed U.S. officials
claim some of the women were militants) as well as a Navy SEAL. Helicopter gunships strafed a Yemeni village for over an hour in
what Trump called a
"highly successful" operation against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). A senior military official felt differently,
saying that
"almost
everything went wrong." The raid even killed eight-year-old American girl Nawar al-Awlaki, daughter of previously killed extremist
leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whose other innocent child, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also droned while eating outdoors at a
restaurant in 2010 (with several friends and his 17-year-old cousin). The Obama administration dismissed Abdulrahman's death at the
time as
no big deal .
The list goes on with the Trump administration, a hollow outfit of Goldman Sachs operatives and detached industry and financier
billionaires helping out their hedge fund friends and throwing a small table scrap to the peasants every now and then. As
deformed babies are born in Flint, Michigan , Ivanka grandstands about
paid parental leave
. Meanwhile, Trump and Co. work to
expand the war in Afghanistan
and Syria. It's a sad state of affairs.
So who are the right voices to oppose the mango man-child and his cadre of doddering dullards? Not degenerate celebrities, dirty
politicians of the past, or special interest groups that try to fit everyone into a narrow electoral box so mainline Democrats can
pass their own version of corporate welfare and run wars with more sensitive rhetoric and politically correct messaging. Instead,
the effective dissidents of the future will be people of various beliefs, but especially the pro-family and faith-driven, who are
just as opposed to what came before Trump as they are to him. The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying
liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative
individuals who define their own destinies instead of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational
corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity outreach strategies. It's possible, for example, to be socially conservative,
pro-worker, pro-environment, and anti-war. In fact, that is the norm in most countries that exist outside the false political
paradigm pushed in America.
If enough suburbanite centrists who take a break from Dancing With The Stars are convinced that Trump is bad because
George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright say so, it shows that these people have learned absolutely nothing from Trump or the process
that led to him. These kind of resistors are the people nodding their heads emphatically as they read Eliot Cohen talk about why
he and his friends
can't stomach the evil stench of Trump or
Robert Kagan whine about fascism in The Washington Post. Here's a warning to good people who may not have been following
politics closely prior to Trump: don't get taken in by these charlatans. Don't listen to those who burned your town down as they
pitch you the contract to rebuild it. You can oppose both the leaders of the "Resistance" and Trump. In fact, it is your moral duty
to do so. This is the End of the End of History As We Know It, but there isn't going to be an REM song or Will Smith punching an
alien in the face to help everyone through it.
Here's a thought for those finding themselves enthusiastic about the Resistance and horrified by Trump: maybe, just maybe
, the water was already starting to boil before you cried out in pain and alarm.
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The
Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire
primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian
or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .
"The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the
left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative individuals who define their own destinies instead
of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity
outreach strategies."
They will have to lose their faith in "Free Market God" first. I don't believe that will happen.
I enjoyed the heat. The comments made are on point, and this is pretty much what my standard response to reactionary trump dissidents
are. Trump is terrible, but so is what came before him, he is just easier to dislike.
Even with inadequate opposition, Trump has managed to be the most unpopular president after one year, ever. I'm guessing this
speaks to his unique talent of messing things up.
Wow! Paul! Babylon burning. Preach it, brother! Takes me back to my teenage years, Ramparts 1968, as another corrupt infrastructure
caught fire and burned down. TAC is amazing, the only place to find this in true form.
Either we are history remembering fossils soon gone, or the next financial crash – now inevitable with passage of tax reform
(redo of 2001- the rich got their money out, now full speed off the cliff), will bring down this whole mass of absolute corruption.
What do you think will happen when Trump is faced with a true crisis? They're selling off the floorboards. What can remain standing?
And elsewhere in the world, who, in their right mind, would help us? Good riddance to truly dangerous pathology. The world
would truly become safer with the USA decommissioned, and then restored, through honest travail, to humility, and humanity.
You are right. Be with small town, front porch, family and neighborhood goodness, and dodge the crashing embers.
The Flying Burrito Brothers: 'On the thirty-first floor a gold plated door
Won't keep out the Lord's burning rain '
The depressing thing to me is how hard it is to get people to see this. You have people who still think Trump is doing a great
job and on the other side people who admire the warmongering Resistance and think Hillary's vast experience in foreign policy
was one of her strengths, rather than one of the main reasons to be disgusted by her. Between the two categories I think you have
the majority of American voters.
"... Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything bad that happens in the world. ..."
"... No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling. ..."
For a very simple reason. The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves. They wanted Hillary to win, badly, but
were not willing to risk too much for her. James Comey in particular cares about James Comey. Remember, this is a guy who views
himself as a historical Religious Figure. He wanted to be able to serve out a full 10 year term. He wanted to please his Democratic
masters enough to avoid being fired by either Obama or Clinton, but not too much to gain excessive ire from Congress. He was afraid
that a Republican Congress under a future Clinton Administration would go after him tooth and nail if he "concealed" new evidence
against Clinton prior to the election - especially since he promised the Congress that he would inform them of new developments.
And Comey probably feared the worst as to what was in Wiener's email archive. When they finally went through that archive, and
failed to find much that was new, he must have breathed a sigh of relief - only to see the wrong person win the election.
The political system in the US is a near complete failure. On one hand the massive levels of corruption legalized in Citizen's
United give influence over political decisions to wealthy elites previously unseen outside of the deeply corrupted and criminal
Russian oligarchy. On the other hand and synergistic with the previous point, the least informed and most easily influenced of
people have votes equal in weight to highly informed, well-educated, expert and professional practitioners.
Rights guaranteed by a difficult-to-alter constitution combined with easily managed and easily created social media content
based on opaque sources of emotionally charged, unverified and unverifiable information have gained control over public opinion
(making alteration of our constitution even more difficult.)
And look at the fourth (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump) wave of Republican explosion of national debt under the banner of "fiscal
responsibility."
It is astounding how "A" can be so successfully marketed as "B."
I am afraid that once control of public opinion has been so successfully attained in our form of democracy/legalized-corruption
that there is no way to recover.
It is a sad state of affairs. I'd love to hear solutions.
Great piece by Merry. Not new, but worthy of repetition when presented clearly like this.
It does not matter what you call it, Deep State or something else. What Merry says about the threat it poses to what remnants
of democracy we have is true.
I prefer to call it the Imperial State since its highest priority is the US Empire, with domestic well-being simply an afterthought
or of no cosequence at all.
There is only ONE country that consistently "messes" in the politics of nearly every other country on the planet and that is
not Russia.
It is the USA Deep State. I challenge you to research the evidence, "hidden in plain sight", of these examples:
1) US
money that flowed into France and Italy elections after WW2;
2) overthrow of Greece elected pres in 1974 by US-friendly generals;
3) overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile 1973;
4) overthrow of Iran Mossadegh in 1953;
5) overthrow of neutral govt in Indonesia
in early '60s;
6) the massive money that flowed into Russia in 1996 to get Yeltsin re-elected;
7) the money and attention US put
into overthrowing legally elected govt in Ukraine in 2014.
That is just a VERY short list.
NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS MAINTAINED THIS FRANTIC PACE OF MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS/MEDDLING/BRIBING/OVERTHROWING/BOMBING/INVADING/DEATH-SQUADing
FOREIGN POLITICAL SYSTEMS FOR 70 YEARS LIKE YOUR "GOOD OLE USA", powered by it's un-elected Deep State.
Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The
Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything
bad that happens in the world.
No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records
of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling.
You're right, Kelly, about some of your points. Evil: check. Kill: check. Steal: check. Co-opting the largest per capita criminal
network in the world: check.
Note: this article is part of asymposiumincluded in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
OF COURSE there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells us that power corrupts,
as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched, it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched
in secrecy, it will be abused in secret. That's the Deep State. James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political
theorist (1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941 that the great political development
of the age was not the battle between communism and capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance
in business, finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it, would be resisted, but
it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle
and stealthy ways, they would exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to protect themselves
from those who might want to bust them up.
Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy than in what Dwight Eisenhower called
the military-industrial complex, augmented by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive
for global hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of dominance.
Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as in Cold War days. We have also permanent
wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's
how power gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State endures.
Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump campaign "collusion" with Russia,
or how the investigation into those troubling allegations emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.
We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that Russia and President Putin were behind
the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really
a National Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence analysis) but rather the
work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine intelligence officer and arms-control official,
put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia NIA casts a shadow over the
viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion
and short on evidence. Even the New York Timesinitially derided
the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to 'trust us.'"
We have substantial reason to believe that an unconfirmed salacious report on Trump, paid for by the Democratic Party and the
Hillary Clinton campaign (with the FBI eventually getting hold of it), was used in an effort to get a secret national-security warrant
so the government could spy on the Trump campaign. We know that the FBI went easy on Clinton in its investigation of her irresponsible
email practices, and then we find out that a top FBI official involved in both the Clinton and Trump/Russia investigations despised
Trump, liked Hillary and expressed an interest in doing what he could to thwart Trump's emergence. We know he
privately told his lover
that, while he didn't think Trump could win, he nevertheless felt a need for an "insurance policy" because "I'm afraid we can't take
that risk." We know these matters were discussed in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.
We know further that former FBI director James Comey used a cutout to leak to the press a rendition of an Oval Office conversation
with the president that could be interpreted adversely to Trump. We know he did this to set in motion the appointment of an independent
investigator, a potentially mortal threat to any president -- and perhaps particularly to this freewheeling billionaire developer.
Perhaps most significant, we know that all this had the effect of wrenching from the president the flexibility to pursue a policy
agenda on which he had campaigned -- and which presumably contributed to his election. That was his promise to work toward improved
relations between the United States and Russia. Prospects for such a diplomatic initiative now are as dead as the dodo bird. Trump
lost that one. The Deep State won.
I don't believe there is a secret 'deep state' controlling the USA from the shadows like some Bond villian.
What people call the deep state is in fact the interests of the business elite who have been granted nearly unprecedented political
influence by the American people in the form or nearly unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who promote their interests,
unregulated lobbying, control of the MSM and the funding of think tanks and other institutions that promote their interests.
When historians look back at this time it will be Madison Avenue and the revolution in persuasion that they study.
1934 Major General Smedley Butler, US Marine Corp, was asked by US Industrialists to help them overthrow the government. Roosevelt
was to remain as the figurehead of the US but the industrialists would be in charge. The industrialist would supply Butler with
a 500,000 man army that he would be in charge of. Butler's father was a congressman in the 1920's and Butler told congress of
the possible Coup. Read of The Committee of Foreign Affairs, CFA.
Teddy Roosevelt and the Presidents that followed him understood the dangers of the Robber-Barons buying the government. That's
why they launched anti-trust, income tax and estate taxes to protect democracy.
The problem is not that the "deep state" is thwarting Trump's policy agenda. It is his reliance on advisers who agree with the
post–Cold War foreign-policy consensus.
"... History informed his judgement. "The means of defense against foreign danger," he said, "have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." ..."
"... National Security and Double Government ..."
"... Christopher A. Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of ..."
AMERICA'S FOUNDERS anticipated how a sprawling national-security state could subvert the
popular will, and even endanger the nation's interests. James Madison told his fellow delegates at the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, "A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty."
History informed his judgement. "The means of defense against foreign danger," he said,
"have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
George Washington agreed. In his Farewell Address, the general turned president advised his
countrymen to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any
form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty."
Another general-president, Dwight Eisenhower, echoed these concerns. He worried that the
evolving "military-industrial complex" would acquire "unwarranted influence" and "endanger our
liberties or democratic processes." "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," he continued,
"can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Alas, the citizenry is neither alert nor knowledgeable.
Which means that the actual conduct of foreign policy falls to what Michael Glennon dubbed
the Trumanites: "the network of several hundred high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic,
and law enforcement officials within the executive branch who are responsible for making
national security policymaking." And within that executive branch, Glennon concludes in his
book National Security and Double
Government , "The President . . . exercises little substantive control over the
overall direction of U.S. national security policy."
Even if you don't buy Glennon's argument, it seems likely that the men and women responsible
for executing U.S. foreign policy are uninterested in the views of the many Americans who
actually pay for the nation's wars, and the few Americans who fight them.
Defenders of the status quo like to argue that it survives because it works. The public is
wrong to doubt the wisdom of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the foreign-policy elite sees it,
the American people can't be expected to understand why we defend wealthy allies, deploy
hundreds of thousands of military personnel in numerous foreign countries and align ourselves
with some of the world's most reprehensible autocrats.
Dean Acheson, Truman's secretary of state, presumably spoke for many elites (though perhaps
too candidly) when he explained, "If you truly had a democracy and did what the people wanted,
you'd go wrong every time."
In this sense, it isn't merely inertia that explains why U.S. foreign policy remains on
autopilot, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the status quo. Rather, it's the deep
state, doing what the deep state does.
Donald Trump tapped into the resentment engendered by the establishment's contempt for the
great unwashed. He has failed, so far at least, to dislodge the deep state and its policies.
Then again, maybe he never intended to roll back American primacy. After all, he promised
massive military spending increases, and expressed regret that we didn't take the Iraqis' oil.
Even his claim to have always opposed the Iraq War was a taradiddle. So there were ample
grounds for doubting that Trump would give the American people the foreign policy they wanted.
Maybe the deep state didn't thwart him?
The deep state obviously isn't all-powerful. After all, had the deep state gotten its way,
Donald J. Trump would never have come close to the Oval Office, let alone be sitting in it.
Now, given the power that we have erroneously invested in the office of the presidency,
critics of the deep state should rethink their opposition to it, and members of the deep state
should rethink their enthusiasm for a chief executive generally unencumbered by the Congress or
the people. The deep state doesn't control the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed. It cannot stop
him from engaging in behavior that increases the risk of a catastrophic conflict. Perhaps we
should wish that it could?
But we should never welcome a situation in which unelected officials distort or ignore
public sentiments, or undertake policies that are demonstrably harmful to vital national
interests.
"... And the dossier, a pastiche of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee ..."
"... The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed. ..."
...Donald Trump went to war against the entire political class: all factions of both parties, the bureaucracy, the national
media, the lobbyists, Hollywood and Wall Street. He said the whole system was rotten and had failed the nation: hopeless wars
that accomplished nothing except the wastage of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the extension of Iranian influence
and an immense humanitarian crisis, a flatlined economy, a shrinking workforce, increasing poverty and crime, oceans of debt,
large trade deficits from trade agreements that exported unemployment to the United States and the unmonitored influx of
millions of illiterate peasants from Latin America.
... ... ...
For the first nine months of the new administration, there was the constant confected threat
of impeachment. The phantasmagorical imbecility that Trump had somehow colluded and connived
with the Russian government to rig the election was the excuse of the hapless Clinton and her
Trump-hating echo chamber in the national media for the election result.
The deep state was almost the whole state, and it pitched in to sabotage the administration.
For nearly that long, the Republican leaders sat on their hands waiting to see if he would be
impeached or not. His nominees were a long time in being confirmed. There were leaks of White
House conversations, including with foreign leaders -- outright acts of insubordination
causing Trump, a decisive executive, to fire some fairly high officials, including the malign
director of the FBI, who then informed Congress that he had leaked a self-addressed memo
(probably illegally, as it was technically government property), in order to have a special
prosecutor named to torment the president over the fatuous Russian allegations, although
Comey testified that Trump himself was not a target or suspect and the Russians had not
influenced the outcome of the election. (This was a sober position compared to the wholesale
fabrications of the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark
Warner, that a
thousand Russian agents had swarmed the key battleground states and had delivered
Wisconsin to Trump.)
The president has strengthened the White House staff. The FBI and Justice Department have
been ripped apart in their partisanship and misuse of the dossier on which the collusion
argument and the surveillance of the Trump campaign were based. And the dossier, a pastiche
of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, and the whole impeachment movement has
collapsed. The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep
state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is
forearmed.
Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full
(PublicAffairs, 2007).
Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the
March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
OF COURSE
there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells
us that power corrupts, as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched,
it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched in secrecy, it will be abused
in secret. That's the Deep State.
James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political theorist
(1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941
that the great political development of the age was not the battle between communism and
capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance in business,
finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it,
would be resisted, but it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial
elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle and stealthy ways, they would
exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to
protect themselves from those who might want to bust them up.
Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy
than in what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, augmented by
intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive for global
hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of
dominance.
Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as
in Cold War days. We have also permanent wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not
one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's how power
gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State
endures.
Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump
campaign "collusion" with Russia, or how the investigation into those troubling allegations
emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.
We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that
Russia and President Putin were behind the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot
to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really a National
Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence
analysis) but rather the work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine
intelligence officer and arms-control official,
put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia
NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and
judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion and short on evidence.
Even the New York Times initially
derided the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to
'trust us.'"
"... As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including "digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn " oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas company Joe Biden's son is on the board of). ..."
"... If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants," perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier. ..."
"... The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked? ..."
BuzzFeed is suing the
cash-strapped Democratic National Committee (DNC) to force them to hand over information
related to the "Steele Dossier" that might help the news outlet defend itself against a lawsuit
lodged by a Russian businessman who was named in the document. Three separate lawsuits have
been launched against BuzzFeed in connection to the January 11, 2017 publication of the
dossier, which states that Russian tech executive Aleksej Gubarev used his web hosting
companies to hack into the DNC's computer systems.
The dossier, without substantiation, said Gubarev's U.S.-based global web-hosting
companies, XBT and Webzilla, planted digital bugs, transmitted viruses and conducted altering
operations against the Democratic Party leadership.
While one key name in the dossier was blackened out by BuzzFeed, Gubarev's was not. He
alleges that he was never contacted for comment, suffering reputational harm in the process.
-
Foreign Policy
As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might
help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including
"digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the
hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report
prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very
Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn "
oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian
Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas
company Joe Biden's son is on the board of).
"As part of the discovery process, BuzzFeed is attempting to verify claims in the dossier
that relate to the hacking of the DNC," said BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenhal in a statement.
"We're asking a federal court to force the DNC to follow the law and allow BuzzFeed to fully
defend its First Amendment rights."
Last month, the DNC claimed that providing the requested information would expose the DNC's
internal operations and harm the party politically (it's always someone else's fault, no?).
"If these documents were disclosed, the DNC's internal operations, as well as its ability to
effectively achieve its political goals, would be harmed ," said DNC lawyers.
If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants,"
perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which
CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside
source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was
the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks.
Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the
news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the
globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier.
The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge
of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama
administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based
business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports
Foreign Policy.
At FTI, Ferrante launched what's now been a months-long stealth effort chasing down
documents and conducting interviews on the ground in various countries around the world. His
team directed BuzzFeed lawyers to subpoena specific data and testimony from dozens of
agencies or companies across the country and assembled a cyber ops war room to analyze that
dat a, according to sources familiar with the work.
Considering that much of the Steele dossier came from a collaboration with high level
Kremlin officials (a collusion if you will), one has to wonder exactly what channels
Ferrante and FTI have tapped in order to access such information.
Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked?
"... However, Gru is not a run-of-the-mill communist candidate. A successful manager of an agricultural holding called Lenin Sovkhoz ..."
"... The producers, both industrialists and agriculturalists, want more protectionist measures and cheaper credits, they want to boost the buying power of ordinary Russians, that is increase salaries and pensions. Their fortunes lie with the fortunes of the ordinary Russian workers. They are dissatisfied with President Putin, and even more with his government led by Mr Medvedev ..."
"... Putin has been a good president, and a popular one, but he has his limitations. He still feels obliged to keep the Deal he made with the late President Yeltsin; he still keeps fighting the Soviet memory, he is surrounded by his buddies who roll in cash; he does not support local production except for the weapons industry. While he was good for a long while, there is a feeling that the country is ripe for a changing of the guard. ..."
"... Grudinin's suggestions are anathema to the neo-liberal Kremlin. Putin keeps the doors of Russia wide open for immigration, to the detriment of native workers. If the immigration flow has decreased it is mostly the result of Rouble's depreciation. ..."
"... The Russians paid heavily for their cutting edge achievement, while the European peoples became the main beneficiaries of the October Revolution. They've got all the Russians fought for, for free. Their leaders were afraid their workers would go over to the Communists; and thus the welfare state came into being. ..."
"... Eventually, both branches of the Left forgot their history. The Western Left forgot their victories were due to the Red Army's might, and they proudly preached the new-fangled theories of Euro-Communism. The Russians, always eager to learn a new trick, fell for it, and dismantled the socialist state, sincerely expecting they would live as good as Swedes. The end was gruesome: the Russians were plunged into long years of depopulation and de-industrialisation, while the flagship of the Western left, the huge Euro-Communist parties of France and Italy disappeared. Swedish socialism has almost perished. ..."
"... The cause of socialism was defeated in 1991, no doubt, but it is not the first defeat. In November 1941, when the German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow, it also appeared socialism had been defeated. However, in 1945 socialism rebounded. Since 1991, the winner, Capital, claims its victory is irrevocable and irreversible. It is, they say, the end of history. ..."
"... But victories and defeats can be reversed. The Soviets did not know that. They believed that "the victory of socialism is inevitable because it is progressive." Perhaps in the long run it is inevitable, but it can happen in a thousand years, and meanwhile a nuclear war or biological experiments can exterminate the human race. ..."
"... The most basic ideals of French Republic – democracy, liberty, equality – were defeated by Napoleon, by the Bourbons, by Orleans, but they rebounded. ..."
"... Nothing is inevitable. The Soviet Bolsheviks believed in inevitability – and lost; while their adversaries just fought hard, not giving an inch – and won. Their attitude should be emulated. The people of the West are ready for the real-Left turn. Recent successes of Jeremy Corbyn in England, of Bernie Sanders in the US, of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France prove it. They are soft, but hard ones will come, too. ..."
"... This is not the beginning of the end of the cruel man-eating neo-liberalism and its Menshevik allies, but this is the end of the beginning in the universal battle for socialism, as Churchill said of the British victory over the Germans at El Alamein. The light at the end of the tunnel is already visible. And then the Russian Communists will again become the beacon for the workers of the world. ..."
Do you remember the terrible onslaught of the mainstream media on presidential candidate
Donald Trump in 2016? Dozens of revelations about his fake hair, pussy grabbing, tax avoidance
and what not; dozens of public polls proving that the nation wanted Hillary and hated Trump,
opinion pieces convincing you that only racist white trash could think of voting for him. They
even printed that Time weekly (or was it Newsweek ?) cover with a Madam
President ! greeting. And then came the day of counting.
This development comes to my mind as I follow the incessant attacks in the Russian media and
social networks on presidential candidate Paul N. Grudinin (usually nicknamed Gru). Russian
state-owned TV is supposed, by its charter, to play a neutral role in the election campaign.
They did it for a week after his name was entered into the race. In that week's time, Gru's
rating skyrocketed and almost reached that of President Putin. This was an unexpected turn of
events for the Kremlin, whose political witch-doctors expected Gru to make a modest showing and
to improve the doubtful legitimacy of the forthcoming elections.
When they recognised the magnitude of their mistake, they gave a command to their obedient
TV channels, and Gru became the target of their daily attacks. Out of eight candidates, Gru is
the only one who gets negative coverage. About him, they speak bad or nothing, just like about
Trump in the US in his time.
A veteran candidate, the old Nationalist Zhirinovsky gets plenty of time on the TV, for he
has only one message, Down with Gru . His wild attacks on Gru are broadcasted in every
election campaign program every evening on the TV.
There is a spoiler, a tiny 'Russian Communists' Trotskyite party, whose only purpose in life
is to steal votes from the mainstream Communist Party (KPRF). It is a virtual party that
disappears after elections to come back to life before new elections. Some innocent souls in
the Russian hinterland vote for them being convinced that this is the Communist Party.
They are violently anti-Gru, and post like mad in Facebook their denunciations of the
not-quite-communist Gru.
However, Gru is not a run-of-the-mill communist candidate. A successful manager of an
agricultural holding called Lenin Sovkhoz , he is a good example of Russian
industrialists otherwise called 'Red directors', that is managers of Soviet factories and
enterprises who adjusted to the new system. They are producers of goods for local consumption,
and their interests do not coincide with those of the Putin (or Yeltsin) oligarchs. Those
oligarchs made their fortunes by importing consumer goods and exporting raw materials; they are
the base of Putin's power.
The producers, both industrialists and agriculturalists, want more protectionist measures
and cheaper credits, they want to boost the buying power of ordinary Russians, that is increase
salaries and pensions. Their fortunes lie with the fortunes of the ordinary Russian workers.
They are dissatisfied with President Putin, and even more with his government led by Mr
Medvedev.
Gru became the candidate for a plethora of political organisations from the Left and from
the Right; he is supported by Russian Nationalists , though his main
alliance is with the KPRF (the mainstream Russian Communist Party). He is a combination of
Sanders and Trump, for workers, against immigration, for protective trade barriers and low-cost
credits for small producers. A self-made-man of the upper-middle class, not a billionaire, but
definitely a wealthy man, he does not scare middle-class Russians who would be afraid to
support a real red-in-tooth-and-claw Communist.
Though the official prediction grouop, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, VTSIOM
(ВЦИОМ) claims 70% of electorate will vote for Putin
and only 7% for Grudinin, the feeling on the ground is very different. There are a few sites
allowing people to express their preference by "voting"; a biggish site of this sort is
http://president-rf.ru/ where out of
180,000 voters 60% preferred Gru, and only 30% voted for President Putin. On other sites, Gru
gets anything from 30 to 80 per cent of the vote.
It is difficult to predict the result, and it is still over a month until election day, but
VTSIOM's assessment appears too low to justify the ferocious campaign against Gru. If he were
about to get 6-7%, the top wheeler-dealer, the presidential administration, would not bother
and would not activate its troll factories and fake social network accounts to stop Grudinin.
It seems that man has a chance to win the battle, that is if the elections are reasonably
fair.
Putin has been a good president, and a popular one, but he has his limitations. He still
feels obliged to keep the Deal he made with the late President Yeltsin; he still keeps fighting
the Soviet memory, he is surrounded by his buddies who roll in cash; he does not support local
production except for the weapons industry. While he was good for a long while, there is a
feeling that the country is ripe for a changing of the guard.
A teacher in the preparatory school may be wonderful, but sooner or later, the child should
move on, to new teachers. Gru is the first man who has excited the Russians since 1996, and he
is likely to make a strong bid.
The Russian Left is Different.
Grudinin has the support of the left and of the right; of workers and of managers; of
communists and of nationalists. How could this happen? The main reason is that the Russian Left
is quite different from the European Left. The Russians are Bolsheviks. The Western Left is
predominantly Menshevik.
Historically, the Russian Social Democrats were divided into
Bolsheviks, the Majorites, and Mensheviks, the Minorites. The actual argument that divided the
Social Democrats into these majority and minority groups is of little importance now and of
even less relevance. Nowadays, the Majorites are the Left for the Majority, while Minorites are
the Left for Minorities.
The Russian Left is the force for the majority, for the workers, for the natives. The
Western Left is for gender, ethnic, religious minorities. If you'd ask a Western worker about
the Left, he will probably tell you: the Left is not for us, they care only for gays and
migrants who take our jobs.
Mensheviks are (and were) better for Jews, as Jews are the ultimate minority. Bolsheviks
accepted Jews as individuals and equals, not as a separate and preferred minority group.
Bolsheviks fought against the Bund, the Jewish Social Democrats, while the Mensheviks joined
with the Bund.
Stalin observed (and Trotsky quoted that in his book on Stalin):
"the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews. On the other hand, the overwhelming
majority of the Bolshevik group were ethnic Russians. In this connection a Bolshevik observed
in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a
true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn't be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a
pogrom in the Party".
While being comradely to Jewish comrades, Stalin effectively de-Jewified the Russian
Communist Party by bringing in many ethnic Russian workers and peasants. He treated the Jews as
just one of the tribes populating Eurasia, not as the Chosen Ones. This is the sin of Stalin in
Jewish eyes, and that is why they condemn him now.
The Jewish influence in the Western Left has survived all these years and even outlived the
massive Jewish involvement with the Left. After 1968, the Jews en masse departed to new
pastures, but their influence lingered, entrenching the Jewish-friendly Menshevik tendency.
They adapted the Western Left to fit their preferences and made it suitable for cohabitation
with the elites. Along the way, they had lost their working class support, but they were more
interested in keeping with the rulers.
The Jewish-run Mensheviks fit perfectly into the oligarchy. They believe that Anna and Susan
Wojicki, the former wife of Sergei ("Google") Brin and her sister, are unhappy discriminated
women, unlike welders and auto mechanics, who are white men, the patriarchal lords of the
world.
The Bolsheviks struggle for women's equality is exemplified in free kindergartens, and the
Mensheviks, in reserved places for women in the directorships of large companies.
Mensheviks are concerned about the rights of transgender people to a urinal of their
preference. The Bolsheviks are concerned about the right of workers to work, to a decent wage,
to their share of natural resources. You can easily understand what sort of Left is preferred
in the eyes of mainstream media and their billionaire owners.
Migrants provide another cause of distinction. The Western working class achieved much
during the years of the Cold War, when the Western ruling class had to compete with the
Communists for workers' loyalty. Now the rulers are eager to void these achievements –
and the easiest way is through population replacement by the massive importation of migrants
and refugees. For this purpose, Capital is waging wars in the Middle East and fanning strife in
Africa, and they facilitate the refugees' flight to Europe and America.
The Mensheviks, that is the Western Left, support migrants against the indigenous
population, in the name of their anti-racism and internationalism. However, for all practical
reasons they do the work for their masters, because migrants are easier to manipulate, they
help to lower salaries, to undermine the workers' organisations, and to destroy natural
solidarity.
The Bolsheviks are against the causes of mass migration, against the use of migrants and
refugees to the detriment of the indigenous population. This is the position of the Russian
Communists, whose anti-migration rhetoric is so outspoken that even Trumpists would find it too
brusque.
Mr Grudinin has a history of anti-immigration demands behind him. He calls for enforcing a
visa regime with the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, as now
their working migrants do not need a Russian visa. He insists that every working migrant should
be given the same salary as a native Russian worker, the idea being that in such conditions
there will be less demand for migrants' labour. Perhaps it makes sense to hire inexperienced
dirt-cheap Tajik migrants, but if for the same price you can hire a qualified Russian worker,
you will probably employ the latter.
Grudinin's suggestions are anathema to the neo-liberal Kremlin. Putin keeps the doors of
Russia wide open for immigration, to the detriment of native workers. If the immigration flow
has decreased it is mostly the result of Rouble's depreciation.
In the West, these ideas of limiting migration belong fully to the realm of the Right, or
even the Alt-Right. They are described as "populist", meaning they are popular but disapproved
by the ruling elites. The Western Left has been manipulated into an unpopular position, while
the popular ('populist') ideas have been transferred to the Right.
In Russia, the Russian Communists did not follow the path of the Mensheviks. They made all
sorts of compromises, but they always stayed for the workers. They do not fight for gays,
migrants and upper-class feminists. They make allies with the producers and against the
rentiers and bankers.
Perhaps the Russian Communists will show the way to their Western comrades as they did a
hundred years ago. These two branches of the world Left movement have had a checkered history.
In the 19 th century, the new-born Russian revolutionary movement was keen to learn
from the West; the Russian Narodniks went on a pilgrimage to visit Marx in London seeking his
advice. The Western revolutionaries of that time (including Marx) were as distrustful of
Russians as Robert Mueller or John McCain. They thought Russia was so backward and so
reactionary that a Russian progressive Left was an impossibility.
And then something unexpected had happened. When the guns of the First World War struck,
only the Russian Left, led by Vladimir Lenin, did not lose their heads, but led their country
to the victory of socialist revolution. After 1917, for many years the Russian Left was the
guiding star for the world Left.
The Russians paid heavily for their cutting edge achievement, while the European peoples
became the main beneficiaries of the October Revolution. They've got all the Russians fought
for, for free. Their leaders were afraid their workers would go over to the Communists; and
thus the welfare state came into being.
Eventually, both branches of the Left forgot their history. The Western Left forgot their
victories were due to the Red Army's might, and they proudly preached the new-fangled theories
of Euro-Communism. The Russians, always eager to learn a new trick, fell for it, and dismantled
the socialist state, sincerely expecting they would live as good as Swedes. The end was
gruesome: the Russians were plunged into long years of depopulation and de-industrialisation,
while the flagship of the Western left, the huge Euro-Communist parties of France and Italy
disappeared. Swedish socialism has almost perished.
Over the years, the Western Left virtually disappeared, and its place was taken by the
pseudo-left, who appropriated the name of the historical Left parties. Capital raised in its
secret labs this poisonous pseudo-Left, with one supreme goal in mind – to make the very
name of communism obnoxious and repelling.
For the Bolsheviks, the Good Ones were workers, they were the salt of the earth. Everyone
could join this class by identifying with workers. The Menshevik pseudo-left has offered a
shortcut to join the Good Ones: Identity Politics. You are Good if you are discriminated
against. If you are black, you suffer discrimination, even if you are an Obama. If you are a
woman, you suffer discrimination. If you like BDSM, you are discriminated against. If you are a
migrant, you are discriminated against. If you are a Jew, a Soros or a Rothschild, you are
still suffer discrimination, for just half a century ago your grandfather was not allowed to
join a country club.
For Bolsheviks, discrimination is not the most urgent problem. They are surely against
discrimination; but it takes a backseat after the really important question: labour/capital
relationship. When the working people win, discrimination will vanish, they say. By keeping the
eye on this most important bottom line, the Bolsheviks are the greatest natural enemies of the
1%.
The cause of socialism was defeated in 1991, no doubt, but it is not the first defeat. In
November 1941, when the German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow, it also appeared
socialism had been defeated. However, in 1945 socialism rebounded. Since 1991, the winner,
Capital, claims its victory is irrevocable and irreversible. It is, they say, the end of
history.
But victories and defeats can be reversed. The Soviets did not know that. They believed that
"the victory of socialism is inevitable because it is progressive." Perhaps in the long run it
is inevitable, but it can happen in a thousand years, and meanwhile a nuclear war or biological
experiments can exterminate the human race.
The most basic ideals of French Republic – democracy, liberty, equality – were
defeated by Napoleon, by the Bourbons, by Orleans, but they rebounded.
Nothing is inevitable. The Soviet Bolsheviks believed in inevitability – and lost;
while their adversaries just fought hard, not giving an inch – and won. Their attitude
should be emulated. The people of the West are ready for the real-Left turn. Recent successes
of Jeremy Corbyn in England, of Bernie Sanders in the US, of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in
France prove it. They are soft, but hard ones will come, too.
This is not the beginning of the end of the cruel man-eating neo-liberalism and its
Menshevik allies, but this is the end of the beginning in the universal battle for socialism,
as Churchill said of the British victory over the Germans at El Alamein. The light at the end
of the tunnel is already visible. And then the Russian Communists will again become the beacon
for the workers of the world.
Gru's success can change a lot of things. His worldview has many points in common with
Donald Trump. In a month' time, we shall know how far this Russian Trump has succeeded in
advancing.
"... The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's behalf
and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced
no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor of Trump. This
is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead, they focus
their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia,
especially in confronting jihadi terrorists. ..."
"... The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with
or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians! ..."
"... The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their
sweeping purge of civil society. ..."
"... President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to
overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and
nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China ..."
"... Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the
spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order ..."
Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens' constitutional rights for as long a time and against
as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of
crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the
US Justice Department.
In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members
of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media. The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators,
intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left. Today, the right
and the left have changed places: The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department's fabrications, and abuse
of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public
opinion makers.
The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump
campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency. Private sector investigators,
hired by Trump's rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and
Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens. This was done
with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.
The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's
behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have
produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor
of Trump. This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead,
they focus their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between
the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists.
The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined
with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians!
The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of
their sweeping purge of civil society.
The FBI investigated the private lives of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even threatening their family members. They illegally
spied on and infiltrated civil liberties organizations, and used provocateurs and spies in anti-war groups. Individuals lives were
destroyed, some were driven to suicide; important popular American organizations were undermined to the detriment of millions. This
has been its focus since its beginning and continues with the current fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda and investigations.
President Trump: Victim and Executor
President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war
to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile
and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China .
Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion.
In a word: From the right to the left there are no political options to choose from among the two ruling political parties. Popular
political movements and mass demonstrations have risen up against Trump with clear justification, but have since dissolved and been
absorbed. They came together from diverse sectors: Women against sexual abuse and workplace humiliation; African-Americans against
police impunity and violence; and immigrants against mass expulsion and harassment. They staged mass demonstrations and then declined
as their 'anti-Trump' animus was frustrated by the liberal-democrats hell-bent on pursuing the Russian connection.
In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women
organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video
evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence
in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and
political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements
and especially oppose growing war-fever.
Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty
everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.
Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to
the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order
.
"... The new weapons for Ukraine coincides with an increase in US troop deployments in the Baltic region on Russia's border, prompting Russia to accuse the United States of violating the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and position nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in response. ..."
One consequence of the Trump-Russia fixation is the overshadowing of the far-right agenda
that Trump and his Republican allies are carrying out, including, inexorably, policies that
undermine the narrative of Trump-Russian collusion. But as that narrative is also used as a
cudgel against Trump's presidency, it is worth asking if some of those policies are now even a
direct result.
In December, Trump
authorized the sale of new weapons to Ukraine for its fight against Russian-backed
separatists. President Obama had rejected the arms shipments, "fearing that it would only
escalate the bloodshed," as The New York Times noted in 2015. Trump had also opposed such a move during the
campaign, but was swayed by lobbying from
advisers and congressional neoconservatives
. "Overall,"
observed Andrew Weiss , a Russia expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, "I see this discussion [on Trump-Russia] as fitting within a broader effort by people
within the national security bureaucracy to box Trump in on Ukraine."
The new weapons for Ukraine coincides with an increase in US troop deployments in the
Baltic region on Russia's border, prompting Russia to accuse the United States of violating the
1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and position nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in
response.
Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is
either naive or a fool if he believes half of what he is saying.
Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged
by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin
and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB
faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation
of the Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in
government policy), but the current team realizes how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough
to create plausible distance for public consumption.
For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be
seen as squandered. Very little economic growth, continuing deterioration of the education
and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of wealth abroad.
Those are Putin's primary achievements.
On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three
years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and
light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western
competition.
Brand attracted interest because of her potential to assume a key role in the Trump-Russia
investigation. The official overseeing the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,
the deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, has been repeatedly criticized by Trump. If
Rosenstein had been fired or quit, oversight would have fallen to Brand. That job would now
fall to the solicitor general, Noel Francisco.
"She felt this was an opportunity she couldn't turn down," her friend and former colleague
Jamie Gorelick said. Walmart sought Brand to be head of global corporate governance at the
retail giant, a position Gorelick said has legal and policy responsibilities that will cater
to her strengths.
"It really seems to have her name on it," Gorelick said.
After 16 years of war in Afghanistan, experts have stopped asking what victory looks like
and are beginning to consider the spectrum of possible defeats.
All options involve acknowledging the war as failed, American aims as largely unachievable
and Afghanistan's future as only partly salvageable. Their advocates see glimmers of hope
barely worth the stomach-turning trade-offs and slim odds of success.
"I don't think there is any serious analyst of the situation in Afghanistan who believes
that the war is winnable," Laurel Miller, a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, said
in a
podcast last summer, after leaving her State Department stint as acting special
representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This may be why, even after thousands have died and over $100 billion has been spent, even
after the past two weeks of shocking bloodshed in
Kabul , few expect the United States to try anything other than the status
quo.
It is a strategy, as Ms. Miller described it, to "prevent the defeat of the Afghan
government and prevent military victory by the Taliban" for as long as possible.
Though far from the most promising option, it is the least humiliating. But sooner or later,
the United States and Afghanistan will find themselves facing one of Afghanistan's endgames --
whether by choice or not.
"... What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest prize of all and said "Why not.'. ..."
"... Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly, Americans cannot wake up fast enough ..."
"... I am familiar with the tactics of Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more committed to getting him elected. ..."
"... This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy prey for being led to their own political slaughter. ..."
"... Does anybody ever talk about the failures of capitalism anymore or just about people and politics? ..."
"... Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors. That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the Mueller "investigation." ..."
"... yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream media. ..."
"... This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court represents. ..."
"... Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk. In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never. ..."
"... Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our free [sic] press and establishment media. ..."
"... Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them compliant and confused. ..."
"... As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally, then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what they seem to have done. ..."
"... Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war. How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as millions of dead and traumatized survivors. ..."
"... I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of supporting war against Russia. ..."
"... Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential administrative discipline. ..."
"... That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it. Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out. If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media in the service of both. ..."
"... Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade, splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer. ..."
"... I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay. Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left. ..."
"... Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as possible. ..."
"... The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate. ..."
"... One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population. ..."
"... Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions "political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering, just as were our British forefathers. ..."
"... Is it a diversion? From what? It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll. Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to doomsday. Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP. Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima. when nerves fray hey! ..."
"... I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate. ..."
"... For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern. We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us. Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their hatred of Trump is only part of this issue. ..."
"... With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. ..."
"... Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these Russian hackers who weren't there. ..."
"... The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves. ..."
"... I maintain that having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate. People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled." ..."
"... Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the Pentagon budget! ..."
Exclusive: Hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special
Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental
misunderstandings, report Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry.
... ... ...
Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively
to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe
the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as
"perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people
compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported
. We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of
Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of
the Al Qaeda perpetrators.
Such emotional manipulation is the likely explanation for the fact that so many people are
now gearing up to defend someone like Mueller, while largely ignoring other important topics of
far greater consequence. With no demonstrations being organized to stop a possible war with
North Korea – or an escalation in Syria – hundreds of thousands of Americans are
apparently all too eager to go to the mat in defense of an investigation into the president's
possible "collusion" with Russia in its alleged meddling in election 2016.
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this
Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and
defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous
internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn't have to be privy to his inner circle to
recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to
repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only
able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should
still shock liberal consciences.
Although Mueller and his "joined at the hip" cohort James Comey are now hailed for
their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement
officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy
Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the
Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
stunning levels of incompetence.
Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee's and Senate Judiciary
Committee Leaders letters ( here and
here ) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller's
spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration's) Department of Justice
rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a
pedestal. Steele was declared to be a "reliable source" without apparently vetting or
corroborating any of the "opposition research" allegations that he had been hired (and paid
$160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
There are typically at least two major prongs of establishing the "reliability" of any given
source in an affidavit, the first – and the one mostly pointed to – being the
source's track record for having furnished accurate and reliable information in the past. Even
if it is conceded that Steele would have initially satisfied this part of the test for
determining probable cause, based on his having reportedly furnished some important information
to FBI agents investigating the FIFA soccer fraud years before, his track record for
truthfulness would go right up in smoke only a month or so later, when it was discovered that
he had lied to the FBI about his having previously leaked the investigation to the media.
(Moreover, this lie had led the FBI to mislead the FISA court in its first application to
surveil Carter Page.)
The second main factor in establishing the reliability of any source's information would be
even more key in this case. It's the basis of the particular informant's knowledge,
i.e. was the informant an eye witness or merely reporting double-triple hearsay or
just regurgitating the "word on the street?"
If the actual basis of the information is uncertain, the next step for law enforcement would
normally be to seek facts that either corroborate or refute the source's information. It's been
reported that FBI agents did inquire into the basis for Steele's allegations, but it is not
known what Steele told the FBI – other than indications that his info came from secondary
sources making it, at best, second- or third-hand. What if anything did the FBI do to establish
the reliability of the indirect sources that Steele claimed to be getting his info from? Before
vouching for his credibility, did the FBI even consider polygraphing Steele after he (falsely)
denied having leaked his info since the FBI was aware of significant similarities of a news
article to the info he had supplied them?
Obviously, more questions than answers exist at the present time. But even if the FBI was
duped by Steele – whether as the result of their naivete in trusting a fellow former spy,
their own sloppiness or recklessness, or political bias – it should be hoped by everyone
that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court
was ultimately misled.
As they prepare for the "largest mobilization in history" in defense of Mueller and his
probe into Russiagate, liberals have tried to sweep all this under the rug as a "nothing
burger." Yet, how can liberals, who in the past have pointed to so many abusive past practices
by the FBI, ignore the reality that these sorts of abuses of the FISA process more than likely
take place on a daily basis – with the FISA court earning a
well-deserved reputation as little more than a rubberstamp?
Other, more run-of-the-mill FISA applications – if they were to be scrutinized as
thoroughly as the Carter Page one – would reveal similar sloppiness and lack of factual
verification of source information used to secure surveillance orders, especially after FISA
surveillances skyrocketed after 9/11 in the "war on terror." Rather than dismissing the Nunes
Memo as a nothing burger, liberals might be better served by taking a closer look at this FISA
process which could easily be turned against them instead of Trump.
It must be recognized that FBI agents who go before the secret FISA court and who are
virtually assured that whatever they present will be kept secret in perpetuity, have very
little reason to be careful in verifying what they present as factual. FISA court judges are
responsible for knowing the law but have no way of ascertaining the "facts" presented to
them.
Unlike a criminal surveillance authorized by a federal district court, no FBI affidavit
justifying the surveillance will ever end up under the microscope of defense attorneys and
defendants to be pored over to ensure every asserted detail was correct and if not, to
challenge any incorrect factual assertions in pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.
It is therefore shocking to watch how this political manipulation seems to make people who
claim to care about the rule of law now want to bury this case of surveillance targeting Carter
Page based on the ostensibly specious Steele dossier. This is the one case unique in coming to
light among tens of thousands of FISA surveillances cloaked forever in secrecy, given that the
FISA system lacks the checks on abusive authority that inherently exist in the criminal justice
process, and so the Page case is instructive to learn how the sausage really gets made.
Neither the liberal adulation of Mueller nor the unquestioned credibility accorded Steele by
the FBI seem warranted by the facts. It is fair for Americans to ask whether Mueller's
investigation would have ever happened if not for his FBI successor James Comey having signed
off on the investigation triggered by the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton
campaign to dig up dirt on her opponent.
In any event, please spare us the solicitations of these political NGOs' "national
mobilization" to protect Mueller. There are at least a million attorneys in this country who do
not suffer from the significant conflicts of interest that Robert Mueller has with key
witnesses like his close, long-term colleague James Comey and other public officials involved
in the investigation.
And, at the end of the day, there are far more important issues to be concerned about than
the "integrity" of the Mueller investigation – one being the need to fix FISA court
abuses and restoring constitutional rights.
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002
memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named
one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002.
What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted
countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest
prize of all and said "Why not.'.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:04 am
Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve
the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly,
Americans cannot wake up fast enough
Annie , February 9, 2018 at 10:40 am
I'm not all that familiar with the group Avaaz, but I am familiar with the tactics of
Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually
called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the
presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as
undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the
people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared
little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a
victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more
committed to getting him elected.
I discontinued my support for Move-on as a result of these kind of antics. Those I know
who were viciously anti-Trump lost total perspective during his presidential run, and all
supported Clinton whose policies they knew little about. They were hooked into mainstream
media, and none investigated alternative news sources even though they are computer literate
and could have done so. All were hooked into Russia-gate from the beginning, and have never
waivered in their position. I think we have to begin to look at these people not as liberals,
or progressives, but for the most part they are democrats who see their party as representing
liberal causes. None I know who would support this march participated in any anti-war
movement, and were basically silent on Obama's militarism, which informs me these so called
liberals when it comes to war their position is more dependent on who's doing the
killing.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Annie I found this statement of yours a very interesting perspective 'and turning Trump's
rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well'. All this noise coming from the
left is never analyzed from the perspective of what would the average Trump supporter think.
Yet, you did this. Pretty good analytical take on these attacks against Trump.
I thought when Trump honored the 'Natve-American code breakers' that by his doing this
function while standing underneath a picture of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson was very
telling. Although seen properly by many who may have a good sense of history, I thought that
this was purposely done, and done to insight the Trump supporters who's racist attitude were
served quite well with Trump's staging of this honorable affair.
The Left (which isn't really Left) is wandering around trying to bring down Trump, while
at the same time the American Left ignores what a Trump supporter may think. Both groups of
American citizenry would do well to quit with all of this name calling, and derisive contempt
for each other, and they should begin with a dialog which could eventually bring them
together, in order to create a more perfect union.
Then that's where you come in Annie, as to reassure they keep their eye on the ball, and
to what is most important to remember, and that is because we are all together in this big
crazy thing called America. We Americans should bridge our difference into making the U.S. a
better nation for all to live in, and relieve the world from fears of American bombs falling
on their heads.
This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the
FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy
prey for being led to their own political slaughter. He does become more foul mouthed towards
the end. I understand his increasing frustration with this insanity.
Your point is NEVER off-subject. Soros may fund one branch of the Capitalist Party and
Singer the other; but they both and all the rest of their ilk, belong to the same
Brotherhood.
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 4:28 pm
"I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller,
Rosenstein, et al. be fired for cause "
Ray, thanks for not being like most politicians (and journalists) who carefully test which
way the political winds are blowing to decide whether something is a good or bad idea. You do
what you think is right, based on considerations more important than your career (gasp!).
"In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign "
Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored
witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who
don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly
forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors.
That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon.
The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the
Mueller "investigation."
Mueller and his co-conspirators, with all their lies and smears, have been subverting our
democracy long enough. Fire him already and oppose Trump democratically instead.
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Nice summary. I can't really think of anything to say to improve on that title remark of
"This is Nuts.
Virginia , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Ray, Mueller should resign (" if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if
only because of the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation") because there is no there there. Just close the investigation and let
Americans get on with our lives.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:12 pm
yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream
media. as long as that dog has a bone he will run with it. where's a dog catcher when you
need one??
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Thanks Ray,
Way to little truth out there and a whole bunch of characters involved in some modern day
Shakespearean tragedy.
So Tex , February 9, 2018 at 10:48 am
These organizers are arms of or provocateurs for the failing and flailing Democratic
Party.. They have staked their very lives on the Russia-gate nonsense and removing or just
crippling Trump.. It's all very sad since they could be embracing the current political
climate and reforming the once great Democratic Party. The unfortunate reality is that many
people, including good hearted people, are falling for it.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:00 am
"It is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue."
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts."
Ain't that the truth. Most Americans want to believe anything that authority tells them to
believe. They are not worthy of the great democracy they inherited. Thank you Colleen. You
are the opposite. We need to see you more often.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 11:25 am
This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead
reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So
far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever
discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court
represents.
Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be
guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy
obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up
and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his
past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk.
In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe
Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions
imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is
prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no
matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem
quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never.
What this Russia-gate investigation has rot among so many other things, is that it has
taken the weakening Left and showed it for what it is. It was one thing when the Clinton's
moved the Democrates over into the Wall Street column, but now with this organized Left push
to support the Mueller Investigation the Left has been moved into the police state category
whether these poorly misguided liberals even realize this fact. This would be akin to Albert
Einstein marching behind a Nazi flag, or his standing next to Joseph Goebbels to help usher
in the sheep to slaughter under the guise of democracy, and everything that's right.
Wake up America.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 am
"This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up"
Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our
free [sic] press and establishment media.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:34 pm
Thank you Mr Hunkins, I've read many a comment post of yours, and hardly do I ever
disagree with you. To bad there are not more of us voices for sanity, but with that there go
I. Joe
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:46 am
I just saw this on the Duran. Duran reporter Jim Jatras details some very interesting
angles of the likes you don't very often hear in regard to Russia-Gate. Be notified Mr Jatras
has a typo where he says Mac Blumenthal he really means the father of Max who is Sidney.
Jatras also points to the same circumstance where many Russians assumed Hillary would be
our next president, so the attraction to sabotage Hillary's campaign seemed to a fruitless
proposition. I remember our own beloved Robert Parry making the same observation.
exiled off mainstreet , February 10, 2018 at 3:35 am
The last sentence sums it up. Any former member of the left who supports this (they became
former once they supported this obviously flawed fascistic phony investigation the
implications of which threaten the rule of law and the stability and sustainability of life
itself) has gone zombie and can be compared to Einstein backing Goebbels.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:01 pm
I'm still having a hard time accepting this pseudo Left swing to the National Security
State/Deep State. Nothing in life should surprise me by now, but seeing what calls itself the
Left in the U.S. go the way of the CIA/FBI/NSA is hard to swallow.
The Democrates are soon going to regret spending all of this valuable time wasted on this
Russia-Gate craziness, and then what will they blame? Of course they will blame Trump, and
still invoke Putin's name, because that's what sells tv ratings. In the end the Democrates
may wake up to the realization that they blamed Trump,for all the wrong things that should
have mattered. This distraction for their bend obsession with all things Russian, is what
will have sunk their boat in 2018, and unless the Dem's wise up this unneeded shadow will
hover over them even into 2020. Joe
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:42 am
The most disconcerting and heartbreaking thing I've witnessed in my 30 plus years of
studying the politico-economic scene is the manner in which otherwise decent liberals have
fallen for (or of course have been more than willing propagandists for) the hoax Russia-gate
narrative. Sure, with the Schiffs (D-Israel), Schumers (D-Israel) and others in the corporate
DNC, it's all to be expected, and no semi-intelligent CN fan would consider them to be
otherwise decent liberals. But to see good domestic populist liberals sell this dangerous
snake-oil has been illuminating and dismaying. For crying out loud -- on this particular
issue Sean Hannity is better than Rachel Maddow!
It demonstrates more than any other issue the lock that Official Washington and its
military driven empire builders along with the blood soaked mass media have on virtually our
entire political spectrum and social discourse.
The recent Nuclear Posture Review just comes out -- putting the world closer to complete
annihilation and total Armageddon -- and there isn't much of a hue and cry from the smart and
most important people in our media-industrial complex. Frightening.
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:49 am
An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign. We really don't all agree that a "fair partitioning" in the Mideast
would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews. For those who don't know, Israel is a tiny
country (roughly the size of New Jersey). It's the sole Jewish nation, surrounded by vast,
oil-rich Arab countries. Jews are, indeed, indigenous to that bit of land. Those called
"Palestinians" are Arabs who are recruited to work toward the destruction of Israel,
establishing a 100% "pure" Moslem Mideast.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:07 pm
"An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign."
Set up a strawman much?
What you describe is a very, very marginal phenomenon in the Palestinian justice movement,
marginal enough to be totally insignificant. It's interesting that you bring this
disinformation into CN. The Zionist power configuration in America can be relentless, no
doubt. Hasbara is ubiquitous.
Israel's a criminal state and international pariah bent on wiping out any independent pro
Palestinian nation-state in the Middle East and subverting and destabilizing any independent
pro Palestinian head of state. Bloodthirsty Tel Aviv militarists mow the grass in Gaza by
killing and maiming roughly 2,000 women and children every 6 or 7 years. And no, it's not a
"fascist ideology" to point any of this out.
Read Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Mearsheimer and Walt and a few others
I'm forgetting at the moment for the real dope.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm
I think D.H. just ran a Zionist commercial on 'the Consortium'. Should we run a
pro-Palestinian commercial, just to be 'fair and balanced'?
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm
I've noticed the dishonest Zionist was trying to act like a "normal" person a few times
recently. Probably the thought was that this would gain "credibility" for BS like this
"Zionist Commercial" you speak of.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Zachary it's interesting to listen to a Zionist using the same talking points that would
describe the horrible plight of the downtrodden Palestinian, and do it so easily without any
conscious effort to hide the truth, of what's really going on. Joe
Lois Gagnon , February 9, 2018 at 11:22 pm
I've seen this troll on other progressive sites using the same exact wording.
Anon , February 9, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Troll alert: please do not reply to DHF comments. This is an attempt to derail the
discussion and debase the participants, a extreme zionist attack, on a site known for more
cautious and fair commenters.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Maybe we should aim our conversation to this maddening frustration over all things
Russian, to better describe America's relationship to the Zionist Bibi Netanyahu. Do you hear
me, Robert Mueller? Can you Mr Mueller lean heavily onto Flynn's Israeli heavy lifting, and
why Flynn was serving the needs of the Israeli's?
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Yes, this comment is so out of touch that it must be a troll looking to discredit this
site.
A previous comment making the same statement was it seems removed. Israel must be a very
sensitive issue in the US.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 8:20 pm
It is beyond belief how sensitive it is. You have no idea. However, now it actually isn't
as subversive and contentious as it was just 15 to 20 years ago. So there has been a small
amount of progress, long way to go though.
Hey Fabian I have some refugees here so I'm taking your land for them. Pack your trash and
move on.
nonsense factory , February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am
The solution is simple: Allow all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to vote in
Israeli national parliamentary elections. Only then could Israel call itself a 'true
democracy'. This I believe results in about a 50-50 split in the electorate on religious /
ethnic lines so you could even get a Muslim leader of Israel, or at least a balanced
parliament.
This of course raises the issue of the military and executive and judicial structure of
Israel; land ownership and immigration policy would have to be changed so that any citizen
could own land, and non-Jews would be allowed to emigrate back to the region (i.e. the
Palestinian diaspora would have the same rights as the Jewish diaspora).
An even more tricky issue would be the Israeli nuclear weapons program; the first step
there is for the state of Israel to publicly admit its existence and allow for IAEA
inspections of the program.
Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 12:17 pm
Many thanks Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry. Drew Hunkins, I think your comment about
"otherwise decent liberals" is prescient but I'll bet that we could have a long, extended
discussion on The illiberalness of this generation of democrats (please note the small
d).
I would argue that with the inception of the Clinton/Blair "Third Way" that the Democratic
Party separated itself from its historic roots. In fact I think the very label of liberal
opposition here used is disingenuous.
These people The Clintons and their Neoliberal constituents have never represented the
Democratic Party in act or deed. The Neocons switching sides prior to the last election cycle
underscored their illiberal attitude. In fact classic party alignment has little to do with
this issue of criminal behavior, it is just the vehicle of divisiveness being utilized in
this instance
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Points well taken Mr. Van Noy.
Most of the Dem Party has been a complete dumpster fire since corporate Clinton, "New
Democrats!" and DLC completely took over the entire infrastructure.
Nancy , February 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sadly, those decent liberals you speak of also fell for the Clinton/Obama hoax. They are a
big part of the problem -- phonies.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 1:45 am
A big part of the problem for sure. Support for the Democrats on the basis of "liberal
causes" is blind, phony. or both. We have suffered soaring housing and health care costs.
Investment in Social Security has been marginalized at the same time war costs are put "off
the books" and deemed a "necessity" of National Security. Public schools are now
"standardized", but standards are lacking and the quality of "higher"education has taken a
hit too while leaving graduates in piles of debt. The safety of our drinking water is suspect
and other environmental concerns take a back seat as well while "fracking" and "drill baby
drill" get passes. Civil liberties are under assault and the war drums beat on. So where are
the liberal Democrats? Taking "contributions", hiding under rocks, or snickering through
3-martini lunches with their Republican cohorts but they certainly haven't been "liberals"
for a long time now. Bill Clinton and Obama were nothing of the sort.
Next time a Democrat calls him/her self a "liberal", they ought to have to express a true
idea of just what that's suppose to mean. And then explain what happened the last
quarter-century and what in the hell their current "resistance" is really about. Don't worry
there won't be any straight answers forthcoming, and likely nary a hint of embarrassment
either. They are shameless traitors or fools
Bob Van Noy , February 10, 2018 at 10:07 am
Nicely done Gregory Herr. The democratic party talks a good game but manages to Never
Deliver the goods. The party hierarchy (DNC) doesn't deserve support
Simply vote for a candidate that delivers. And, never donate to the party
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:44 am
We saw how powerfully the Clinton "New Democrat Party" gained "influence" over the media
marketed to middle class liberals, from MSNBC to online publications, pulling them well to
the right. The Democrats' anti-Russian crusade does, indeed, mimic Bush's lies about "Iraq's
stockpiles of WMD." What is truly "nuts" is that so much of the liberal media promote the
right wing agenda while wearing their "bold progressive" lapel buttons.
Loretta , February 9, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Thank you for this piece!!
j. D. D. , February 9, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The spectacle of the Democratic Part and even the Black Caucus rallying to support the FBI
is truly a wonder to behold. Have they forgotten the FBI's past in blackmailing presidents
and political leaders including JFK, Robert Kennedy and Matin Luther King? Have they
forgotten its Operation Frugmenschen, which means "ape man" in German to target Balck
politicians and activists, or the threatening dirty tricks letter sent to MLK urging him to
commit suicide? Are they prepared to see through an illegal coup against an elected president
who dared suggest a positive relaitonship with Russia and China, ensuring that no future
president will dare "step out of line" lest the secret files be pulled to create a cripling
scandal?. Apparently not, as the Demcratic Party we knew appears quite dead, perhaps lethally
shot on Nov 22, 1963 and finally buried in 2016 with the nomination of a craven Wall Street
puppet and warmonger.
Thank you, Nat and Coleen, for this article -- as well as continuing and furthering
Consortium News' reputation as one of the few remaining independent outlets that can be
considered trustworthy. In this age, where even Common Dreams has lost its credibility (and
posts by Caitlin Johnstone have to be taken/guarded with grains of salt) it is still a
refreshing rarity.
In overall relation, the following Review is shared as representative:
Robert Shetterly's "Americans Who Tell The Truth.org" continually express, show, and Speak
Truth to Power. During our times of First Draft Coalition[s], where we are subjected to 98%
(?) Controlled Narratives, a predominance critically desires to hear/see those sides which
are purposely and collusively repressed, banned and/or censored. In these
exponentially-escalating periods of secret laws based on secret memos, secret courts acting
with secret evidence (which will not be revealed to the accused), absolute torture to the
point of insanity (and death) as a means of interrogation until one gives predetermined
answers (truthful or not), worldwide surveillance on every inhabitant (without probable
cause) that can be (and is) used as a means to instill fear, to threaten, tarnish, oppress,
and silence even peaceful dissenters of basic causes while (resultantly) turning back history
500 years, we need those with (the ability of) absolute courage to Stand Up Now (more than
ever).
Evolution: from Total Information Awareness (which started long before 9/11) to Total
Information (and Population) Control (as a goal in the present).
Steve , February 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm
FAKE NEWS has been used to snooker the Aemnrician people and as it is gobbled up and
digested and spit back with investigation or corroboration it turns decent folks into FAKE
PEOPLE. Mueller is no choir boy and the mess in Washington is not going away sometime soon.
As for damaging democracy, the 2 party system has taken care of that very nicely but
channeling anger into something positive just wont' be allowed to happen as the media are
controlled by huge moneyed interests.
Janet Zampieri , February 9, 2018 at 12:29 pm
The liberals are reacting this way because of the constant lies they are fed by the
mainstream media. The corporate and CIA control of the media must be exposed and put to an
end.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Being a mere paycheque away from disaster, most Americans cannot afford to take to any
streets. The Powers That Be know and exploit this, having orchestrated their captives' dire
straits, all along.
So, whence shall cometh these threatening troops from Camps AVAAZ and MoveOn? By process
of elimination, from the minority well-enough-heeled and the Soros-paid.
Slavery is Freedom! War is Peace! 1984 was a cookbook; we've been reading Orwell all
wrong.
johnnieandroidseed , February 9, 2018 at 9:03 pm
My chuckle for the day was "1984 was a cookbook." Reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode
"To Serve Man" which should be the motto of capitalists everywhere.
"We serve the workers" [to our Distinguished Diners.]
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:17 am
As the episodes star character Michael Chambers is taken away by the Kanamits for meal
time on their far away planet, Chambers looks at the audience and says, "How about you? You
still on Earth, or on the ship with me? Really doesn't make very much difference, because
sooner or later, all of us will be on the menu all of us."
Yikes how true. Great comment johnnieandroidseed. Joe
Though my instincts tell me there are many more people who are willing to sign a petition
than to actually get out on the street, I might be proved wrong in this particular
instance.
After signing a couple of petitions for this or that, in the forlorn hope they might bring
about change, I began to realize they were mainly designed to make me feel good about myself;
that I was doing something very important to make the world a better place.
Even worse, I saw I was being treated as nothing more than another fish in the net. My
signature had hardly enough time to reach its destination before my inbox was deluged with
requests to sign more petitions, each of which invited me to donate towards the great effort
it takes to think up a petition and put it on the internet. For some unexplained reason, the
process seemed to require highly-remunerated executives, and an awful lot more money than all
the real work needed to run something as work-intensive as Consortium News.
After signing two, I'd already given up the idea of signing more petitions by the time I
was urged to sign one for a no-fly zone over Syria to save hundreds of thousand of lives.
With anti-Russian propaganda being heavily pushed by the corporate media at the time, it was
obvious people who had no idea what a no-fly zone entailed were being manipulated.
We live at a time where, for most people, touchy-feely means engaging with the world
through a screen. No man is an island being far from the state of affairs, all men have
become islands. Far from bringing us together, the internet is being increasingly used to
keep most of us farther and farther away from each other, and the information we need to form
opinions based on facts.
Which leads me to ponder how on earth we arrived at a point where of hundreds of thousands
of people are preparing to come out on the streets to demonstrate their support of an
organization, which just happens to be one of several intelligence agencies, trying to remove
their right to come out on the streets to demonstrate? I hope I'm not the only one who finds
it perversely ironic and extremely disturbing.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Do those intending to demonstrate on the FBI's behalf even realize that one of that
agency's most resource-intensive and mission-critical tasks is to record, identify and
profile demonstrators?
"I am marching for my right to be surveilled. Democracy means Dossiers for All! FISA =
Freedom. I'm guided by the beauty of my shackles. Liberty is Liability. Truth is
Treason."
And Insanity is Virtue. Well played, overlords: you have set the stage well – but
for the hubris you can't shake off. Lofty as you are, you don't float above the law of
unintended consequences. Or that of gravity, either.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:16 am
Love your comments, The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 2:21 pm
My experience with AVAAZ is similar. They petition for many good causes and seem to
achieve quite a lot, but then there appear a slice of the petitions that are political and
naive, like the no fly zone. Inherent problems in their brand of activism. They should
probably reconsider their scope of issues.
Yes, thank you for the link. I had forgot about that. It's very important that we
understand NGO's roles & who they are working for.
Lethal Weapon: NGO Soft Power
"Along with military invasions and missionaries, NGOs help crack countries open like ripe
nuts, paving the way for intensifying waves of exploitation and extraction" " ~ Stephanie
McMillan
""The NGO 'soft power complex' is now one of the most destructive global forces. It is
employed as an interface between civilians of a target nation, with government, economic or
military structures of the colonialist force intent on harnessing any given nation's
resources or undermining its geopolitical influence. The Democratization process, or the path
to regime change is facilitated by these undercover government or corporate proxy employees
who, once embedded into a society, set about producing the propaganda that will justify
intervention, either economically, politically or militarily. NGO propaganda will often
employ slick social media marketing which is underpinned by advance applied behavioural
psychology and advanced NLP-based 'social enterprise' sales pitches.
A recent piece by researcher Eva Bartlett entitled, "Human Rights Front Groups
[Humanitarian Interventionalists] Warring on Syria", provides a detailed insight into how
this new breed of weaponized politics is being deployed right now in the Middle East.
The perception of a 'non profit' complex who purport to be "working for the betterment and
improvement of humanity" can be a difficult nut to crack, but it must be done. In the west.
charities, not-for-profits and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are seen as "do gooders"
and so they rarely fall under public scrutiny. Western governments know the general public
has an inherent faith in their perceived integrity and this provides an ideal cover for
western government and intelligence agencies to operate through their NGO and aid
organisations."
I think it's great that they are calling for massive rallies against the rape of our
democracy by the one percent. It's great to see them rallying hundreds of thousands of us to
protest the state of endless war. It's nice to see them putting all that muscle into the
streets to oppose US foot-dragging on climate change.
Oh wait, I must have misread the article.
On a serious note, we need to see these FISA abuses only as the tools of tyranny. Far more
important is who is wielding them and why.
Thank you Ms. Rowley and Mr. Parry for reporting honestly. If certain factions can set-up
a POTUS, what can they do to "we the people"? Mr. Parry, your father would be proud of
you!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 1:48 pm
"Liberals?" Just another name for war mongering liars these days. "Conservatives?" Just
another brand of liars and thieves. People who put stock in, and vote on the basis of these
baseless tags are the real suckers that enable our whole doomed evil empire. If you vote for
anyone who uses either of those labels, you are a fool, and a dangerous one at that. Come to
think of it, if you vote at all you are an idiot endorsing a corrupt process.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Off topic.
What looks to be an outstanding brand new film is coming out soon. It's entitled, "The
Young Karl Marx." This movie looks like a must-see.
Unfortunately for those very many invested in the Russiagate nonsense, the cold reality is
that doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity. We're watching the
Western power structure fracture before our eyes as their propaganda operations have become
not simply unbelievable, but now have entered into the world of the totally outlandish and
absurd. The notion that "reality" requires some kind of rational connection to observable
events in the physical world seems to have totally lost any meaning in this current climate
of reality meltdown. Quite amazing to witness actually.
Eddie , February 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm
"doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity."–Great
phrasing!
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The undead hands of those two zombie neocons, HRC and John Brennan, reach out from the
boneyard of U.S. politics to drag democracy down with them.
The neocons' ultimate target is Russia, together with anyone who dares to utter the truth
about Russia. They are drunk with power and will stop at nothing, not even nuclear war, to
eliminate any rival for global domination. They are so reckless and arrogant that they think
a nuclear war is winnable.
Megalomania much?
Goebbels boasted that he could play the German public like a keyboard. The neofascist
neocons are using the same tactics with the so-called U.S. left, which, measured by
international political metrics, corresponds to the traditional imperialist right. American
so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public was played by
the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not from the
left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference.
Fascist tactics bring fascist results. There are multitudinous grounds to oppose Trump
democratically. Impeaching him based on ginned-up, right-wing, smears would tear this country
apart at the seams.
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 pm
"American so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public
was played by the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not
from the left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference."
I'm afraid you are right.
Democrats are not "the left." Have they ever really been? That's why you said "so-called
left" I realize. It makes me laugh when mainstream media calls it such.
Richard Hicks , February 9, 2018 at 2:36 pm
The story says: "Considering all of the threats to democracy posed by unconstitutional
overreach, unfair elections, corruption, and voter suppression – not to mention
environmental challenges, economic inequality, an out-of-control U.S. foreign policy,
numerous foreign conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in, and the ever-present threat of
nuclear war – it is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this
particular issue."
Yes, it is "telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue".
Except it's not just this issue. Remember that Al Capone was convicted of crimes other than
the crime he was arrested for. It seems that on an almost daily basis evidence is discovered
that the President is/was involved in crimes other than Conspiracy and/or Obstruction of
Justice. As new evidence is uncovered, it may lead the Mueller investigation in another
direction, and apparently, it has. If that is the case, Mueller is doing his job. The job
that The People hired him to do. If Trump were to fire Mueller, it could very well be because
of newly discovered criminal activity that Trump is, or was involved in, and Trump is nervous
about. Our Nation is a Nation of laws, and no one, even the President is above the law. This
President has a long-standing proven reputation, of difficulty with the Truth. Based on that
alone, if Mueller is fired by Trump, people would be justified taking to the streets, in
protest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
A riot to back up the putch against Trump? Not likely, but a disaster if performed. Is
this how some dream of a new US government? It will take something much deeper and wiser to
accomplish that. Again not likely, but if one has to dream, why not something truly
positive?
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:06 pm
"Putin's life work is spying"? You seem to have a rather shallow estimate of someone who
stands against those in the US determined to turn our planet into an ashy corpse.
Best not to lose sight of this fact: there is no liberal cause, especially the incipient
climate disaster, that is not negatively affected by Trump and the legal coup-d etat achieved
by the Republicans. Anyone working to stymie that,whether sinless or simon pure deserves
support. Also, re Russia, Garry Kasparov the Chess Master says it would be naive to think
that Putin whose life work is spying would not use his current sophisticated apparatus to
work his will on any issue or election of interest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm
"legal coup d'etat?" That's a new one on me, on the other hand the whole loony scene in
Washington is illegal – so what the hey! Still, removing a sitting President on the
basis of phony charges against him for colluding with Russia would really kick over the chess
board and empower the crazies to do their worst. Or is there anybody still out there who
believes the Russiagate nonsense has a shred of truth in it? I hope not, but I am afraid I am
in danger of overestimating my fellow citizens .
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:02 pm
As for Gary Kasparov, he should rest on his fading laurels as a chess master, and stay out
of politics. If he had his way Russians would raise Yeltsin from the grave, and turn their
country back over to the international capitalists.
Mark Thomason , February 9, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Russia-gate has nothing to do with the real Russia.
It is entirely a Team Hillary attack on Trump. It is an attempt to deny the election. It
is rage at losing, looking for excuses to express itself. If not Russia it would be Comey, or
many other things. It has been most convenient to use Putin at the pinata, but that is a
matter of internal US politics, not Putin at all.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:17 pm
And luckily for us, Putin not only groks that dynamic but has been brave enough
to say so in public.
What's with all the new-name trolls here today ?
Mr Boompi , February 9, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I hate the term derangement syndrome but some people surely do have Trump derangement
syndrome. It's beaten into them every day on TV and certain internet sites. I believe they
want Trump removed using any means possible, including illegal means. Their derangement
syndrome includes the mistaken belief attempting to enforce the law regarding Clinton emails
and the frauds perpetrated on the FISA court are nothing more than an attempt to obstruct
justice for Trump. Even though there is no evidence Trump has done anything wrong. It's a
shame actually.
Alan , February 9, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Let's take a step or two back and try to see the current state of chaos in a broader
perspective. People are angry. The Trump administration is without question aberrant. Where
is true leadership today? Certainly not with Trump or his administration. The real issue
isn't specifically "Russiagate", but what lies beneath.
We have been mislead, lied to, manipulated by virtually every administration to greater
and lesser degrees. Of relevance here is that both Nixon and Reagan manipulated the American
people through their backchannel negotiations with foreign powers prior to inauguration.
While this Consortiumnews article can shine some light on potential abuses which takes
place through the FISA court we must recognize that we form an imperfect union. This
particular article seems to be like arguing for changes to the fire codes while Rome
burns!
Any mobilization of the "liberal establishment" is far more about the egregious threats to
our democracy than whatever "Russiagate" means. An imperfect Mueller seems to represent our
best way forward to finding the hidden truths behind all of Trump's malfeasance. Let the
people be heard!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:10 pm
The people have been heard! They voted for Trump
WheresOurTeddy , February 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Damn the people in this country are easy to manipulate. Pathetic.
If the activists of the last generation could see the sellout pieces of garbage that call
themselves democrats today, they'd roll over in their unmarked graves they were dumped into
by the same alphabet agencies of oppression the stooges are standing up for.
Late stage empire in decline.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Amen.
Maxim , February 9, 2018 at 3:29 pm
They don't want Trump, they want Russia. That's why Trump was "elected". So they could use
Trump to get to Russia. In 2020 Clinton will finally get elected and everyone will be begging
for WWW3 against the Russian Threat. Another false Pearl Harbor is coming. Syria, N.Korea,
Iran or Ukraine are all potential flash points. We're sheep being led to slaughter.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:58 pm
In one ponit you are wrong. The orange clown is uninhibited in starting a war. Read just
the new disclosure that pentagon had been resisting requests from the White House to provide
military options for Iran. In his first speach in the UN Trump has threatened to destroy
North Korea totally. This crazy man doesn't deserve to be the president of the US!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Mostly correct, but the Deep State emphatically did NOT want Trump elected. Too
unpredictable. The DS thought Hillary had a lock on the election. Just goes to show that the
DS is not as smart as they like to think they are.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:47 am
For sure, Mike, the DS pulled out all the stops to help Hillary both before and after the
election to no avail. They are still doing it. The most influential insiders in America
couldn't alter the results of the election, yet they would have you believe that Putin merely
snaps his fingers, "meddles in our democracy" and has his way. Yet most people cannot see the
absurdity of that claim because the corporate media, which is part of the real conspiracy
orchestrated by the DS, spews nothing but propaganda full bore 24/7 changing apparent reality
right in front of your own lying eyes.
Now the History Channel is coming out with an extra special demonisation of Putin
extravaganza!!! Be sure to watch if you wanna stay free! These people could rehabilitate
Hitler if it suited their purposes. The American people are putty in their hands. There is no
opposition but those few of us who fail to be hypnotized by the svengalis that represent the
interests of the string puller elites on the boob tube and internets, who and which they
totally own and control. There are so few of us who can still see the truth, I suspect they
could house us all in a single detention camp if it comes to that.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:49 am
I couldn't suppress a derisive laugh reading an above comment about Putin's ability "to
work his will on any issue or election of interest." Yep, those snapping fingers are rife
with ability not to mention speculation about Putin's desires. What a mad genius he must
be!
Snookered and bamboozled, the show must go on.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
I would support any measure that tends to an impeachment of a crazy, impulsive and
retarded president. This president is a misfortune for the US and for the world. One can
criticise the actions to support the current investigations in the Russiagate. But if it
helps to get rid of a mentally ill clown then why not!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Good reasoning, but it fails to consider what's next? Believe it or not, there will
probably be a lot worse in store for us than President Donald Trump. Things just tend to get
worse and worse in a collapsing empire ..
Far , February 9, 2018 at 4:39 pm
What's next is a good question. I hope that Clinton leave finally the political world. She
was one of the main reasons that many of voters elected the bad option instead of the worst
option. Collapsing of the system can not be an option. But Trump is well under way to shake
the political system and polarize the civil society more than ever before
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:59 am
That's what Susan Sarandon foresaw as the "good" outcome of a Trump victory–the
collapse of the system would be advanced. However, how do we benefit from that opportunity
for change when the only announced candidates for Trump's job are the same ilk (Clinton,
Biden, Kerry) or their even shallower accolytes (Booker, Harris ) that caused all the damage
in the first place? All those idiots are still about fooling and fleecing the American public
and warring upon the rest of the world–friends and foes alike. They offer no peace, no
prosperity, and no future whatsoever, only a bleak struggle for existence in a nuclear winter
by the few survivors of their promised handiwork. You nailed it, Mike, things will only get
worse because our leaders (from both of these two abominable parties) insist upon it.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm
"Why not ?" Because such 'measures' only serve to destroy what little remains of our
democracy. Here's a thought experiment for you : would you support similar 'measures'
if they 'tended to an impeachment' of crazy, impulsive, mentally ill Hillary had she been
elected ? (As co-president with Bill, who she promised to 'put in charge' of the
economy).
Because "We came, we saw, he Died" Hillary is arguably even farther off the rails than
The Donald. And probably more dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is
that so many people look at her and see someone 'sane'.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Crooked Hillary was never be an option. And Trump is definitive not fit for the oval
office. Trump will bury the democracy finally. Damages to the reputation of the US in the
world community is immense. With Trump there is no chance to make a real change. Quit in
contrary the US will face serious social, economic and security challenges without a glimmer
of hope to change the things. My father said that a great ship could be sunk. And if it sinks
it will be just slower than a little one. Trump is not an option anymore to steer the
ship.
Have a look at the less than vigorous investigations run by Mueller into BCCI (Bush crime
family "intelligence" op) pre 911. Mueller can run coverups or smear campaigns. Wonder what
his corporate offshore bank accounts look like
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:50 pm
bank accounts. good question.
weilunion , February 9, 2018 at 5:35 pm
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the
intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to
keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported. We
saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans
came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite
– Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators."
Cognitive dissonance, lack of critical thinking, reliance on authority, in this case a
former head of a criminal organization called the FBI.
People have no class consciousness. They have no idea who their enemies ar or how to
organize.
This is the sad case of liberalism melting like warm butter while the fascists
congeal.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Nicely put.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 2:51 am
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. . ."
Yes. On any bar counter, just start some conversation with the person sitting to you. With
all this bizarre drama – Russia-Gate, Iran, memos, dossier . . . going on TV, and in
Washington being enacted knowingly by the the Powers who rule – both, so called
Liberals and Conservatives – one can see how this emotional manipulation has worked to
snooker just about most of the population. I just had the experience today during lunch at a
bar counter. In our conversation, the person sitting next to me was ready to nuke Iran, N.
Korea, and go after Russia; and go after Hillary too.
Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling
Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them
compliant and confused.
Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely concocted
bizarre drama?
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:21 pm
Dave the same stupid asses you speak of will still be the same stupid asses long after
these foreign affairs take any turn for the better. The dumb butts are easy to control. It's
like you point and say bad, and these morons growl, as their faces contort in macho anger.
Although, if one day the U.S. should make friends with Iran, N Korea, or Russia, these silly
little stupid puppies will just go back to work. If you tell them it will be exciting to play
the Russians at hockey, well this might get them going a little bit again, but not to worry
because it's just hockey. Oh, easy on the beer, and make sure the refreshment stands have
plenty of nachos and tip. The jackasses like to eat and drink a lot, what can I say? Joe
Both MoveOn and Avaaz get major funding from George Soros.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:30 pm
As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on
Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally,
then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what
they seem to have done.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Now your talking. Good idea.
ToivoS , February 9, 2018 at 7:11 pm
"This is nuts" is a great headline for our current problem.
Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the
coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant
European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and
Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war.
How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years
led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of
their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war
resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as
millions of dead and traumatized survivors.
I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the
last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political
associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break
in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in
a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of
supporting war against Russia.
Reading other comments here it seems my experience has been shared by others.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:49 pm
Yes ToivoS, many of us here have been watching our family, friends, and fellow citizens
lose their minds in mass over the election of Donald J Trump. It's with his Electoral College
win that I noticed the psychic break in many a citizens mind. So now here we are, where this
psychic break has moved good thinking people to the side of the field where the Deep State,
or National Security State if you will, has replaced critical thinking people by turning them
into 'useful idiots', if that is enough of a suitable label to pin on these stray pseudo
liberals.
These misguided liberal thinkers ought to move out of the way, drop this Russia-Gate
travesty, and allow the real Left to emerge so as justice maybe served upon the Trump
Administration. And if these limousine liberal hacks don't wish to travel a different avenue,
as to confront what the Trump team does, then for the love of mike please dear almost
liberals quit getting so cozy with the National Security State. This kind of stuff gives
reason to believe that 'Nightmare on Elm Street' was a documentary, as Freddy Krueger is a
nice guy in real life. Now I'm afraid to go to sleep .take care ToivoS. Joe
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Regarding Guns of August , it's a book I won't be reading. Anything by Barbara
Tuchman connected with WW1 is automatically suspect with me. I've kept many of her other
history books, but will maintain a distinct level of skepticism while reading them. That's
necessary because she was a fanatical Zionist, and lying about Israel-related issues is just
something that type does.
Lois Gagnon , February 10, 2018 at 12:32 am
The term psychic break I think is dead accurate. It made me think of Naomi Klein's "Shock
Doctrine" in that people who are traumatized by natural or man made disasters are taken
advantage of by powerful interests intent on imposing policies that are against the public
interest.
People who are in a state of shock are not equipped to make rational decisions. Trump's
surprise (at least to Clinton voters) win left Democratic Party voters in shock leaving them
vulnerable to the Establishment's agenda of increasing tensions with Russia. Enter
Russia-gate which serves many purposes at once. As we have seen, it worked like a charm.
Those falling for the psy-op have left all reason behind. They are singularly focused. It is
virtually impossible to introduce evidence that contradicts the narrative. It's as
frustrating as talking to a religious fanatic.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:48 am
In an ironic twist, Naomi Klein today has completely lost her mind due to Trump
Derangement Syndyome.
Larco Marco , February 10, 2018 at 3:34 am
The Ottoman Empire was also destroyed, with the UK subsequently claiming Palestine as a
piece of their own empire.
Sam , February 9, 2018 at 8:26 pm
"[I]t should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get
to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled."
Is the IG even looking at this? The current investigation by the IG, the one due to report
soon, is looking at the investigation into Clinton's email server. I'm not aware of an IG
investigation on this matter. It would certainly be a good idea – assuming that the IG
is not compromised, which is a big assumption.
Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's
potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be
prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of
extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation
could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential
administrative discipline.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:05 pm
the so called liberals need god on their side so they can tear down the constitution (at
least what is left of it) and then put trump's head on a pike. the most fearful thing in this
country is watching ignorance in action.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:45 am
Yes! Stop and think about the consequences of a COUP of a legitimately ELECTED U.S.
President by the Deep State and his political opponents. It's a dangerous game and a slippery
slope. It's frightening to imagine where this could go.
ThomasGilroy , February 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm
To a liberal, the worst possible scenario was the election of Trump – especially
because they are "liberals". That cannot be difficult to see. They rightly see that Russian
inference in the election could have made a significant difference in the swing states.
Whether that is true or not, is irrelevant. There cannot be closure without the
investigation going forward. That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without
question. Whether Trump colluded or not still needs to be answered.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump. Trump had a lot to gain by colluding. We need to find out the truth.
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:00 am
"swing states" – do you suppose that Hillary taking several of them for granted had
anything to do with "influencing" the election?
That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without question.
Without Question! This sounds very much like a religious belief to me. Something like this
1950 declaration by the pope at the time:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and
by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her
earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Change a few words in that, and we'd have the Tragedy of Saint Hillary.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump.
And how do you suggest this "safeguarding" happen? Shut down the internet? Imprison anyone
who says a favorable word about Russia?
ThomasGilroy , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Zachary
HRC was the second worse candidate in US history – just behind Trump. She is
definitely the one most responsible for her loss in the election. None the less, very few
votes separated a significant amount of electoral votes so the Russian influence could have
made a difference. If you view all of the evidence beginning when US intelligence first
identified Russian-related hackers in 2015, followed by Crowdstrike in 2016 (and at least
five other cybersecurity firms which confirmed Crowdstrike's conclusions) , social media and
the obvious reasons that Putin favored Trump over the anti-Russia candidacy of HRC (motive),
then it becomes much more logical that Russia meddled. Assange served the Russian government
as well (mostly with the aid of the Russian government-funded RT). He clearly looked to
undermine the HRC candidacy despite his denials (lies).
The Daily Beast does a nice job with the time line in the current Mueller investigation
(Trump-Russia Isn't About the Cover-Up. It's About the Crime. http://thebea.st/2slKBBE?source=twitter&via=desktop
via @thedailybeast) and Marcie Wheeler (at Empty Wheel) also does a good job presenting
evidence of Russian perfidy. Mueller probably knows a lot more than he is sharing so it's
just a matter of time before the evidence becomes much more difficult to ignore.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:23 am
That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it.
Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out.
If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed
bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and
a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a
hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media
in the service of both.
What's the point in dragging out the process if the object is justice and the removal of a
putative pretender to the presidency? The aforementioned insurrectionists cannot pull off
their desired miracle because the evidence doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because the
purported crime was never committed.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans undoubtedly each cheated to win the election in
their own ways, but not in any way involving the Russians who have just served as unwitting
targets by our own domestic villains. Russia has gained NOTHING by seeing Trump in office.
During the election Putin would not even play favorites, stating the obvious: that he could
not predict the future and that he would have to deal with whomever was elected. Your
scenarios are all delusions, Gilroy.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Realist – Excellent summation of this whole false, delusionary, bizarre concocted
drama being enacted on the American people, and on people beyond in the World.
Paul Easton , February 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm
The article mentions "perception management" and I think it is well to generalize. Ever
since 9/11 the permanent government has kept the population in line by playing on their
fears, in Trump's case fear of fascism. (And quite possibly the events of 9/11 were planned
and executed for this very purpose.) As it turned out the perception management was all too
effective and by now most of the population is freaking out, in one way or another, and our
society is disintegrating. Personally I am cheering it on. Goodbye USA Thank God!
Liberals getting behind the most
racist government agency in a pathetic display of supporting the
"enemy of my enemy" Donald Trump
gives further proof they are as
unprincipled as any of history's
other "national socialists".
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:02 am
What the hell is this endless repetition of the word "Liberals"? Try "Corporate Democrats"
and you'd be a LOT closer to reality.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:31 am
To be sure. The other biggest mischaracterisation is to call the ring leaders of this
witch hunt "the left" or "leftists." The genuine left (what little still exists of it) are
the few who rail against this nonsense, largely on this or similar sites (e.g., ICH).
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm
I completely agree, Zachary. The true democratic party adherents – which includes
lot of us – should have split from the Corporate Democrats long ago during Clinton
presidency.
Bandrui , February 9, 2018 at 10:27 pm
We live in a hall of mirrors. This is yet another example of how easily most Americans are
manipulated, dumbest populace on the planet apparently. I see no hope for us at all.
D.H. Fabian , February 10, 2018 at 12:36 am
Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but
failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs.
poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they
apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade,
splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer.
RandyLee , February 10, 2018 at 9:55 am
so the democrats are going for mob rule now? and they have willing accomplices in liberals
who have no idea why they hate Trump, they just know they are supposed to hate Trump. well I
say take to the streets then! give it your best shot! cry and scream and threaten your little
butts off. when you have no real idea why you are doing something, it won't take long before
you realize how stupid you are and will stop listening to those who encourage you from the
sidelines to attack american principles but aren't actually on the streets with you. its ok
for you to take that bullet but they sure as hell won't be taking one for the cause.
Martin S , February 10, 2018 at 10:19 am
The nefarious results of the Left propaganda: CRUSH THE TRUTH AND THE SHEEP WILL
SWALLOW
I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump
firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay.
Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left.
Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real
investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning
Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as
possible.
I think we're witnessing the absolute genius of the deep state getting taken down. My
hunch is that Mueller is part of the team and the media is getting outsmarted.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm
One can only wonder to where all of this may go. Read this .
The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump
removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep
corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept
one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Remember when the Dem's hated Comey? Boy, those were the days, weren't they?
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:35 am
Robert Mueller is leading an open-ended investigation that can cover any potential crime
uncovered during the course of the investigation. He has unlimited resources, no deadlines,
and no oversight. He can't be fired, except by the President. He reports to noone. His
targets have no idea what their crimes may be. His team is stacked with partisan hacks. He
uses heavy-handed tactics intended to break his adversaries, even if they haven't been
charged with a crime. He refuses to consider contrary evidence or to examine the DNC
computers. He won't interview witnesses. The Constitutional and human rights abuses are
alarming.
Douglas Mailly , February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am
Great article, but too bad about the polygraph reference, it just perpetuates the myth
that they are useful
One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian
interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of
our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political
party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population.
Corporations have taken over our legislatures under the guise of "free speech", and the
country's foreign policy is controlled by a military-industrial-security complex that sees
perpetual war as the answer to domestic economic well being and American world hegemony.
While Russians have no doubt used the internet to sow dissent here via "perception
management", as we no doubt have done there and elsewhere around the globe, what we Americans
as masters of Madison Avenue techniques have done to ourselves pales in comparison. Can we
come to grips with this and then get on to building a more cooperative world? It's a cause
worth fighting for.
Mild -ly - Facetious , February 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Well said, Howard Mettee.
Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy
antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions
"political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing
Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering,
just as were our British forefathers.
The present personification of our historical arrogance is this trenchantly self-approving
/ self-adoring Trump; (Mala Mens Malus Animus), whose wanton path of destruction is largely
more perverse than any of his predecessors. His path of DECONSTRUCTION is the portent of a
free-radical DISORGANIZATION of the world structure as we've known it. ( Poe aptly depicted
this in his short story, "The Descent Into The Maelstrom")
The foreboding actions from Mr. Trump foreshadow Perilous Times predicted first in First
Timothy 6: 9-10, Trump as forerunner and Second Timothy 3: 1-5 -- either and both apt
descriptions of Donald Trump.
– – – – – – "mala mens malus animus"
R Davis , February 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Is it a diversion?
From what?
It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll.
Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to
doomsday.
Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP.
Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima.
when nerves fray hey!
Brad Smith , February 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm
I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the
left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over
our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they
have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public
opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate.
For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern.
We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet
again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us.
Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their
hatred of Trump is only part of this issue.
With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could
exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. It was already
ramping up well before our elections and much of it was targeted at the left then as well.
Remember Pussy Riot? Remember the stories about how homophobic Russians are? The left has
been primed to hate Putin for a long time by this propaganda and they fell for it well before
Trump ran for office. Think about it this way, before we had the American "Deplorables" we
had "Russians". They were shown as nothing but drunken, wife beating, homophobic, Religious,
white, gun nuts, etc. etc. etc. This Extreme form of stereotyping was meant to invoke hatred
by the left and it worked.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:33 pm
Brad you got it right. Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these
Russian hackers who weren't there. Brad you also got it right, that these so called liberals
are blinded by their hatred of Trump, and in my estimation these kool-aid liberals are
passing up any golden opportunity they may have to go after Trump for what they should be
going after him for. Talk about misdirected, the Dem's aren't even close. Joe
Erelis , February 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Well, there was middle last year a nationally organized "March for Truth" which called for
investigation of Trump and any Russian ties. The march by newspaper reports got "hundreds" in
Chicago and NYC. I saw a live stream of the Portland march. Maybe just maybe cracked a
hundred. Basically the march attendees looked like older party partisans. I would expect the
same for any pro-Mueller rallies in that they will be pretty much be democratic party
rallies. As the leadership of groups like Planned Parenthood, unions, and other organizations
are aligned with establishment democrats, I am not sure they can convince their bases to
march.
On the electoral side. Sure some people will show up, and show up in democratic dominated
cities, but in the rest of America, more of a yawn. Establishment democrats think that
Russiagate will win them elections. I think not.
dee , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black
Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves.
So far these "liberals" have not dug their own graves, because media supports their
position now despite having primed Trump for winning during campaigning. I maintain that
having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate.
People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It
is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled."
Dave Sullivan , February 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Yet another "analysis " of russia-gate without mentioning organized crime. The trump
cronies are mobbed up from top to bottom, and the right is shocked they would be looked at by
the FBI. Talk about snookered. Then the author, denigrates FISA, blames liberals, but doesn't
mention the lockstep GOP vote to continue it, or, the majority of dems who opposed .check
your own cognitive dissonance at the door before you sit to "write" again.
No reason for foul language, doesn't enlighten just plays into the already coarse society
we have. Colleen Rowley in the past has written on Mueller's harmful coverups of FBI behavior
including 9/11 collusion with Bush to ignore Saudi complicity, if I remember correctly.
Yoshi Shimizu , February 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the
Pentagon budget!
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
"... Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run. ..."
"... I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north. Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin. ..."
"... My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career. ..."
"... If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity. ..."
"... 'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which raised a total of $915,000.' ..."
"... I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does. IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed. ..."
"... It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning all the dirty tricks from Madeleine. ..."
"... I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack. ..."
1. Nikki Haley is either completely gullible or is in thrall to some collection of Borgists at State. Someone remarked of a previous
US Secretary of State that "if only he were still alive this would not happen." Unfortunately he was still alive and in office. Much
the same could be said of Rex Tillerson. Haley is now tub thumping for US air attacks on Syria. This a reprise of several previous
US assertions of Syrian Arab Government (SAG) use of chemical weapons including the East Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun fiascos. After
Khan Sheikhoun the SAG invited US and UN investigations of the air base but somehow this was not accepted. Now James Mattis is asserting
that the SAG is manufacturing chemical munitions although the US has no evidence of this as yet. I believe this is called "confirmation
bias?"
2. As shown above , the SAA is committed to elimination of the East Idlib pocket. The jihadis are without re-supply and will progressively
be running out of the means of resistance. This should not take too long and is actually a good idea before proceeding further into
Idlib Province to the west. I believe I expressed an opinion as to the wisdom of such a move.
3. The SAA has begun shelling the Turkish strong point (observation post) at Al-Eis. The Turks have been attempting tricky cleverness
by claiming that they are occupying the hill at Al--Eis un accord with a Russian/Iranian/Turkish de-escalation igreement. In fact
IMO they are seeking to position themselves so as to impede SAG liberation of Idlib Province. pl
Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces
have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run.
kooshy,
Colonel Lang, did you see this news on AMN, "Syrian Army allows massive YPG convoy to travel to Afrin from their lines'
God only knows what is going on in Syria? it's a mess, was that to stop the Turks going to Al Eis.
james said in reply to kooshy... ,
and further to that - this also from AMN -
"BEIRUT, LEBANON (7:53 P.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army or allied paramilitary groups or both have reportedly started shelling the
freshly established positions of Turkish forces in the southern countryside of Aleppo province according to both opposition and
pro-government sources.
Opposition sources says that Syrian Army and allied Iranian-linked paramilitary groups have unleashed artillery fire onto recently
established positions of the Turkish Army in the strategic Al-Eis area of southern Aleppo province."
It seems she is attracted by John Bolton, her destructive, cunning and IMO rather malicious hard core neocon predecessor. She
twittered this insight in July 2017:
"Great to see @AmbJohnBolton back @USUN. Thanks to his years of public service to our country, he continues to share great
advice & wisdom."
His great advice and great wisdom? Ah yes ...
I had the pleasure that an indian senior (20+ years of service) UN guy back then did explain me what he did when US ambassador
at the UN, and how and why it was cunning what he did, and how and why it was destructive and what he was after. It turned my
stomach to get it explained to clearly.
So, unlike Haley, I always thought Bolton was a ruthless, destructive, nutty, if cunning, nasty man. I never seen his "wisdom".
Rather I saw an arsonist who likes to play with fire.
For Haley he, with all his "wisdom", is an inspiration. He was also inspirational for Trump, but not inspirational enough.
Bolton didn't make it to Secretary of State ... because of his moustache. See? How very maverick-ish to make a difficult decision
on so simple grounds.
Ah well, perhaps Trump is daily being too savaged by his hair thing on his head. I assume that having to face mirrors likely
can be a terror.
Whatever about that moustache, and assuming that the story is correct - I for my part don't see the problem in what is over
Bolton's mouth but that what comes out of it.
Donald Trump passed over a potential candidate for Secretary of State because of bushy moustache, according to insiders
close to the incoming US President.
Several of Mr Trump's associates said they thought that John Bolton's brush-like moustache was one of the factors that handicapped
the bombastic former United Nations ambassador in the sweepstakes for the role.
"Donald was not going to like that moustache," said one, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I can't think of anyone that's
really close to Donald that has a beard that he likes."
Whats going on ? Iran wants influence and bases as far as the sea, to enable it to convince the Israelis to emigrate en masse.
The West want to stop them now, everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop them when the last FSA / AQ /etc have almost died
off, and Erdogan want to continue mugging people as a form of foreign policy.
Run those actions simultaneously and you have the current outcome.
I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are
reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north.
Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin.
A small number of US and troops from other coalition countries have been in the Manbij area since August 2016 when it was liberated
from the headchoppers. More were sent in 2017 when TFSA from the Euphrates Shield enclave started threatening Manbij. No secret
there, it has been previously announced publicly.
I have happily discovered an analyst who has consistently been right on many aspects of the way the Syrian conflict has played
out, despite its manifold complexities. If you find one that claims to be able to "see" ahead, I'd suggest he/she may better be
described as a clairvoyant.
As to things being "fixed" - I guess an expectation that such a state is attainable, or indeed desirable - betrays something
of one's ontological preferences. In any case, Syria appears to me to be an object lesson in the futility of such expectations.
My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a
war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career.
If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and
Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity.
In fact, most of our elected and unelected career politicians exhibit similar levels of mendacity, on a level that is indistinguishable
from sociopathy. Just that in Haley it's more shameless and obvious. Maybe she is not as good an actress as some, I don't know.
With respect to the allegations surrounding the usage of chemical weapons, yesterday the UN Security Council had an open meeting
to discuss the situation in Syria.
The meeting was held to consider a letter submitted by the Secretary General to the Council on February 1 concerning the latest
report from the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The member states were seeking to have the Security Council President issue a statement condemning the recent reports of the
usage of chemical weapons in Syria, but they were unable to achieve the needed consensus.
Russia submitted a resolution that would replace the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism which had been shut
down. However the proposal is not acceptable to the United States in its current form for the reasons stated.
Follows is a summary of the meeting as prepared by the UN secretariat:
Amid New Reports of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, United Nations Top Disarmament Official Says International Community Obliged
to Enact Meaningful Response http://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13196.doc.htm
Ambassador Haley may be pushing for US military action in response to the most recent claims of chemical weapons usage in other
forums, but she did not call for such action during the UN Security Council meeting.
As to Defense Secretary Mattis, he spoke to the Press on February 2 at which time he issued a warning and expressed concerns
about the usage of Sarin gas.
Q: Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were -- the State Department was talking about just a little bit
yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas? Is this something you're seeing that's been weaponized or – just give us a sense.
SEC. MATTIS: It has.
Q: It has. Okay.
SEC. MATTIS: It has. We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and
we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you
all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
Then later on during the same press briefing:
"Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.
Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence?
Is that what you said?
SEC. MATTIS: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration,
when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.
And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim
it's been used.
We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using --
we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
Q: So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood? I thought I used -- you used that word;
I guess I misunderstood you.
SEC. MATTIS: Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it. And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking
for the evidence.
Q: Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used -- evidence of chlorine gas weapons?
SEC. MATTIS: I think that's, yes --
Q: No, I know, I heard you.
SEC. MATTIS: I think it's been used repeatedly. And that's, as you know, a somewhat separate category, which is why I broke
out the sarin as another -- yeah.
Q: So there's credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine --
SEC. MATTIS: No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don't have the evidence.
What I'm saying is that other -- that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used.
So we are looking for evidence. I don't have evidence, credible or uncredible."
"The Syrian government's chemical weapons stockpile has been linked for the first time by laboratory tests to the largest sarin
nerve agent attack of the civil war, diplomats and scientists told Reuters, supporting Western claims that government forces under
President Bashar al-Assad were behind the atrocity."
"The Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons, and U.S. President Donald Trump is prepared to consider
further military action if necessary to deter chemical attacks, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday."
As to the Friday media briefing by Secretary Mattis on February 2, Reuters reported:
On Monday, February 5, the Bild, a German outlet published a report alleging that Iran was supplying Syria with missiles to
deliver chemical weapons and that some of the materials in the weapons came from Germany. The report analyses missiles with gas
canisters allegedly used in a chemical weapons attack in Douma, Damascus on January 22, 2018.
The Bild article relies on work carried out by an entity known as Syrians for Truth and Justice and the online investigative
journalist website Bellingcat operated by Eliot Higgins.
Also read the following reports posted on the Bellingcat website:
December 2, 2017 - New Attack by Toxic Gases on a Battlefront in Harasta- Damascus Countryside "Testimonies Confirm Using "Organophosphorus
Compounds" https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/344
January 21, 2018 - Exposure of Six Civilians to Poisonous Substances in Eastern Ghouta- Damascus Countryside
https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/391
February 5, 2018 - Syrian Forces Use Chemical Weapons in Duma for a Second Time in a Month. Joint Report: Bellingcat & Syrians
for Truth and Justice https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/413
(Do not shoot the messenger. As to the Bild report, the summary relies on Google translate, the original article being in German.
Since the Bild report relies on work done by Bellingcat and Syrians For Truth and Justice, I have linked to various reports providing
details of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria since July, 2017 produced by these entities for your reference.)
This is all you need to know about Haley and why Trump (or rather Adelson) appointed her to the UN.
'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds
that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which
raised a total of $915,000.'
(Not coincidentally, however, Sheldon Adelson was the GOP's and Trump's single biggest donor)
"Perhaps Adelson gained an unusual interest in South Carolina's state senate, but it seems more likely the investment was a
show of support for Haley's hawkish pro-Israel positions. Adelson, who is also the largest donor to the extreme right-wing Zionist
Organization of America (ZOA), has long pushed stridently anti-Iran positions, suggesting in late 2013 that Washington detonate
a nuclear weapon in Iran's territory unless Tehran complied with demands that it completely abandon its nuclear program.
And, as Weiss wrote, Haley had come through for Adelson already in 2015, when she signed without any reservation the first law
against boycotts of Israel -- about the same time as Adelson convened an anti-BDS summit in Las Vegas.'' https://lobelog.com/nikki-haley-neocon-heartthrob/
Colonel,
Today at House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing :
Former Ambassador Ford: -If purpose to deter Iran from attacking Israel, perhaps we should have troops in Israel instead of eastern Syria.
-US forces in eastern Syria. Iranians in western Syria. Our forces about 350 miles from Iranians. Not likely Iranians going to
leave Syria. Mistake to think Russians will push them out. Hi-level consultations btw us, Israel Jordan to develop menu of options
about how to deter.
-when I was US ambassador in Syria in 2007, Iranians were there. Iranians long been there. They don't need a road/land bridge.
They fly things into Damascus airport.
Thought he has learnt his lessons, but I must be hoping for too much !
That the reports of SAA shelling of the Turks comes from "opposition resources" needs no caveat.
That there is also a report claiming that the shelling of the Turks comes from Iranian militia also needs no caveat. Clearly
someone wants to blame both the SAA and Iran, which dovetails neatly with the US/Israel desire to "roll back Iran" out of Syria
as well as get a full-scale US/NATO/Israel war on Syria started, which has been the goal from Day One of the Syria crisis.
The new rise of "chemical WMD" charges against Syria clearly also feed into the now-confirmed continued desire of the US/Israel
for a full-scale air campaign against Syria.
As I believe I've mentioned before, it ain't over until it's over. The US clearly has not given up a desire to go to war with
Syria as a precursor to Israel and the US taking out Hizballah (to the degree that is possible) which is also a precursor to starting
a war with Iran.
Also, read a report the other day that John Bolton is still considered a candidate for Secretary of State should Tillerson
be forced out at some point, which I still think is quite likely. Such an appointment would signal the absolute end of any notion
of Trump being interested in rapprochement with Russia and would also guarantee war with Iran.
Because John Bolton is a raving neocon lunatic - which is what the moustache tells you.
I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does.
IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro
KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed.
IMO, they are not selected to pursue US foreign policy, they are only there as Israel'gate keepers, they are just there to
make sure nothing against the interests of Israel passes, just like, what just happened in UNSC on Jerusalem. IMO, US for her
own policies, doesn't give a damn about UN or UNSC, she does what she wants, and when she wants, and are not shy saying it like
it is.
She is there as the Israel' veto power over the rest of the word, in case something not kosher comes up to UNSC. IMO, US' UN
ambassadors only job is to protect Israel at UN, they are a retribution from the elected president of US (of either political
party0 to Israel lobby for helping them getting elected. If Nikki is a gift for Adelson' money, whoever Hillary would have appointed
to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB. This country' sovereignty has been successfully
hijacked in almost 50 years.
Nevertheless, I believe WE the People are the sole responsible party for loss of control, as well as what Nikki does and who
she does it for.
In response to these claims, the YPG has issued a statement denying the claim, saying the Turkish military fired artillery
shells containing a chemical weapon, which harmed their forces, so they moved to the high ground, while the jihadists remained
in the low lying areas, so suffering the consequences.
You wrote "everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop [Iran from spreading its influence and bases] ...".
You sir, are wrong. There are a lot of people in the world, and certainly in the Arab world (including Sunnis) who see Iran's
influence as a welcome counterweight to the US/UK/Israel. They remember what happened in 1953 and don't buy into what CNN is pushing.
I say this based on face to face discussions I have had with Arabs.
"THE HAGUE, Netherlands – 7 February 2018 – Recent allegations about the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Aran Republic
continue to be of grave concern to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), whose mandate is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals
for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic", is investigating all credible allegations and provides regular reports for
consideration by States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). A rigorous methodology is employed for conducting an
investigation of alleged use of chemical weapons. The FFM report will take into account corroboration between interviewee testimonies;
open-source research; medical reports and other relevant documentation as well as the characteristics of any samples obtained
by the FFM. The FFM works closely with States Parties including the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The FFM's mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not
include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks.
OPCW Director General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü reiterated: "Any use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention and the hard won international norm prohibiting these weapons. Those responsible for their use must be held accountable.
These abhorrent weapons have no place in the world today."
In turn, in my view, the UN Security Council needs to reach an understanding on the re-establishment of a OPCW-United Nations
Joint Investigative Mechanism so that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons are brought to account.
whoever Hillary would have appointed to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB.
It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning
all the dirty tricks from Madeleine.
sure... but tell me john, how does the opcw offer any credibility to itself, if it is relying on eyewitnesses in the jihadi held
area of Khan Shaykhun???
it is fine for the same countries that have been pushing for regime change in syria to say ''they believe''' syria is responsible,
but that is not proof and it really sullies there reputation and the opcw's further as i see it.. al nusra were in control of
the area at the time... these are the friendly headchopper crew that turkey seems to have in their backpocket at present and who
they are using to further there exercise in afrin.. now, maybe al nusra has had a name change again, so forgive me if i don't
have the up to date name for them... for all i know, they are now called the 'syrian democratic forces' or turkish free syrian
army - 2 other names that sound straight out of a hollywood script.. if i sound cynical - you are reading me correctly.. the western
gov'ts - usa, uk, or even israel, saudi arabia, turkey and france need to stop using international organizations for there own
political ends and start being honest brokers in finding peace, as opposed to dividing up sovereign countries like syria.. thanks..
john - for another example of the blame game that the usa has gotten so in the habit of doing with regard to these chemical weapon
attacks - i call them false flags, as that is just what they are to me, take a look at the stupidity coming via the daily press
briefing from yesterday... all bluster and bullshit with nothing to substantiate any of it.. is this all the usa is capable of
nowadays? see down towards the bottom of the link for the relevant comments on this topic.. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278014.htm
I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less
kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack.
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
"... Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome. ..."
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in
his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have
absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to
political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be
it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous
empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this
bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal
degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation
bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian
"sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with,
thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe.
With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing
with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive
London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka".
Again, the level of
"Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger
since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which
can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger
even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US
military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In
some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new)
which are very worrisome.
"... The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia). ..."
"... They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect. But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos. Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West. ..."
"... When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is very stupid. ..."
"... "Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve. And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems." ..."
"... I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago, perhaps at the point Flynn was let go. ..."
"... A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions, finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist compliance with the mandate from Congress. ..."
"... If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. ..."
"... Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system" Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign . ..."
"... "I have come to the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world totally detached from reality." ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Which west goals ? I do not want USA world supremacy. At present Putin is the only man preventing this. ..."
"... As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up – the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading them far and wide. ..."
"... http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events, etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss ..."
"... "I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, so far only one country used nukes against humans. And it wasn't North Korea. ..."
"... That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely) Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions? ..."
"... The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people ..."
"... It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course. ..."
"... I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German – Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse. ..."
"... The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US, rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions. ..."
"... Group three. Ignore what he says. Consequences are secondary to neocons; rhetoric is primary. Instead, watch what he does (consequences). Qui bono ? http://www.oom2.com/f81-q-anon-archive-analytical-discussion ..."
The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent
for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth
by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia).
They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect.
But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos.
Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West.
When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing
you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is
very stupid.
Every aspect of human existence evolves around one basic (mis?)calculation: Am I better than someone else? Every second of every
day individuals, organizations, political parties, companies, countries, religions (God knows why) are trying to prove the above
– that they are better than the next in their respective category.
There are only 4 possible outcomes here:
You are better than someone and you can prove it. – ideal outcome
You are better than someone, but you can't prove it. – It sucks
You are no better than someone, but you have the means to manipulate the outcome into appearing like you are better. –
Probably the most unfair outcome.
You are no better than someone and if you try to prove that you are, you prove the opposite.
The current state of affairs between US and Russia is that US are aware that number 1 doesn't apply, they believe that they
can pull off a number 3, but I think that the most realistic assessment is number 4.
The underlying assumption of your comment is that applying pressure to Russia works in achieving the West's goals. But everything
we have seen from Russia in at least the last decade shows that pressuring Russia doesn't work. Ergo your conclusions are wrong.
Maybe it's time you start learning something from history.
"Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along
with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve.
And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems."
[....]
"And, you know, people don't realize Russia has been very, very heavily sanctioned. They were sanctioned at a very high level,
and that took place very recently. It's now time to get back to healing a world that is shattered and broken. Those are very important
things. And I feel that having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world
and an asset to our country, not a liability."
[....]
"President Obama wanted to get along with Russia, but the chemistry wasn't there. Getting along with other nations is a good
thing, not a bad thing -- believe me. It's a good thing, not a bad thing."
I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago,
perhaps at the point Flynn was let go.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of
the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced
such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions,
finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist
compliance with the mandate from Congress.
If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to
question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. Putin is standing in the way of greater Israel and a Jewish
world empire that is furthered by American military might. Despite his faults he is a strong nationalist leader who's preventing
Jewish globalists from turning Russia into a global plantation like America and their economy into a revenue stream for Jewish
robber barons like they have the American economy.
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America is
now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917 until Jews began losing control in the 50′s and 60′s.
Now the red diaper babies and their progeny loom large over America.
Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system"
Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving
it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign .
Interesting ..but I can see no reason for always claiming that the money laundering is done by the 'Russia State' instead of
private individual actors .the only motivation I can see for the State doing it is to turn rubles into western dollars and English
pounds .but since the dollar dominates in trade, for now anyway. the English pound isn't such a lure for Russia's holdings of
foreign currencies.
UK promises to crack down on assets of corrupt oligarchs – The Times
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain will use new powers to seize the assets of foreign criminals and corrupt politicians, The Times
newspaper reported on Saturday quoting the security minister. Investors from Russia, China and the Middle East have poured billions
into London, buying everything from luxury properties to entire companies, but the provenance of some of those funds has been
questioned by transparency campaigners. It is unclear how much money is laundered through Britain, but the National Crime Agency
has said calculations of between 36 billion pounds ($50.83 billion) and 90 billion pounds ($127.08 billion) are "a significant
underestimate".
Security minister Ben Wallace told The Times that the government would use powers regarding unexplained wealth to freeze and
recover property if individuals cannot explain how they acquired assets over 50,000 pounds ($70,000).
What we know from the Laundromat exposé is that certainly there have been links to the [Russian] state," he was quoted as saying.
"The government's view is that we know what they are up to and we are not going to let it happen any more."
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America
is now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917
I am fairly sure that those in Russia who need to know already know plenty about Jew/Isr led USA Russian policy ..they've been
after Russia for a long time.
1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated
to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.
Zionist Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the
right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA
official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de
facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini.
This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of
the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
I've always appreciated your candid exposure of American hypocrisy and stupidity, Saker, especially as unfairly and dangerously
directed at Russia. But explain to me why most Russian opinion columnists, such as yourself, have to make their pieces as long
as a novel by Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Something to do with the R1a haplotype perhaps? Many long introns amidst the essential exons
perhaps? Or, just an inability to stop when having a good time?
The US congress is such a freaking circus of idiots, clowns, whores for Israel, crooks, perverts and incompetents I don't think
I can stomach keeping up with their malfeasance much longer.
But I will leave this snippet -- -the 'list' and idea to sanction Russian individuals was the work of former Russian hating
State Dept Amb to Poland, uber Jew Daniel Fried working in conjunction with uber Jew Sen Ben Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee.
That tells you all you need to know. ((They)) were delighted to seize on Hillary's Russian excuse for losing the election and
may have even instigated it to Hillary.
It will be interesting to see if the oligarchs faced with the choice of Russia or Europe or US as a home for their billions
ever meet with little boy Kushner who might guarantee them safe bank accounts in Israel for a fee of course lol.
Crocodile tears. ~15 million Soviet citizens were killed or murdered by Nazi invaders. Plus ~3 million Red Army POWs deliberately
starved to death, or died to due deliberate neglect, withholding medical aid, etc by Nazi invaders. A total of ~10 million Red
Army troops lost their lives to prevent the extermination of Slavic peoples by Nazi invaders.
The whole hate the Russians deal is a Zionist ploy as the Russians are defeating ISIS aka AL CIADA in Syria and since ISIS and
all of its branches are a creation of the U.S. and ISRAEL and BRITAIN via the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 , the Zionists cannot
accept defeat and are turning the U.S. against Russia .
If anyone doubts that Israel and the zionist neocons control the U.S. gov, just remember that ISRAEL and the deepstate did
911 and got away with it, that is control in spades.
The last week or so the left has been bombastically upset at Trump because he did not enact more sanctions against Russia, and
were pleased at the action against the Russian Oligarchs though. – These people are always convinced that the government has the
power to do things by fiat- take away guns, punish global warming skeptics, sanction politically incorrect speech – lets pass
a law-. The right is not immune from this instinct either with drug wars .etc. This belief
that the direct application of force 180 degrees against the foe, never a thought to strategy or cause and effect or blowback
or complex analysis, – brute force and ignorance- into the valley of death rode the 600. Those drunk with power grasp the reins
and charge madly. The drunk are not great thinkers. Putin raises a glass to their return.
As always, simplistic pro-Putin propaganda buried in a mass of details so as to bog people down. The centrepiece is at the end:
sanctions. The basic argument is always "lift the sanctions" then some pretext or other is trotted out to justify that pre-ordained
conclusion. In today's serving, the sanctions are useless and the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin. What is interesting
though is that the author claims to see opposition to Putin within the elite but (needlwss to say!) "the people" are solidly behind
Putin. Reading between the lines, that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite.
" ..weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions." Same strategy is operating in US now. Some allege Soros is
promoting this, but he's not the only one. [#Resist was/is underwritten by MeetUp! CEO.] Can you give citations for your quotes
about Nationalities Working Group? Thanks.
It is getting rather tiresome, the "The Russians did it" meme. Whatever happens that contradicts US perceptions of reality , "The
Russians did it". Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this. It has has been dis
proven that Russia meddled in the French and German elections, and while the Brexit vote is inconclusive , we still have not been
exposed to the smoking gun.
There is no doubt that the US MSM is trying to steam roll all objections to this stance, but proof,
where is it? The bought ads on Fakebook is laughable at best, and the new Dutch source is another "Flat earther theory". Has general
American IQ deteriorated so much in the span of a decade ? I doubt it.
Anon from TN
The author did not need so many words to state the obvious: the US shot itself in the foot again, and now it's going to start
complaining that it hurts. Anyone familiar with human history knows that dying empires invariably make maladaptive moves that
speed up their demise. This was the scenario with Roman, Spanish, Ottoman, British, and French Empires. Look on the bright side,
though: the US Empire follows in the footsteps of the greatest.
' that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite '
What disneyland character are you portraying ? I'm guessing Dopey from the Seven Dwarfs. US has zero ability
to influence the trajectory of Russia which is straight up like the Russian rocket launches that take Nasa astronauts into space
for the last seven years. US sanctions have only been a blessing to Russia
For one thing they have driven a wedge between EU and the US especially Germany which is a natural Russian ally. For another
they are helping Putin to clean up the remaining rotten apples in the Russian billionaire class by forcing them to bring their
offshore money home or get the hell out of Russia and have whatever they leave behind confiscated by the Russian people. I have
noticed you here as a monkey with a serious Russia chip on his shoulder
I'll be checking back to see what you are spouting as soon the US Ponzi scheme economy starts collapsing. The only thing holding
up this house of cards is the petrodollar which is already in the frying pan. Russia and China along with other emerging powers
like Iran and the Brics are working round the clock to dismantle the present US-based world financial order. The Brics already
exceed the G7 in total GDP. Enjoy your coming poverty
Anon from TN: The Europeans will never appreciate to what extent the thinking and behavior of Americans is determined by the
view that "this is not my problem". They would also never understand or believe how parochial and uninformed the people in the
US are. Then again, the Europeans have nothing to be proud of: while the US elites are at least open about their ulterior motives,
the Europeans fell into a trap of anti-Russian sanctions (which hurt them a lot more than the US, BTW) by virtue of pure hypocrisy.
Sorry I don't have the tea leaves to read between the lines, but I was reading that a number of business leaders from the EU
was just in the Crimea, and I rather doubt they were there for a vacation, sanctions are a double edged sword and it would seem
the EU are feeling them as much if not more than Russia .
Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this.
Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse.
As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German
or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan
independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought
the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up –
the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling
proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading
them far and wide.
So, it I were you, I'd first question the collective European IQ, before laughing at the Americans. The European policy towards
Russia for the past 25 years has been unnecessarily confrontational and generally extremely stupid. After all, the US is far away,
but Europe is right next door to Russia. If push comes to shove, you'd be the first to get a kick in your tender behind. It happened
before, remember? Not only your IQ seems to have deteriorated, even assuming it was ever high, but your memory as well.
http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events,
etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States
Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss
"I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for
the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled
international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call
the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then
use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters.
"Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse."
Context of '1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
[MORE]
Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, gathers a cadre of fiery young intellectuals around him, many of
whom are working and associating with the magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965). Wohlstetter's group includes Richard Perle,
Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter, himself a protege of the Machiavellian academic Leo Strauss, is often considered
the "intellectual godfather" of modern neoconservatism. Formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Wohlstetter wielded a powerful
influence on the US's foreign policy during the heyday of the Cold War.
The recently formed neoconservatives, bound together by magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965), react with horror to
the ascendancy of the "McGovern liberals" in the Democratic Party, and turn to conservative senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
for leadership. Jackson calls himself a "muscular Democrat"; others call him "the Senator from Boeing" for his strong support
of the US defense industry.Jackson assembles a staff of bright, young, ideologically homogeneous staffers who will later become
some of the most influential and powerful neoconservatives of their generation, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott
Abrams, Abram Shulsky, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jackson's office -- Jackson's neoconservative disciples came of age either fighting
two foreign dictators -- Stalin and/or Hitler -- or growing up with family members who fought against them. [Unger, 2007, pp.
35-41] Wolfowitz's father's family perished in the Holocaust; he will later say that what happened to European Jews during World
War II "shaped a lot of my views." [New York Times, 4/22/2002] Feith will tell the New Yorker in 2005, "[My] family got wiped
out by Hitler, and all this stuff about working things out -- well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn't make any sense."
Most neoconservatives like Feith and Wolfowitz tend to look to military solutions as a first, not a last, resort. To them, compromise
means appeasement, just as Britain's Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department
official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, will say of the neoconservatives, "It is use force first and diplomacy
down the line."
Former Trotskyites – On the other hand, many neoconservatives come to the movement from the hardline, socialist left, often from
organizations that supported Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky (see Late 1930s – 1950s). Trotskyites accused Stalin of betraying
the purity of the Communist vision as declaimed by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. "I can see psychologically why it would not be
difficult for them to become [conservative] hard-liners," says Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, himself a hardliner whose
son, Daniel Pipes, will become an influential neoconservative. "It was in reaction to the betrayal." Many neoconservatives like
Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. Richard Perle
is a Trotskyite socialist when he joins Jackson's staff, and will always practice what author Craig Unger calls "an insistent,
uncompromising, hard-line Bolshevik style" of policy and politics. Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves
on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is
betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41]
After George H. W. Bush becomes the head of the CIA (see November 4, 1975 and After), he decides to break with previous decisions
and allow a coterie of neoconservative outsiders to pursue the allegations of Albert Wohlstetter that the CIA is seriously underestimating
the threat the USSR poses to the US (see 1965),
The neocon team of "analysts" becomes known as "Team B," with "Team A" being the CIA's own analytical team. It is unprecedented
to allow outsiders to have so much access to highly classified CIA intelligence as Bush is granting the Team B neocons, so the
entire project is conducted in secret.
Former CIA deputy director Ray Cline says Team B had subverted the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR by employing "a
kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that B's only purpose
is to subvert detente and sabotage a new arms limitation treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57]
Although the entire "Team B" intelligence analysis experiment (see Early 1976, November 1976, and November 1976) is supposed to
be classified and secret, the team's neoconservatives launch what author Craig Unger will call "a massive campaign to inflame
fears of the red menace in both the general population and throughout the [foreign] policy community -- thanks to strategically
placed leaks to the Boston Globe and later to the New York Times." Times reporter David Binder later says that Team B leader Richard
Pipes is "jubilant" over "pok[ing] holes at the [CIA]'s analysis" of the Soviet threat. Team B member John Vogt calls the exercise
"an opportunity to even up some scores with the CIA." [Unger, 2007, pp. 57]
In 1993, after reviewing the original Team B documents, Cahn will reflect on the effect of the B exercise: "For more than a
third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created calls for the United States to 'rearm.' In the 1980s, the call was
heeded so thoroughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. As a result, the country neglected
its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and health care system. From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became
the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing." [Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists, 4/1993
Sanctions are almost always counterproductive. We should have learned this from Cuba, but we didn't. When US breaks connections
with a country, we force the country to develop its own skills and products, or to do business with our enemies. Result: the sanctioned
country gets stronger, our enemies get richer, and US loses business. Total loss for US, total gain for everyone else.
There already is the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", known as Birobidzhan, in Eastern Siberia. It is much larger than the land
mass of any configuration of the State of Israel, tons of fresh water, natural resources. And get this: they wouldn't have to
behave like Nazis to benefit from a land ready for them.
There is a monument on Mamayev Kurgan, called The motherland calls. Luckily, when the motherland called millions of Russians
answered. The Russians not only like to answer the call of duty, but also the call of booty – as the Germans found out around
1945.
It's not like the Europeans haven't gone on a genocidal rampages before – Spanish and Anglo-Saxon massacres of native Americans
comes to mind. The real genius of those monkeys – the Germans – is that they attempted to treat the Russians like they were American
Indians. If anything, the Russians were too kind to those beasts.
Can Israel be trusted with nukes? They, like the U$A have exemptions from IAEA inspections. They have equal exclusiveness in
their military doctrine. I recall an anon poster a couple weeks ago stating that Israel has positioned nukes in strategic locations,
including continental U$A and Europe, influencing Israel-favourable decisions, explaining why Western countries make decisions
that are NOT in their best interests.
Well, Russia must not be baffled. After having so much baffling experience with partners being baffled is not a good thing especially
after 2 consequitive Soviet and then Russia leaders basically gave to USA everything they wanted on a plate with blue stripe so
to speak only to get baffled yet again by partners not giving an inch. This is zero sum game and relaxed attitude is not part
of it. Every single opportunity must be used to undermine remaining pillars of USA might namely her currency status and international
financial system which is built by as Sacker said uncle Shmuel for uncle Shmuel benefits. USA military is just an outgrowth which
will collapse like sand cattle without massive cash infusions allowed only because those two pillars mentioned above still standing.
Hoping that there will be some reasonable people in Washington with whom some detente is possible is dangerous illusion. There
not going to be lasting detente between USA and Russia until USA is reduced to her natural state of regional northern American
power with zero influence everywhere beyond Mexican and Canadian borders. Now I always wonder where indeed Putin is taking Russia.
I am watching Russia tv and see sort of very ugly place which sole existence is to dumb down Russian people and destroy people
morals and ethics. I wonder what kind of population and new generation of russians can grow watching this? I know there are still
many people born and brought up in ussr to be immune to this garbage but what about young people? Where indeed Putin is taking
Russia and does he need dumbed down American way population for this. Not to be forgotten is that people's strength is country
strength. What is going on is quite simple. America is plainly hot bed of capitalism and capitalism is quite obviously in death
throws. Exponential growth of debt around the world and continuous reduction of life standards and overall moral decay around
the world is a proof of this and obviously Russia and other former socialist states did a very bad bet on capitalism. Results
of the past 25 years are extremely disappointing and downright catastrophic for long term survival of the very people who adopted
this dead end system which passed its prime long time ago and dying. Communism is not popular at the moment but I have no doubt
it will come back because nothing in the past 25 years convinced me that capitalism is better.
Anon from TN
Let me add a little vignette. In Stalingrad (now Volgograd), there are preserved ruins of one of only two buildings that remained
semi-standing: Pavlov's house. Not only it was defended for 60 days against Wehrmacht (longer than France), Germans lost more
solders there than they lost conquering France. That should explain to Europeans why Russians don't take Europe too seriously:
they say that every 100 years or so the whole of Europe unites, makes war on Russia, gets beaten to pulp, and then licks its wounds
for another century. There was Napoleon in the nineteenth century, there was Hitler in the twentieth century, there is NATO in
the twenty first
Was there no bravery on the German side ?After the Normandy invasion western generals expected the war to be over at Christmas,
or even in September, when they tried to take the Dutch bridges, and failed miserably. It in my opinion is amazing how one country
withstood GB, USSR and USA so long.
Alas NATO seems to be planning a nuclear war. If this war comes, it will be the 'war that ends all wars', as Wilson said about
WWI, because no human being will survive, as all bigger animals. Rats seem to have a chance.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the
law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list.
Have heard that they went to a Forbes list to get the sanction names. This looks very very bad – it makes us look ridicules.
Congress doing foreign policy is wrong. Of course, this is Jew business – AIPAC doings. America for America – NOT – America for
Israel. Think Peace -- Art
Anon from TN. Yes, rodents, insects, and simpler life forms will inherit the Earth. The elites, if they start that war, won't
survive, either. Poor consolation for the rest of us, though.
Definite answer is Yes! Israeli government are not nuts like Kim. Wherever Israel did put their nukes, the only reason is that
the responsibility and cost of maintenance they did put on some other suckers.
Israel has nothing to fear. If there would be some concentrated and dangerous attack on Israel US air force would be there in
the matter of hours. Maybe even Russians would help with their air force.
To attack Israel is out of question. Maybe some terrorist attack is an option, but that is difficult to prevent
Actually, it is your ziocon propaganda that is simplistic: -- " the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin." -- An
honest cooperation between the US and Russian Federation would be the best solution for humanity at large. But this cooperation
would be the worst outcome for the bloody "chosen" dreaming of Eretz Israel and world dominance, while they can't stop whining
about "eternal victimhood."
Since 1999, four million human beings, including a multitude of children, died in the Middle East because of your bloody mythological
"promised land" of Israel.
Probably they won't have any choice. The more that it would be in the heart of the new Eurasian economic configuration. But
they still want Ukraine and Crimea. That's why you hear so much talk about the Khazars.
"From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms
to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing."
And look at the corruption within the highest echelons of the US government and security apparatus -- the opportunists and ignoramuses
have taken the upper hand. This is very convenient for Israel-firsters but deadly for the US. The hatred of ziocons towards Russia
is boundless and irrational.
"If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question
the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. "
Ken, I think that The Saker is just baffled on their behalf.
Ever heard of existential threat, sport? WW1 and the Crimean war were not existential threats to Russia. The minute they turned
into such, the outcome would have been different.
Here is what sanctions do. I recently saw a story about a German farmer/dairy expert who
went to Russia and jump started a large network of dairy farms in Russia. Before sanctions, Russia thought the could buy their
dairy from Europe, but after the sanctions, Russian knew they needed domestic suppliers, and lo an behold, this German (Joint
Russian German citizen actually and friend of Putin) was phonemically successful and now there is a robust local Dairy Industry
in Russia. Now the people who are howling are the European Farmers who used to have a healthy export market for their products.
well, if shamir is right and the looted accounts of the old money is equal to 1 trillion usd. that is alot of money for the
people in charge to not see green and only green. doubt long term consequences/effects would ever factor into the decision.
That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have
been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely)
Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or
Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions?
The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product
that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves
in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people
Then look a step further and forget about the US for a second: Russia is trying hard to work with the Europeans on many
join projects. What do you think the creation of such a list will have on joint ventures between EU and Russian businessmen?
I predict two things:
1. It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it
will further place the EU and the US on a collision course.
2. I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German
– Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse.
The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US,
rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions.
There is no subject that he doesn't derail by going on about Wasps his intent is to "divide and conquer" the building momentum
against neocon foreign policy.
Selecting wealthy individuals at random regardless of political beliefs indeed makes no sense at all. Perhaps if you had read
the rest of the article you would understand why. Then again, swine don't typically understand the value of pearls.
"... On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, ..."
"... In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States. ..."
"... A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another "go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war." ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ..."
"... Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times ..."
"... On Strategy ..."
"... Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984 . Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971 , while Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976 . ..."
"... Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters ..."
"... Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new "mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize" Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones , planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce. ..."
"... The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting. None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side." ..."
"... Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment -- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." ..."
"... Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers again. ..."
"... "America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think? ..."
"... The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense. For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war. ..."
"... Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful. ..."
"... The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless war. ..."
"... The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military. ..."
"... The warhawk imperialists – some of them Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British Empire 2.0. ..."
"... No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their dependents, say. ..."
"... The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption. ..."
"... Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging, insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic. ..."
"... Wars fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there. Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep ask. ..."
"... According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. ..."
"... If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by refusing to participate. ..."
"... Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II. This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War -- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to the American republic. ..."
"... Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media and the university and private research establishments. ..."
"... That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the same. ..."
Vietnam: it's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.
A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and
still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a
century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the
previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business
intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese
government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides
of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a
North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans
in those years as the Vietcong.
More than two decades of involvement and, at the war's peak, half a million American troops
never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. Despite millions of Asian
deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam's military could not, in the end, hold the line
without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North
Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.
There's just one thing. Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the "orthodox"
school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior
American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far
cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most
disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.
The Big Re-Write
In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned
an article
for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral
dissertation on the Vietnam War. It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus's
impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war. Though
he did observe that Vietnam had "cost
the military dearly" and that "the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of
those who lead the services," his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared
to wage what were then called "low-intensity conflicts" and are now known as
counterinsurgencies. His takeaway: what the country needed wasn't less Vietnams but
better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better
job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such
wars.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he
and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers
devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very
conclusions to win the war on terror. The names of some of them -- H.R. McMaster and James
Mattis, for instance -- should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan,
Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice. Americans
-- and much of the rest of the planet -- still live with the results.
Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years
after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient
conflict. After all these decades, such "thinking" generals and "soldier-scholars" continue to
draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America's
second longest war.
Rival Schools
Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools
of revisionist thinking.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in
Vietnam.
The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century. Senior
commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have
translated that conflict's supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in
Washington. The
result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia
to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief
that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can
work now.
The Go-Big Option
The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam
War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy : A
Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military. It's
easy enough to understand why. Summers argued that civilian policymakers -- not the military
rank-and-file -- had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam
rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. More troops, more aggressiveness, even
full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have
led to victory.
Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic.
Later , he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay
in "draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences." In his own
work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians),
failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts
of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national
security interest of the United States.
Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war
encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you
know you never beat us on the battlefield." "That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it
is also irrelevant."
Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I
was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!)
A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser
H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of
Duty . He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give
President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that
"the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice." He concluded that
the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in
Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon's generals, which led civilian
officials to opt for a deficient strategy.
McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint
Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion
of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another
"go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed
out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation
of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war."
COIN: A Small (Forever) War
Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening
salvo for the hearts-and-minders. In The Army and Vietnam , published in 1986, he
argued
that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy's chief center of gravity and that
the American military's failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional
concepts of war sealed its fate. While such arguments were, in reality, no more
impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military
audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points
out , because they offer a "simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam."
Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairspiece , "How to Win
in Iraq," in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged
counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New
York Times 's resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating "discussion in
the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president."
In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War : The
Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam . Sorley boldly
asserted
that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his
comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S.
commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor,
General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have
been) a war winner.
Critics
noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals'
strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work. It didn't matter, however. By 2005,
just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American
occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley's book found
its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State
Department counselor Philip Zelikow. By then, according
to the Washington Post 's David Ignatius, it could also "be found on the
bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad."
Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl. (He even
made it
onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart .) His Learning to Eat Soup with
a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in
claiming that "if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the
start of the war, America might very well have won it." In 2006, the Wall Street
Journalreported that Army Chief of Staff
General Peter Schoomaker "so liked [Nagl's] book that he made it required reading for all
four-star generals," while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.
David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of
FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times -reviewed ) military field manual for counterinsurgency since
Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders. Nagl wrote a
foreword for their manual,
while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement .
Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had
filtered down to the entire officer corps.
Reading All the Wrong Books
In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed
to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps -- the military's primary tactical
headquarters -- he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a
professional reading list to his principal subordinates. To his disappointment, Daddis also
discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War . This
should have surprised no one, since his argument -- that American soldiers in Vietnam
were
denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors
-- was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the
military's fault!
Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual
guideposts to the complex challenges ahead. Indeed, there's much to be admired in the concept,
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire
generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have
been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to
reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.
Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers -- who spoke at my
West Point graduation -- included Summers's On
Strategy on his list. A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker
added
McMaster's Dereliction of Duty . The trend continues today. Marine Corps Commandant
Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the
illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war
criminal fame). Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and
added good
old Lewis Sorley. To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included
yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list , Krepinevich's
The Army and Vietnam .
Just as important as which books made the lists is what's missing from them: none of these
senior commanders include newer scholarship
,
novels , or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about
whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that
might highlight the limits of American influence and power.
Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam
Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War.
They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the
withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in
1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster in 1984 .
Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in
1971 , while
Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his
commission in 1976
.
In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror
entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia. That meant
they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so
the professional credibility that went with it. They were mentored and taught by academy
tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict.
Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era -- and it's never ended.
Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had
reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where
to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a
military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in
Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only
lead to twenty-first-century disasters .
From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War
All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam "lessons" inform the U.S. military's
ongoing "surges" and "advise-and-assist" approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and
Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the
Trump administration's version of global strategy. President Trump's in-house Clausewitzians
clamor for -- and receive
-- ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam
vet) Edward Meyer called for
back in 1983: "a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam." In other words, more
bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts' content.
Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have
spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70%
of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new
"mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the
deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the
stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was
there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize"
Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced
Trump that -- despite his original
instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or
6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more
drones ,
planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on
farce.
The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are
never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that
is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting.
None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington
couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who
flew
269 combat missions over that country) noted in the
recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side."
Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an
interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment
-- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ."
Eerily enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something
similar. speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down. Even as
President Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South
Vietnamese Army (ARVN) -- a process known then as "Vietnamization" -- the general warned
that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support "would be required indefinitely to
maintain an effective force." Vietnam, too, had its "generational" side (until, of course, it
didn't).
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parametersarticle
with a quote from historian George Herring: "Each historical situation is unique and the use of
analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous." When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of
officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), "dangerous"
hardly describes the results. They've helped bring us generational war and, for today's young
soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.
[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
The book that needs to be written is the one that explores the question, "Does this war need
to be fought by us?"
The guys running the show now were mid-grade officers when I served in the '80s. They know
we already were waging a war on terror, but it was a quiet one, e.g "low-intensity conflict,"
the kind that doesn't pump up budgets or put lots of ribbons and badges on the chests of more
than a few of them, much less punch the ticket for promotion.
The problem here is one of governance: Civilians who should be reigning in and questioning
the military leadership (including the senior civilian leadership at DoD and apparently
State) when it wants to take us on yet another foreign adventure seem instead to be be
captive to them, because the spoils of war accrue to their benefit via procurement in their
districts.
Vietnam and the GWOT are merely symptoms of a bigger problem.
BTW, re Vietnam: Vietnam went through its Communist phase, but in a rather short time came
back to pseudo-capitalism, much like China, so aside from nearly 60k US troops and a few
million Viets killed and 20 years of lost time, what did we gain from fighting there?
America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the
other way around.
Didn't US realize that it can win any war with bribes and trade?
Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow
open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers
again.
And Vietnam even has homo parades because it comes with more gibs and bribes.
They established a myth that we almost won in Vietnam but the politicians wouldn't let us
finish the job, claiming we never lost a battle in Vietnam. That is false, so I posted a list
of 104 "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War" that squashed this myth.
"America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so
much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think?
Thanks for that link. I agree, whitewashing those tragedies is a grave disservice to our
soldiers who had to fight in those conditions (how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes
if we can't even come to terms with what we did wrong?).
No the JCS initially said SE Asia was strategically a backwater and not worth the
concentrating of America's limited resources. But military high command were operating within
longstanding army protocols of subordinating the military to civilian policymakers. It was
the CIA's job to say whether the war could be won and they were always skeptical.
America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War makes clear who was responsible for
pressing for escalation and bombing in Vietnam, who was the optimist, and who continued to
insisted after it had finished that the war had stabilized a domino.
If one's fundamental image of the world is as a place full of Quislings, McCains and assorted
dual nationals; then it follows that one will be militarily a Coindinista. If only third
world citizens were like American pols and stayed bought, but they aren't and they don't. If
one's fundamental image is that it is a world full of nationalists, patriots and Churchills:
then the bomb them back to non-existence; then it follows that one is a Summer's soldier.
Unfortunately, if one wishes to debate other nuanced alternatives to this dichotomy; the
enemy gets to shoot first. A policeman walks a beat in his city because he is paid to do it,
the "world's indispensable policeman" is unnecessary to the rest of the world but inevitable
to himself.
The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense.
For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war.
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose
was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the
same.
It's also weird that the idea of Vietnam War as a missionary conflict is never discussed. The
colonial Vietnam & later South Vietnam government gave preference to christians in
governmental positions, bureaucracy & had a monopoly on education. The prevailing
narrative in the west, is that somehow christianity is better & that people flock to it
due to this, just like their ancestors did. Mosmaiorum.org/persecution_list.html
For example, the anti Buddhist discriminatory laws in Korea are never discussed, neither
is the flooding of Japan with bibles post ww2. In the present age you have missionaries
following closely behind the USA army & organizations like the US council on religious
freedom being headed by missionaries sic. soul vultures.
From that pov, if white nationalists cannot control the predatory instincts of 'their'
people nor disavow them by becoming Pagan; then, they deserve their fate & should expect
no support from outsiders. As others have remarked, tariffs & protectionism help accrue
capital as do socially conservative views. The pushing of free trade & social liberalism
on 2nd/3rd world countries is akin to kicking the ladder. It's probably in everyone's
interest for the Protestant west to collapse under Afro-Islamic demographic pressure so the
great clean up can begin. Tldr yes state power leads to liberalism & liberal views but,
if you view that as the legacy of your people, fuck your people.
we are deeply at odds. We did not lose the Vietnam conflict. I am confident that billions
of dollars have been spent drilling that myth into the minds of well everyone. I remember
being a young poli-sci student in KS. And as I listened to the lecture on Vietnam, did the
reading my conclusion was so distant from his as to cause me no small amount of turmoil. The
contention that we lost Vietnam is so counter to the data -- it makes the Twilight Zone look
like Gilligan's Island, the twists on reality are directionless -- but conclude we lost, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
I have another theory, the reason that Vietnam remains etched in the psyche is because the
analysis was political as opposed to what actually occurred. This kind of hyperventilated
self flagellating recriminations will distort truth. Perception over reality -- then becomes
self fulling history.
_________________
But to the point. The US has lost two wars: The war of 1812 and in my view, the Iraq
conflict -- no direct fault of those on the ground doing the fighting. And we may lose the
Afghanistan gambit. It's a loss because it fell apart during our occupation. The guerrilla
warfare (asymmetrics) was not the issues for that failure. The failure was in
1. unjustifiable cause
2. poor implementation
3. under resourced
4. an inability to maintain order among communities -- (1-3)
5. and just a lot of bad decisions
Trying compare Vietnam to Iraq is like trying compare a stone to water in similarity. You
might be able to some generic references and very tiny specifics, but overall: the
environment politically and strategically, just never mesh. We didn't invade Vietnam. They
had a functioning government. There were clear lines of who was who based on borders (I am
not ignoring the insurgency -- Vietcong, etc.
It was the cold war and unlike Iraq there were not six varying countries throwing a myriad
of combatants into the fray with varying agendas and varying religious convictions. Even the
physical environment demanded a different strategy, insurgents or no insurgents.
One has to plan for insurgent warfare as invading any country is bound to have those who
get the best defense is one of stealth when your foe is as large a target as the US was in
Iraq. But for all of the complaints about Counter-Insurgency the one that no one seems
willing to state is the simplest. Don't invade countries for which there is no clean or clear
motive to do so. It's that simple. There was never a need to invade Iraq, if anything we
should have readjusted our dynamic and began a process of easing sanctions for their aide in
countering terrorism.
There was no reason to invade Afghanistan -- even to distribute more bikinis and advance
killing children in the womb. We wanted twenty guys and instead we stirred a hornet's nest .
. . ok well, more than one.
Vietnam really was an act of selflessness, we wanted to shore up a small republic seeking
a different course to communism. It bolstered our own ideas against the grand schema of the
Soviet Union, rightly or wrongly. Now you are not the only one who has a gripe with
counterinsurgency.
And I think it's a debate/discussion worth having, and while it may be useful to examine
COIN as to Vietnam strategically -- I think it can be done minus the incorrect and yet
incessant sack cloth and ashes built on mountains of liberal psychological faux trauma as if
the trauma of war is somehow unique to Vietnam,. It is not. As you know war is a nasty filthy
business, best left alone. But on occasion one gets pushed into a fight as did S. Vietnam and
when that screw is turned -- well history is replete of the consequences, the waste, the
blood, the brokenness . . . The tragedy of war does not mean one loses a war.
How true! If only the US had recognized the power of man's baser instincts and did what
the US does best -- continue selling its culture of consumerism and hedonism, Vietnam would
have arrived at the point much sooner and with virtually no loss of life.
Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and
hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US
economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to
downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would
not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful.
I mean, the Korean war started just 5 years after WW2 ended. They could barely wait for a
new crop of boys to turn 18 and become cannon fodder. 50,000 in Korea right after the 300,000
in WW2.
When casualties became politically incorrect (after VietNam), the focus shifted towards
lengthy 'nation building', that was not meant to succeed, but just to cost a lot for a long
time. In theory, the Iraq War could have worked, IF the true objective was the installation
of a moderate regime in Iraq, coupled with no extended US occupation. But that was not the
true objective after all, so it did not work.
The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the
draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless
war.
Get rid of the draft and there will be no protests hell raised back home by people of
draft age–and their families and friends–who don't want to get drafted to fight
wars so colonels can become generals; Wall Street can make a killing on the killing and so
the Pentagon can try out its new 'gee-whiz' weapons in the field on actual people.
The next biggest lesson was that the media must be tamed and brought under control with
embedding, so they'll push the Pentagon's and Wall Street message of duty, honor, Mom and
apple pie onto gullible Americans, who now damn near get orgasmic when they see a
multi-billion dollar killing machine–the B-2–fly over the upcoming gladiator
battle in the newest billion dollar coliseum and go into the State-mandated 'Two Minutes
Hate' whenever they see or hear the word Muslim or Islam.
For the record, I did my time in the US Army with the 82nd Airborne.
So America worships Ares/Mars and doesn't expect the god of War to want to eat them too?
There shall be wars and rumors of wars .I so look forward to watching this love of war spread
itself from sea to shining sea.
Until the young wise up and realize that the military operations in other countries have
nothing to do with the freedoms we have here and that they're being used as fodder for the
investments that the MIC has in the companies that make the tools of war, we will keep having
this nonsense. The kids need to wise up. The government has at its disposal all it needs to
'win' if it wants to. But if you 'win' , the sales and manufacturing of the
goodies is curtailed. They'd rather send the kids into the meat grinder all pumped up
thinking they're 'preserving freedom' LOL!
Nice, thank U. I´d never before had figured out, never outlined such a precise
conceptual sight of the two still remaining American mindsets on HOW to win.
Yes, cause for them Amerika must obviously must always win. So there are two viewpoints, that
in plain clear English we citizens of the shitholin´ countries wherever -- express as
follows:
Yes, you say tariffs and proteccionism help accrue capital.
Have you got any objection against a large, populous but still poor country (like Nigeria,
Indonesia, India or Brazil) sticking to higher (though not sky high) tariffs and
protectionism to raise their production, their income and their living standards?
That was PRECISELY HOW the US, Uk, Germany and the Meiji era Japan, not to mention China
from 1949 to Chu enLai) acted and because of it rose the heights of the present status and
well being societies.
Yes, you naive repeater, let´s us first protect ourselves from the globalist wolves
and THEN, we can sit down and talk but from a firm solid position, not the other way round.
cut the frack! We southern people are fed up with that northern hemispheric sales talk
– it ´s so convenient to you – but the web exists and times change.
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
It's not just the generals. The whole idea of the state is to control the uncontrollable
in order to continue "growing". That's why we conducted Vietnam as we did and why we conduct
operations as we do all over the world. Rather than Total War that produces winners and
losers we are trying to keep a lid on behavioral sinks and modify behavior so that economic
"growth" can continue.
I am not advocating Total War, but I am predicting that horrible war is coming.
How many dead men will it take
To build a dike that will not break?
The Zionists have been the root cause of every war that America has been in since WWI and
right on through the wars in the Mideast and the wars in the Mideast were perpetrated by the
Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state attack on 911.
America is under Zionist control and if anyone doubts this, just remember Israel did the
attack on 911 and got away with and every thinking American knows that Zionist Israel did the
attack which killed 3000 Americans, that is control.
. . .supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy
Actually the US created the "Republic of Vietnam" within Vietnam, which was rather
unusual, and then fought Vietnam. The US grabbed a Christian out of a New Jersey seminary
(Ngo Dinh Diem) to run the Buddhist "country," that didn't help. More recently the US has
overthrown governments (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then fought the natives. Whatever, it
doesn't work. The citizens (AKA dissidents, insurgents, terrorists, etc.) so effected don't
want US troops in their countries, and who can blame them.
Why do credulous Americans read anti-war books written by war criminals? Only brainwashed
people support the troops. Most Americans hated soldiers after Vietnam. They had seen
soldiers raping wives and daughters, burning houses and huts and crops and wiping out entire
villages. They knew that men who agree to kill for a paycheck do other bad things like raping
and looting and then writing books about it later.
The cons put a stop to all those "incorrect" ideas American slaves had developed by
ramping up the propaganda in the 1980s. Movies kicked in and "learned" the zombies about the
wonderfulness of war and killing and how American soldiers kill with love in their hearts and
the tragedy of the boy baby killers left behind – probably by "communists in the US
Government."
The United States really had no business intervening
That's a, maybe "the," key concept. The US has always had enough internal problems
of its own to deal with and it should always have tended to its own interest first. Damned
know-it-all, brainless busybodies!
I suspect most of them would wise up if their elders did so first, and would teach 'em.
One of the most annoying sights to me is to see some ancient fart wearing some sign that he's
a vet. Even though I was once a sucker too, I always make it a point to remind them that we
had no business in whatever war they happen to be glorifying and still wallowing in. How old
does one have to be to get a clue?
Nothing quite says freedom like heavily armed soldiers on the streets demanding papers. Soon
the US will have the same situation, with the "freedom loving" Americans willingly
surrendering all their freedoms for "safety." Today the US government spies on everyone's
communications, conducts over 80,000 SWAT raids a year, locks over 2 million people in actual
slavery, and lets the cops execute people on the street. Nothing quite says Freedom when cops
can execute poor people without any repercussions. Nothing quite says Freedom when opiate
casualties in one year exceed the American total in Vietnam. Nothing quite says zombie when
Americans can't see the war that is being waged on them right now.
Is that true? The Military simply harvested the poors out of the hills, the South and
other rural areas the same way they would have drafted 'em. All the kids respond once the
Government offers them a way out of potential starvation and hopeless poverty. That's just a
better way to draft people, although they won't call it that.
The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of
them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General
Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military.
"The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century."
Apparently it is not close to clear. The warhawk imperialists – some of them
Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are
lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing
world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent
leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British
Empire 2.0.
"Because we are here to help the Vietnamese because inside every go*k is an American
trying to get out." Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'Middle Easterners' and 'gook' with 'Arab' or
'Moslem,' and you have the Neocon position. Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'the world' and replace
'gook' with 'dark skinned non-Christian' and place the word "liberal' before 'American,' and
you have the Liberal/Leftist position.
As a youth during that time it seemed like a strange idea that they were pushing. How could
Vietnamese be invading Vietnam? They already live there. The Americans had to travel
thousands of miles to prevent this. Years later I realize my youthful intuition was right;
Vietnamese can't invade Vietnam. This North-South dichotomy was just a made up propaganda
tool. The South was an artificial concoction set up by the West to divide someone else's
country. This question of how could we have won is absurd nonsense. What would 'winning' have
looked like? The South would just have been a multi-billion millstone around our neck.
The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump
that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops
(and yet more drones, planes, and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents
tragedy bordering on farce.
No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene,
there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle'
bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and
where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the
crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes
him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet
executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their
dependents, say.
[*] The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its
illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife
with corruption.
a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches
add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies
=====
It's a lot, and here I point for emphasis to all the citizens of the two named entities;
silence is acquiescence. Take a look at the result, not 'just' in Afghanistan but Libya,
Syria etc., the WC7in5 [fortunately not
yet Iran]; wherever the US/Zs deploy their 'hammers.'
In the fewest words: The US/Zs including their 'ordinary people' are all true monsters,
with the only exception being the actively objecting few.
Not so BTW, from the above [but not only] I conclude that there can be no 'god' –
for surely, any such would strike all the US/Z villains down.
Again a 'special case' for emphasis, the intellectuals and academics who really should
know better but where again, silence is acquiescence.
*Guilty, your honour; may they all hang by the neck until dead!* rgds
American sheep can't see war even though they are in one. What better weapon than to have a
group of writers spreading disinformation and colorful propaganda that revolves around
discrediting the other propaganda with falsehoods and romanticization of the war that came
before. Let's have yet another debate about the thing that happened half a century ago
because driving the flock in circles gets them no where closer to resistance.
Meanwhile the real war. If the financial crisis wasn't a terrorist attack because the
press never told you, what will you believe? If more men and women die in one year because of
opiates than in the entire Vietnam effort, will the real owners tell you in their newspapers
that they do it because they want to win?
I think the kids are more pumped up with college tuition, VA health , a chance to learn a
civilian applicable skill , citizenship and something to do other than competing with illegal
Indios for low wages.
Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a
complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging,
insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of
civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation
of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic.
The Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese
communists, who were not amenable to letting people decide for themselves what political
system they chose to live under. They wanted "the whole pie". The South Vietnamese and
American military fought courageously, with one hand tied behind their backs, as they were
not permitted to attack the supply lines, logistics and staging areas of the North Vietnamese
communists. The American news media played a large part in the sympathetic attitudes they had
towards the communists, taking every chance to denigrate American and South Vietnamese
troops, a prime example was communist sympathizer Walter Cronkite reporting that the 1968
"Tet offensive" was a "major loss" for Americans and south Vietnamese, despite it being a
total slaughter of North Vietnamese communists and the Viet Cong. In fact, the Viet Cong
operating in the South were almost all totally decimated.
Yes, the final result of the Vietnam war was communist control, BUT, it was not due to the
efforts of South Vietnamese and American troops. The Vietnamese "boat people" who risked life
and limb to escape that communist "paradise" have a totally different story to tell, but
which had been rarely reported. Ken Burns is a communist sympathizer whose "documentary" on
the Vietnam war was so one-sided, even the communists admitted that his whole premise on the
Vietnam war was one-sided and false. Communist sympathizer Ken Burns inadvertently "let it
slip" that "re-education" by the communists was not a "six month deal" (as he claimed) in
which those in positions of power in South Vietnam would be "re-educated", but were actually
prisons, in which "enemies of the (communist) state were to be interned for as long as 20
years. It is interesting to note that the communists could not exert the same harsh level of
control as was the case in the North, to the people in the South.
Apparently unfamiliar with my long and detailed discussions here and at TAC about the
Vietnam War. I don't think you will find a single suggestion in mt two or more years of
discussion on Vietnam , that it was a civil war -- it was not. In every way, the North
Vietnamese were the aggressors. And if anyone looking at the political issues and objectives
of what happened in Vietnam – those who protested got nearly every aspect about Vietnam
wrong, nearly every contention they make was predicated on the incorrect information, except
one.
war is a nasty filthy affair in which a lot hoes wrong – because that is part and
parcel to the nature of war so many moving pieces on so many potential unpredictable planes.
The entire enterprise is best avoided, but sometimes as in the case of S. Vietnam, you are
left little choice but to defend yourself. Boys and girls afraid to fight screaming "Give
peace a chance" at the defenders like pushing a drowning men under the waves and telling him
all he need do is swim.
You are preaching to the choir and the preacher.
I am going to avoid rehashing the conflict, I think the data sets are on my side in tons.
But I think the authors intentions are to really dismantle the cadre and their advocacy of
COIN. Given that the current President has reneged on his campaign agenda to avoid needless
wars violating the territory of others to regime change. The issue of counter insurgency is
relevant. Because it looks like we are in for more than we bargained for. No doubt, SAS, the
French Legionaries, CIA and a spec ops contingents are pre-prepping for insurgencies of our
own.
A brief look suggests that the only effective response to counter insurgency is
intelligence and brutal response. though intended to suggest finesse, in the end -- it's root
them out and destroy them. I think this is one those the cure is worse than the illness,
because without indigenous support for your political and strategic goals in country --
brutal reprisals eventually reignite acts of terror as a means of self defense.
What are you a troll playing the same old broken record spewing forth the same old line,
for there was a vote coming up by the Geneva Accord, to decide just what kind of government
the two Vietnam's wanted, a vote that would'nt go the way we wanted thus the false flag to
get us involved.
FDR had made a deal with Ho that if they would rise up and drive out the Japs that Vietnam
could choose their own destiny, colonialism was dead he said, well until that little man in
the to big a house got into office and then once again America's word wasn't worth a mouth
full of warm spit and its never changed
Today's officer corps would spare us all a great deal of cost, blood and grief and we
Americans would all do much better if the cadets', midshipmen's, officer candidates' and
officer corps' reading list began with the Bernard Fall book Rue Sans Joie .
Rand? American Conservative? Tom's Dispatch? All fake news for the sheep, i.e COIN. If
people want change, they have to refuse to cooperate. That means no voting. Voting means you
agree with the basic trends and just want to tweak the system. All of us have gotten cheated
by the Government all of our lives. Destruction of schools so people can't learn. Wars
fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there.
Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their
parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep
ask.
The religious aspect of the Vietnamese CIVIL WAR is overlooked by the senile VFW geezers
posting here. The patriots were mostly Buddhists the quislings were mostly Catholics
(inherited from the French). In between perving little kids, American Cardinals and Bishops
demanded even more war and Vietnamese blood. The bloodthirsty homo, Cardinal Spellman, would
even visit the troops in person and exhort them to create more carnage and mayhem.
According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million
Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. The role of the vile
bloodthirsty Homo Cult of the Seven Hills has been mostly overlooked.
Note, I list of sites is not definitive. There are articles critical and article
supportive of COIN. Some articles are just descriptive of what COIN means. COIN has been a
subject of a good deal of debate for a very long time. Most articles are from TAC because
that is the site I most frequently read and comment. And as Dr. Unz will tell you, they
invite a host of articles by a host of authors -- with varying view points.
About Rand, they are one of the most noteable contributors to government policy via
research and while one may not appreciate their advocacy, it's not a bad idea to read what
they are presenting on issues, in this case COIN. Even considering broad definitions of fake
news -- it is unlikely that Rand would be included as such an outlet.
One of the advances launched in the late sixties -- forward was that Vietnam was a MIC
windfall and in fact manufactured by the MIC.
I don't think there is much evidence of that. Pres Johnson and most of the leadership
actually saw it as a case for democracy against the Chinese, the Soviets -- etc. You are not
going to be able to escape the private sector profiting from war. Sure had democracy and
capitalism actually won the day , I don't think there is any question money would have been
made -- capitalism is a very healthy system -- if operated minus manipulation/unfair
dealings. But that is not unique. One does business where business is. but cold war strategic
aims made money for lots of people -- that doesn't deny that there was actually a system of
proxy engagements for democracy and communism.
I am not a member of the VFW. I don't drink and have never been drunk. There was drug use
how prevalent it was is unclear. not enough to prevent mission readiness, it appears.
A lot has been made of fragging, but if you can find the numbers -- The evidence is very
sparse that this practice was anywhere close to a staple. Here's an estimate 800 such
incidents attempted. But given that there are only about 13 confirms that estimations is
suspect. Some 3 million service members service in Vietnam that's a percentage of
0.026666666666% attempted. The actual number of men who died as the result of fragging
0.0005% and i used the highest number of fifteen actuals.
There were tragic incidents of mass killings, but those two were rare. The next series of
complaints are hard to quantify -- but suffice it to say, whatever the complaints -- when
push came to shove the US service member repeatedly got the job done. And contrary to your
comments, the process of the US withdrawal is well documented. More than anything, they
secured a line of defense, and the situation at home was the most pressing. There is no
evidence that the US ran from the battle field.
OI think the evidence is clear that we should maintained support via air and sea power to
ensure the victory was maintained on behalf of the S. Vietnamese who fought and died to
defend their country. kudos to the Aussie's for their loyal support.
If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could
have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees
and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by
refusing to participate.
Money's made fighting wars not winning them. 1945 was the last time the US made the
mistake of winning a war, and may not have made that one had Russia not been on the verge of
invading and occupying Japan, thus forcing the US into bringing the war to a close.
Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II.
This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe
Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War
-- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to
the American republic.
Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not
only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media
and the university and private research establishments.
Tom Jefferson thought periodic revolution against wealth and authority was desirable to
keep these bastards in check. Which implies that he figured they would inevitably get us by
the throat down on the floor from time to time.
I don't think that you understand at all the history of the USG involvement in
VietNam–an act of selflessness??? What a crock.
The entire foreign policy of the united states has been controlled by the
military/industrial/security/espionage etc etc complex since, at least, the end of WWII. that
group doesn't really care about victory–on going conflict somewhere is the only goal.
Personally, I doubt that the USG has ever committed a selfless act in it's entire history.
VietNam was just one stop in a long line of USG aggression.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in
the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did.
LOL.. True enough. Yet an assortment of "Church of Rambo" true believers in civilian life,
including several here on Unz, continue to insist that that the US never lost the war, hell,
never even lost a battle -- claims all debunked by credible historians and military men who
fought there.
the vast majority of senior American military officers do not. Instead, they're still
refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the
scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in
the Greater Middle East.
The weakness of the piece is that you don't say exactly which Vietnam approach today's
generals are following. Are they doing the "big battalions" approach of Westmoreland's
"search and destroy"? Are they doing the "Expanding Inkblot" of Marine General Krulak,
Sorley's "Better war", or John Paul Vann's "Hearts and Minds"?? You say these are all things
from Vietnam but exactly which one is in place, and why is it losing?
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only
purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just
more of the same.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in
Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his
favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to
win the war on terror.
Again questionable. Petraeus had the correct approach to counter the previous "lets just
invade and beat Saddam" approach of Rumsfeld. Rummy's "lean force" package backed by almost
unlimited air power was enough to win the conventional struggle but was woefully short of the
numbers needed for occupation and pacification. Same thing happened to Hitler in the Balkans.
Initial smooth success, grinding guerrilla attrition for years afterward.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have
won in Vietnam.
"Winning" by 1972 did not contemplate victorious US troops marching into Hanoi, or total
abandonment of the field by PAVN/VC but a better final political settlement enabling the
southern regime to survive, and/or a "decent interval" for the US to save face.
n 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of
America's Last Years in Vietnam. Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, "the
fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his comforting tale, the real
explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S. commander General William
Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams --
Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have been) a war
winner.
You are misrepresenting Sorley's full argument somewhat. Sorley did not envision or claim
that there would have been any sweeping US victory with US troops marching into Hanoi, or
that the VC/NVA would flee and abandon the struggle. A big part of his argument is for "a
better war" – that is- the end game of which inevitably would be a BETTER NEGOTIATED
SETTLEMENT. Sorley knew quite well that the VC would not disappear (their political apparatus
was still in place) and that the NVA would not simply pack up and return north. Sorley's book
"A Better War" contemplates a BETTER FINAL POLITICAL SETTLEMENT as part of the bottom line,
not US troops marching triumphantly into downtown Hanoi, as PAVN armies scurried away into
the jungle.
To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included
was Sorley's A Better War. This should have surprised no one, since his argument –
that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian
policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors – was still resonant among the
officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the military's fault!
Keep in mind that Daddis wrote a book on the Vietnam War called 'No Sure Victory' in which
he pins US failure on not being versed ENOUGH on hearts and minds counterinsurgency war,
hence the reliance on massive and unworkable statistical and reporting systems of
"progress."
"The army's unpreparedness for counterinsurgency in the early 1960s surely encouraged
this confusion. Conventional officers had little experience in developing a
counterinsurgency reporting system and applying it within a larger strategic context.. So
it was for the U.S. Army in Vietnam. Insufficiently versed in the mysteries of
counterinsurgency, officers turned to statistics to assist them in measuring and reporting
progress and effectiveness. Statistics, though, bred more statistics, and the MACV
headquarters soon became awash in a flood of numbers, facts, and figures."
–Daddis, No Sure Victory
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of
an entire generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The
generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were
essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful
and unending wars.
You are barking up the wrong tree somewhat. Daddis laments reading list limitations as far
as Iraq, but the reading list did not make any difference given 3 issues:
(a) the decision to go to war in Iraq, when it was not necessary
(b) the woefully inadequate number of troops provided the commanders for conquest and
occupation and
(c) the cavalier, careless nature of planning for postwar Iraq.
What was or was not on the reading list is of limited impact given these 3 big realities
the civilian leadership saddled commanders with.
The question is, how much longer will European workers remain peaceful dissenters to 'laws'
that resemble the prohibition of Unions in NS-Germany? A number of member states are
threatening their own exit from the EU, although for entirely different reasons. But more
"Exit"-Nations will weaken neo-liberal EU to the much desirable breaking point.
As it stands, EU/NATO policies are the biggest threat to European citizens.
"... President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him. ..."
"... The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs, and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American president in history. ..."
"... The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia. The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of Russia. ..."
"... Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's "shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. ..."
The Russian government, media, and public don't know what to make of the US Treasury's
"Kremlim list." The Treasury list contains the names of the top echelon of Russian government
and business leadership. The Russians understand that the list is unfriendly and furthers
Washington's policy of worsening the relationship between the two major nuclear powers, but
beyond that the list seems to be a mystery to them.
President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin
was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him.
1) The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs,
and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By
suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their
Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their
companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington
intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian
elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is
difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American
president in history.
2) The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of
Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response
from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia.
The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and
Russia.
The lack of a meaningful Russian response will encourage more insults and actual sanctions
against Putin's supporters, which will cause some of them to separate from Putin in order to
protect their own economic and career interests. In the past Washington has used sanctions in
efforts to deprive leaders of public support. With the Kremlin list, Washington has changed its
tactics and is targeting the reputations and economic interests of the leadership class. The
list is Washington's attempt to deprive Putin of the support of the top echelon of government
and business leaders. The list is a bullet aimed at Putin's heart.
Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a
devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests
the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of
Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of
Russia.
Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's
"shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any
consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it
submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada,
Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush
declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia
can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org
by permission of author or representative) ← The Second Dossier
So, the long-awaited " Kremlin List "
happened to be a purely formal action. What was made public is just a meaningless compilation
of names partly taken from a phonebook with some of them cribbed from the Forbes' Billionaires list – a kind
of Who Is Who reference publication. The administration had to release the document as required
by law, so it adopted the "get what you want and leave me alone" approach. At least, that's
what the unclassified part of the report looks like. Technically correct, the list is just a
mockery in its essence. Nothing in the report indicates that the US is in possession of
information about the individuals' involvement in any wrongdoings. The paper says it is not a
sanctions list though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
said it would result in restrictive measures. He did not specify the date.
It's not the "Kremlin List" that really matters. On Jan.29, one day before the document was
made public, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee
voted to release a classified memorandum, revealing the misconduct by the FBI and the
Justice Department in the Russia investigation. The paper expresses grave concern over the way
the investigation, launched by the Obama administration, was conducted. The lawmakers took the
decision ignoring the position of
the Justice Department, which had warned not take this "extraordinary reckless" step. It's
highly probable that if an investigation into the abuses is launched, the trail will lead to
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's not Donald Trump but rather his opponents who will be at center of the scandal with
media raising ballyhoo (and they will do it as practice shows). Everything will turn around to
put the Democratic backers of Hillary Clinton on the defensive with the president's hands
untied giving him much more freedom to implement his Russia policy. He won't keep one eye on
Congress when it comes to dealing with Russia. Trump will become the defender of democracy
threatened by Clinton's camp. The "Kremlin's List" will be on the backburner.
Russia knows well all the ins and outs of US politics. It is reserved and patient but it
cannot forever abstain from striking back. Both governments realize this fact and act
accordingly. They don't sever the contacts, so that wouldn't have to start from scratch when
the times change.
On the contrary, they do what is possible under the circumstances. It's enough to look at
the news that doesn't hit headlines but tells about the events of great significance. For
instance, Sergey Naryshkin, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, has recently visited the United States to
discuss terrorism. The Russian foreign intelligence chief is under sanctions but the visit was
important enough to make the US executive turn a blind eye on this fact. Naryshkin was granted
entry to the country. It's hard to imagine such a high-ranking official coming alone.
So, the information exchange with Russia is too important to be affected by ups and downs in
the relationship. It's enough to remember how the interaction
between the intelligence services of both countries prevented a terrorist act in Saint
Petersburg last December. In his recent
interview with Russian Echo Moskvy ( Echo of Moscow ) radio
station, US Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman
said the time is propitious for a Russia-US bilateral summit. He also emphasized the
importance of military-to-military communications. Until now, the leaders have met only on the
sidelines of top-level international events. A summit could change a lot of things, addressing
many problems beyond the scope of bilateral relationship.
2018 is an election year in the United States. The Democrats' chances will diminish greatly
when the secret memo is released. With economy going strong, the chances for Republicans to
strengthen their position in both houses look good enough. So do the opportunities for the
president to keep his pre-election promise to improve the relationship with Russia.
"... For being "intelligence" agencies who no one is apparently allowed to question or criticize, they sure make a lot of "mistakes", "lose" a lot of documents, and just get a lot of things "wrong". ..."
"... Iraq was invaded and occupied as well. Control resources!! That is the end game...As a Combat Veteran served during 9/11 and tip of the spear in 2003 we found ZERO weapons of mass destruction....So many young Americans impacted and suffered for pure profit at the hands of greedy Men... ..."
His comments came hours after SIGAR said in
a quarterly report on the conflict that the Pentagon prohibited the inclusion of information on the number of districts in Afghanistan,
and the population therein, controlled by the Afghan government or the Taliban or contested by both sides.
"The number of districts controlled or influenced by the Afghan government had been one of the last remaining publicly available
indicators for members of Congress -- many of whose staff do not have access to the classified annexes to SIGAR reports -- and for
the American public of how the 16-year-long U.S. effort to secure Afghanistan is faring," SIGAR said in a statement. "This is the
first time SIGAR has been specifically instructed not to release information marked 'unclassified' to the American taxpayer."
In his emailed statement, Gresback said that, as of October 2017, about 56 percent of the country's 407 districts were under Afghan
government control or influence, 30 percent remained contested, and roughly 14 percent were now under insurgent control or influence.
R Roger47 yesterday
Afghanistan is too big and too poor for their own government and military to ever be able to control. Much of the country is
controlled by tribal leaders associated loosely with the Taliban. They want to continue to live their lives as they have done
for hundreds of years. We can either let them do so, or occupy their country forever. I say make an agreement to leave them alone
as long as they keep terrorists out, and bring our troops home.
e edward yesterday
For being "intelligence" agencies who no one is apparently allowed to question or criticize, they sure make a lot of "mistakes",
"lose" a lot of documents, and just get a lot of things "wrong".
C CBVET2003 yesterday
Iraq was invaded and occupied as well. Control resources!! That is the end game...As a Combat Veteran served during 9/11
and tip of the spear in 2003 we found ZERO weapons of mass destruction....So many young Americans impacted and suffered for pure
profit at the hands of greedy Men...
V Vegasvince 22 hours ago
Several things he promised to work on are traditional Democratic issues. Since they also agree, I'd hope we can see quick
congressional action. Infrastructure, prescription drug costs, terminal patients access to drug trials, Job training investment,
Paid family leave, former prisoner job training, etc... These should be fast tracked through Congress and to the Presidents. We
can agree on things in America and need a productive governement to get thing s done!
"... There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage. ..."
"... Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses? ..."
"... Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism. ..."
In an act of insane escalation of provocations against Russia, Washington has produced a
list of 210 top Russian government officials and important business executives who are
"gangsters," "members of Putin's gang," "threats," "people deserving to be sanctioned," or
however the Western presstitutes care to explain the list. The absurd list includes the Prime
Minister of Russia, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and executives of Gazprom,
Rosneft, and Bank Rossiya. In other words, the suggestion is that the entirety of Russian
political and business leadership is corrupt.
The Russians do not seem to understand the purpose of the list. Presidential spokesman
Dmitry Peskov said that the government sees the list as an attempt to interfere in the Russian
presidential election. There is no doubt that Washington would like to reduce Putin's public
support so that Washington can use the Western-funded NGOs operating in Russia to present
American stooges as Russia's true voices. However, it is unlikely that the Russian people are
stupid enough to fall for such a trick.
Washington's list has three purposes:
To undercut Russian diplomacy by presenting the top echelons of Russia as gangsters.
To present Russia as a military threat as per the ridiculous announcement by British defense
minister Gavin Williamson on January 26 that Russia intends to rip British "infrastructure
apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths," and create "total chaos
within the country."
To shift American and European attention away from the coming release of the House
Intelligence Committee's report that proves Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the
Obama Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee against President Trump.
Washington's Russian list will give the presstitutes something else to talk about instead of
the act of treason committed against the President of the United States. Expect to hear nothing
from the presstitutes except that the House Intelligence Committee report is only a political
effort to shield Trump from accountability.
There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia,
because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in
Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized
because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of
southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires
the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign
policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby.
The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers
Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist
neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use
diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American
diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage.
Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to
provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come
to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses?
For the West to come to its senses requires the complete overthrow of the Zionist
neoconservatives and/or the breakup of NATO. The overthrow of the neoconservatives would
require a rival foreign policy voice, and that voice is very weak as it is shut off from the
media, the think tanks, and the universities. The breakup of NATO would require European
political figures to give up their Washington subsidies and the career advancement that
Washington provides.
As I write the Atlantic Council is holding a members and press call in for a discussion with
Atlantic Council members Amb. Daniel Fried and Anders Aslund. The Atlantic Council is a
neoconservative propaganda agency. The purpose of the "discussion" is to further undermine
US-Russian relations.
The Russian government faces a difficult situation. The foreign policy of the US, and
thereby of the Western world, is controlled by neoconservatives who are determined to present
Russia in the most threatening light. Russian diplomacy can do nothing to change this. The
non-provocative and responsible Russian response has the effect of encouraging more
provocations from Washington. At some point Russian passivity might convince the
neoconservatives that they can successfully attack Russia. Alternatively, the continual
provocations might convince Russia that the country is targeted for attack, thereby causing a
Russian pre-emptive action.
Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in
Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only
threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism.
"... Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger," said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily, and what we're doing." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Forward Operating Base Torkham, in Nangahar Province, Afghanistan (army.mil) If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria,
could be under fire by week's end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.
Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his forces will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.
Erdogan's foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the United States to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian
border with Turkey east of the Euphrates all the way to Iraq.
If the Turks attack Manbij, America will face a choice: stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.
Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area, as Erdogan threatens, American
credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.
But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan's forces could mean a crackup of NATO and a loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including
the air base at Incirlik.
Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO's loss would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who
gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.
Yet Syria is but one of many challenges facing U.S. foreign policy.
The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the menace of a North Korean ICBM out of the news, but no one believes that
threat is behind us.
Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal,
a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China,
was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China's territorial claims with our warships, a clash is inevitable.
In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance jet in international
airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.
U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with
being a false friend.
"The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given
us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools," Trump declared. "They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt
in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!"
As for America's longest war in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon. A week ago, the International
Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad
was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.
Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan
soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing. If
Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United
States? Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.
Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea, and
land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa
three years ago. This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, seized power in Yemen's
southern port of Aden from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis. These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before
1990.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has
been drawn. There are other wars -- Somalia, Libya, Ukraine -- where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying
missions.
Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and
forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger,"
said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily,
and what we're doing."
No, we don't, Senator. As in all empires, power is passing to the generals. And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial
city? Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia-gate.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President
and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists,
visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election," expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations. ..."
"... Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt. ..."
"... In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt. ..."
"... As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States. ..."
The US Ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to react "calmly" to the U.S. Treasury
Department's list of "corrupt oligarchs" due Monday. The list is designed to "name and shame"
elite Russians into thinking twice before engaging in business with Putin's government. It will
be up to Congress to decide whether the list should be published.
"I urge to take this report, based on its real and not a contrived essence and without
emotions, because relations between our countries are far from being exhausted by this one
legal act, and I was reminded about it in Washington, where I was two weeks ago," - US
Ambassador John Huntsman via - newsru (translated)
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters two weeks ago that Russia will
react to any punitive measures against its businessmen, stating "The principle of reciprocity
remains," suggesting that Putin would employ a commensurate response to a U.S. crackdown on
oligarchs.
As we
previously reported , the list was created pursuant to an August, 2017 law requiring the
Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by "their
closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth" in order to penalize the Kremlin for its
alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
The report is intended to "name and shame" Russia's elite who prop up Putin , and to send
a message "that Putin's aggression in terms of Russian interference in our elections will be
very costly to them," said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of State who led the
State Department Russia sanctions office.
It is likely to signal to Russia's political and business classes that they'd be better
off maintaining a distance from the Putin government, and it could lead to further sanctions
against individuals who participate in corruption, Fried said.
" The Russian elite reacted with something between anxiety and panic about the prospect of
this list ," Fried said. "They focused on this immediately, and they're very worried about
it. " - USA Today
The list will include "indices of corruption with respect to those individuals," along with
any foreign assets they hold. According to Bloomberg, this sent Russian fat cats into a
liquidation frenzy - with many scrambling to contact D.C. lobbyists in order to buy their way
off the list.
Some people who think they're likely to land on the list have stress-tested the potential
impact on their investments , two people with knowledge of the matter said. Others are
liquidating holdings , according to their U.S. advisers.
Russian businessmen have approached former Treasury and State Department officials with
experience in sanctions for help staying off the list, said Dan Fried, who previously worked
at the State Department and said he turned down such offers. Some Russians sent proxies to
Washington in an attempt to avoid lobbying disclosures, according to one person that was
contacted . -
Bloomberg
Corruption Index
The Treasury's report must include "indices of corruption , " which will list any foreign
assets next to an oligarch considered corrupt. " Because of the nervousness that the Russian
business community is facing, a number of oligarchs are already beginning to wind back
businesses , treating them as if they are already designated, to stay ahead of it," said Daniel
Tannebaum, head of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 's global financial
sanctions unit.
Russia's well-connected billionaires have hired law firms to try to keep them off the
list, said Ariel Cohen, a Russia analyst at the Atlantic Council think tank. Russians believe
the list is a first step toward increasing the current 29 Russians under U.S. sanctions by
adding 40 to 400 names, Cohen added. - USA Today
Vladimir Putin has warned wealthy nationals over worsening U.S. sanctions, and provided them
with a capital amnesty program designed to allow oligarchs to repatriate some of their overseas
assets. Meanwhile, Putin has issued
special bonds which will allow the wealthy to hold assets outside of the reach of the U.S.
Treasury.
Separate sanctions handed down
As we reported earlier in the month, Treasury officials are concerned that people will
confuse Monday's list of corrupt oligarchs with separate sanctions handed down to Russians over
the Ukraine crisis.
On Friday, the Treausry Department added 11 individuals to a "blacklist" which now contains
21 Russian or
Ukraainian nationals and nine companies - most of which are power or energy firms. The
Treasury's announcement reads in part:
WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) today designated 21 individuals and 9 entities under four Executive Orders (E.O.s)
related to Russia and Ukraine, including three individuals and two entities related to
Russia's transfer of four turbines made by a Russian-German joint venture to Crimea. Today's
action is part of Treasury's continued commitment to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia
until it fully implements its commitments under the Minsk agreements. This action underscores
the U.S. government's opposition to Russia's occupation of Crimea and firm refusal to
recognize its attempted annexation of the peninsula. These sanctions follow the European
Union's recent extension of sanctions and reinforce our continued unity in supporting
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As a result of today's action, any property or interests in property of the designated
persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be
blocked. Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons involving these persons are generally
prohibited.
"The U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements," said
Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. "Those who provide goods, services, or material support
to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine
are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions."
Today, OFAC also identified 12 subsidiaries that are owned 50 percent or more by
previously sanctioned Russian companies to provide additional information to assist the
private sector with sanctions compliance.
Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated since 2014, when Russia annexed
Crimea, sparking the conflict in Ukraine. Diplomatic ties have worstened between the two
nuclear superpowers, with Washington accusing Moscow of interfering in the 2016 US presidential
election.
In December 2016, President Obama
closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election,"
expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase
sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly
signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime
minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations.
Several weeks later in August 2017, the Trump administration "thanked" Russia again - giving
them 72 hours to vacate three more diplomatic facilities in San Francisco, Washington DC, and
New York City.
Towards the end of 2017, Washington took a series of steps to further vilify Russia,
branding the country a "rival power" and "revisionist power," while imposing new sanctions on
several individuals linked to the Kremlin.
Trump's Executive Order
Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S.
Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an
Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of
foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt.
In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the
Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for
corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium
deal deemed corrupt.
As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have
serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any
Russians deemed corrupt by the United States.
"... The plundering of Greece is so huge that the Greek people don't realize it. Tsipras doesn't wear a tie. He was going to stop imperialism. But Tsipras works for them. Do you remember? There was a finance minister who rode around on a motorcycle. An academic. They got rid of him. I mentioned that on this programme in the past. They will sack that Greek finance minister and then Greece will sign the agreement with the INF. I said it. When they had got rid of the finance minister they brought an Englishman and the Englishman became a minister of the Greek government and they signed. We said that on our programme here before it happened. ..."
"... The imperialist model hasn't changed. Countries get into debt. They sink into crisis. The property of the people is transferred and after that they simply change the government. The same thing happened in Turkey in 2001. They sent Kemal Derviş to Turkey to put things in order for the imperialists. They appointed him Roman governor in Turkey. But fortunately Devlet Bahçeli was found to spoil their game for them," ..."
"... Erdoğan's advisor stated, and continued: "I feel sorry for the Greeks. They ..."
Greece will be in a "non-functional condition" until 2020, predicts the advisor to the
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Yiğit Bulut, who characterizes the Prime
Minister Alexis Tsipras as a "tool of the imperialists".
Speaking on the state television programme "Deep Analysis" he gave the example of Greece to
show the consequences of imperialism for global political developments.
"They sold off everything. The banks have passed into the hands of the Germans. They have
been left with nothing. People in Greece wait for products from Germany and Italy. There is a
film about 300 Spartans who fall heroically in battle. Those 300 of Leonidas should come back
to Greece now, because nothing has remained standing.
The plundering of Greece is so huge that the Greek people don't realize it. Tsipras
doesn't wear a tie. He was going to stop imperialism. But Tsipras works for them. Do you
remember? There was a finance minister who rode around on a motorcycle. An academic. They got
rid of him. I mentioned that on this programme in the past. They will sack that Greek finance
minister and then Greece will sign the agreement with the INF. I said it. When they had got rid
of the finance minister they brought an Englishman and the Englishman became a minister of the
Greek government and they signed. We said that on our programme here before it
happened.
The imperialist model hasn't changed. Countries get into debt. They sink into crisis.
The property of the people is transferred and after that they simply change the government. The
same thing happened in Turkey in 2001. They sent Kemal Derviş to Turkey to put things in
order for the imperialists. They appointed him Roman governor in Turkey. But fortunately Devlet
Bahçeli was found to spoil their game for them,"Erdoğan's advisor stated,
and continued: "I feel sorry for the Greeks. Theyarevictimsofimperialism."
The above declaration by the Turkish official was made to the Turkish state television. It
was translated for DDP from the Greek sites that reproduced it, under the headline "Erdogan's
advisor makes provocative declarations".
Turkey still occupies a large part of Cyprus after having invaded the island in 1974 and
expelled more than 200,000 Greeks from their homes. It has territorial claims on Greek Aegean
islands and deploys the world's largest fleet of landing craft some miles from them. The
Turkish National Assembly has voted a resolution threatening Greece with war in the event of
use by Athens of its right to expand Greek territorial waters to 12 miles. It is only natural
that Greeks do not much appreciate a Turkish official speaking of their country in this way. It
is indeed a "provocation" from the point of view of rules of diplomatic behavior, given that
Mr. Erdogan is preparing his visit to Greece.
Of course Greeks know only too well that the description of the Turkish official is quite
close to the truth. It is probable that the advisor of the Turkish President does not so much
have the intention of provoking Greeks as influencing Turkish politics by showing his public
opinion what happens to a country that surrenders to "Western Imperialism".
There is a deep irony to Turkey depicting, as it does here, the EU, Germany, the Eurozone,
NATO and big finance destroying a member-state of the EU, and using this argument
rhetorically!
Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the
planned US attack on Syria? Well, the very same Ukraine has recently passed a law abolishing
the "anti-terrorist operation" in the Donbass and declaring the Donbass "occupied territory".
Under Ukie law, Russia is now officially an "aggressor state". This means that the Ukronazis
have now basically rejected the Minsk Agreements and are in a quasi-open state of war with
Russia. The chances of a full-scale Ukronazi attack on the Donbass are now even higher then
before, especially before or during the soccer World Cup in Moscow this summer (remember
Saakashvili?). Having been ridiculed (again) with their Border Security Force in Syria, the US
Americans will now seek a place to take revenge on the evil Russkies and this place will most
likely be the Ukraine. And we can always count the Israelis to find a pretext to continue to
murder Palestinians and bomb Syria. As for the Saudis, they appear to be temporarily busy
fighting each other. So unless the Empire does something really crazy, the only place it can
lash out with little to lose (for itself) is the eastern Ukraine. The Novorussians understand
that. May God help them.
Saker, interesting analysis. 1 tiny point of criticism:
Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of
the planned US attack on Syria?
If I am not mistaken the CIA fomented "Orange revolution" in Ukraine was in 2014, whereas
Russia stepped into the Syrian war in 2015. So in the quoted sentence, it seems you got the
sequence of events back to front.
Ha-ha! Goddam Russkies scorched the Amero-ISIS arse and now Russo-Turks are gaslighting the
Kurds and their ten 'Murican lilypads. It's time for a diversionary Great Patriotic Ukrainian
War, just as soon as Porko sobers up.
What occurred in 2014 was the Maidan psy-op. As far as I recall, the only thing
significant that happened in Ukraine in 2010 was the election of Yanukovych.
In an article about Syria, Russia is omnipresent and the article ends by talking about
Ukraine. Nothing could better illustrate the fact that Putin has painted himself into a
corner in both places. He is irreversibly bogged down in Syria and any deal he makes with the
Kurds will just bog him down even more. Putin is a sitting duck. The US can lower the boom on
him at any time by relaunching the war and there's nothing he can do about it. And, of
course, the author makes clear that all this is "about" Ukraine. Syria is a proxy war. But in
Ukraine also, Putin has painted himself into a corner. He can't go forward, he can't go
backwards and he can't stay where he is!
Looks to me like he has done very well, the Ukraine is a basket case, surviving on little
more than borrowed money(I see on the QT that they are back to having to buy coal from Russia
AGAIN) and sooner rather than later there will be another coup as they find that even the EU
don';t want them.Syria why does he need to make a deal with the Kurd's for they are not his
problem,if anyone makes a deal with the Kurd's it will have be Syria,as far as that little
chunk we carved out just what good is it landlocked with no access to a water port,as normal
your trolling along with the mighty U.S. which is little more than a paper tiger with its
involvement in Afghanistan Africa and other places of interest as it tries to save what can't
be saved,the EMPIRE
I am not sure there is any evidence that Pres Putin needs t do anything.
He has no intention of raking the Ukraine. Not an issue. He's responding the consequences
of a western incited violent revolution that spun out of control -- and is protecting "ethnic
Russians" a dynamic that plagues Europe and Asia.
In Syria he is not launching a campaign of conquest but supporting. Anyone who thinks
Russia is caught in a vice is sorely mistaken. I can see from the comments that
misunderstanding the motivations of pothers remains in play and that is not encouraging.
Yo be clear, I have full faith of US might. we can bring a formidable amount of force on
any situation -- it's frightening, just how formidable we are. The question remains
first should we
second how long we need to sustain it
third tested against multiple adversaries (of our own making) in multiple locations
fourth tested against other modern states who themselves have engaged in tech superior
forces
fifth the strategic advantages -- short verses long term
Just because one can -- doesn't . . .
Nor am I ignoring that we have allies willing to take on Russia, but when push comes to
shove . . . who knows. I think we are the ones getting played and as for trapped -- and
bogged down --
"... Nowhere is this more apparent than in the defense sphere, where the head of the Pentagon regularly rubs shoulders with top brass in weapons production and technological development. When then-defense secretary Ashton Carter crashed Davos in 2016, he met with executive after executive offering to do their part in the fight against the Islamic State. ..."
"... Agencies like the Department of Defense simply prefer to retain the connections they already have , and that often leads to toxic relationships in which the government is virtually held hostage to a small pool of contractors who have managed to box everyone else out. ..."
"... Elite convocations like Davos also help perpetuate -- and reinforce -- a problematic revolving door in which officials leave office to consult and lobby for industries that have business and regulatory interests in Washington. To say that Davos isn't a sort of prom for individuals perched on either side of that door would be naive. ..."
The Independent writer Hamish McRae seems to hit closest to the mark in
assessing Davos as an "informal and efficient" business meeting instead of a "temple of evil" or pro-capitalism bash.
That, ironically, makes it an even darker event than you might think.
Let's face it: a clustering of brilliant minds with practically endless resources isn't bad on its face -- until government officials
enter the equation. The repeated dalliances between business and government leaders at an event where attendance is famously restricted
gives rise to a certain air of "special access" that in turn fosters concerns of cronyism and favoritism.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the defense sphere, where the head of the Pentagon regularly rubs shoulders with top
brass in weapons production and technological development. When then-defense secretary Ashton Carter
crashed Davos in 2016, he met with executive after executive offering to do their part in the fight against the Islamic State.
As one senior defense official put it, "I think the secretary's found people in the tech and business community who are just as
concerned about America's security and are just as patriotic as anybody else." Count Meg Whitman, outgoing CEO of Hewlett Packard
Enterprises (HPE), as one of these "concerned" individuals. In the months after meeting with Secretary Carter, Whitman secured some
of the largest contracts that HPE has ever obtained from the federal government.
Of the 10 largest deals that the company has inked with Uncle Sam,
three were signed
in the three-month period following the 2016 Davos meeting. Now obviously a large agency like the Pentagon will find efficiencies
in contracting with behemoths like HPE. But going with the big guy also has its disadvantages. HPE, it turns out, is also in the
hunt for foreign governmental clients -- including the Kremlin. In an effort to sell cyber defense software to Russia, the company
shared sensitive details of source code used in a product supplied to the Pentagon. This may not be a sufficient reason to eschew
HPE entirely, but it does show a kind of corporate mendacity that stems from privileged access. Longstanding ties between HPE and
the government means that, regardless of careless oversights and waste, they'll always have (
at least five ) seats at the Davos roundtable.
Similar examples of shenanigans show up in agriculture dealings. A darling of United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs,
Cargill Inc., rakes in agricultural subsidies at an impressive pace. In fact, as Good Jobs First's subsidy tracker
shows
, the mega-corporation garners millions a year in subsidies and loan guarantees from "Farm Bill" commodity support programs. Support
also flows in via the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (BPAB), which ironically allows Cargill and other large agribusinesses
to receive
support for facilities that don't even produce advanced biofuels. Connections between Cargill leadership and former USDA secretary
Tom Vilsack began when the latter worked for a law firm representing the company.
Cargill's federal benefits climbed higher and higher as David MacLennan, Cargill CEO and regular Davos attendee,
heaped
praise on federal officials. There is no telling how many times MacLennan has pulled former secretary Vilsack aside to discuss
"strategic partnerships" at Davos. And we'll likely never know. We'll also likely never know the extent of partnership between the
U.S. Dairy Export Council (
which Vilsack currently
leads ) and Cargill .
Of course none of this proves corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements. Most high-level government officials are just trying to
do their jobs, and Davos offers an opportunity to capable businesses tackling today's leading challenges.
But good intentions shouldn't lead to an understatement of the problem. Smaller businesses that may be even more capable are shut
out of the meeting entirely, and simply don't get the same attention and access as their bigger counterparts. Agencies like the Department
of Defense simply prefer to retain the connections they already
have , and that often leads to
toxic
relationships in which the government is virtually held hostage to a small pool of contractors who have managed to box everyone
else out.
Elite convocations like Davos also help perpetuate -- and reinforce -- a problematic revolving door in which officials leave
office to consult and lobby for industries that have business and regulatory interests in Washington. To say that Davos isn't a sort
of prom for individuals perched on either side of that door would be naive.
... ... ...
Ross Marchand is an economics writer based out of Washington D.C., and is an alum of the Mercatus MA Program at George Mason
University. He is also the policy director at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement
was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold
Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial
system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the
liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let
the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia
live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
Notable quotes:
"... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
"... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
"... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
"... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
"... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
"... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
"... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
"... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
"... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
"... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
"... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
"... Echo Moskwy ..."
"... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
"... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
"... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
"... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
"... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas
break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere,
even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger
went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man
Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!
And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure
of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without
a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced
Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian
hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury.
Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.
The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's
people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a
good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government
may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.
But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy,
they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude
drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam;
some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the
Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway!
That was the Deal!
Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached
between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's
interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system.
Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal
economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West
write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live
in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.
Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment
came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained
some of its international independence.
Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs,
with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all
of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular
in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.
The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were
and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the
colonial administration'.
They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was
revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated
a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about
them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais
the Rusnano company that made no profit but
embezzled
billions . This was the Deal.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare
to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism.
This is the Deal.
The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE,
(the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute
of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire
the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days
of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international
community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared
Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.
Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script.
Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars'
worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local
manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount
of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.
Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described
as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically
aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come
up for grabs.
The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate
the pro-Putin New Money.
This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work.
A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until
2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel
Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.
Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously
claimed
about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich
decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists
and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out
"Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the
totalitarian Russian regime!
(Émigrés are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome,
by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with
his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov
Sanity Test.)
Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his
words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the
Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow
émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.
Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They
are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled
the land.
Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained
opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then
proceeded to banking and so many other things.
Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish
Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being
the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
called Donald
Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds
in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.
Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in
the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They
are
suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).
According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a
sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly
with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo
Moskwy has implied.
Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on
Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the
death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate
Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services
background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.
The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs,
and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization
of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting,
if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.
"Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates
to "whatever will be, will be".
Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing
he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.
There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and
capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.
"... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may
be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian
president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no
discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review
of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor
Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about
Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the
title suggests.
The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day
evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the
mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on
evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and
their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment'
produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper,
the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence
Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of
the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is
often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing
journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for
the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not
a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds
an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July
25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
.)
In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo
, it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two
members of VIPS,
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the
agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and
created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,
today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an
extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they
are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4,
2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of
Russia, June 5, 2017.)
[9]
Demonization of Putin and Russia
The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit
the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I
don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my
understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted
the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with
the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.
Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of
the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles
I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow ,
mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the
extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being
his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman.
[10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and
the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to
Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the
infamous
Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane
coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from
hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to
the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."
Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that
otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who
cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us,
even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith.
[11] .
One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.
"... There is nothing to lose at this point. The elite have made day to day life a void of lifelessness and stress chasing inflating life necessities with a falling dollar. The revolt hinges on the upcoming market crashes. ..."
"... As in the Rome's example, it may be that America can be saved by the cancerous corruption only by a military coup, the alternative being a massive war which will also enable the Army to overtake the control of the government ..."
Trump's got the military behind him - the only institution powerful enough to challenge the deep state. I also understand he
has a special forces security contingent in addition to SS. Trump gets hit - revolution will explode in their face.
After reading the new National Security policy directive I'm not so sure. it is a blueprint for a new cold war possibly nuclear
war with Russia and China which is antipathy to Trumps stated policies of collaboration with Russia, no more regime change and
cooperation with China on Infrastructure projects. There is obviously a very strong Neo-con component in the Trump administration
so i would not necessarily say the generals have his back.
Black Knight Pence is the Deep State choice, and the military is the epicenter of the Deep State. The US is no longer a country,
but an empire, with born and bred, programmed Globalist Officers in the military and all through the government.
It's a system which isn't a part of the country, it's completely in it's own synthetic realm, devoid of reason and logic. It's
officers often confer with the Council on Foreign Relations and various controlled think tanks for it's marching orders. We, the
American people aren't in the decision loop.
This system was designed from the outcome of the civil war. It's a centralized command and control system. It rules the states
as harshly as it rules the world. We speak of freedom, but no one in their right mind can call this freedom. So most of us are
not in our right mind, some brainwashed, others suspicious.
Agree. I'm sure that Army's Intelligence services are indeed behind all the hacks & leaks which collapsed HC campaign and helped
DT's. Also, they exposed the FBI's and NSA dirt. Kind of they didn't liked the ascension of the civils controlling the intelligence
policies strategically - kind of the situation between Soviet's army and KGB. In the game of the pig and the chicken, the chicken
is only involved with the eggs but the pigs must provide the bacon. Id Trump gets hit I'm pretty sure you'll see a military coup
overtaking the governement.
I have a feeling the US army is really pissed they died for nothing. Despite all the talk of shortcomings, the US army, not
USAF or USN, is not to be toyed with in an existential war, they will fight!
All adversaries understand that, they lose wars because they don't believe, simple. If the deep state, including feckless military
leaders push too far, they'll be facing rifle barrels and possibly be chesting bayonets.
A military coup can happen in the USA despite talk of sacrosant democracy, it happened in Rome, word enough for the wise.
😎
BTW, the bulk of us army is not in active service, never underestimate patriotic veterans, if it comes to a shootout at the
OK corral, they'll kill and die for their loved ones, against all enemies, foreign, and "domestic".
No, they won't Never have, never will .Gutless cowards one & all.They pick on the poor& weak & never won a real war, except Japan. They
burn babies 4 billionaires,& there is no such thing as a domestic enemy.
Stupid goldbricking brutes fit 4 fertilizer and nothing else. Go copsuck & flagwank elsewhere, cuckfaggot vet or fanboi
There is nothing to lose at this point. The elite have made day to day life a void of lifelessness and stress chasing inflating life necessities with a falling dollar.
The revolt hinges on the upcoming market crashes.
Agree + Scipio. As mentioned, till now the chickens lied and Army provided the bacon and the chickens collected all the revenue.
As in the Rome's example, it may be that America can be saved by the cancerous corruption only by a military coup, the alternative
being a massive war which will also enable the Army to overtake the control of the government, here is where NK and Iran would
be good players in the scheme.
"... For Germany, the idea of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration' ..."
"... "That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples. According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic realm?" ..."
"... More recently, an article in Politico Europe ..."
"... Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance – even against ..."
"... Germany (and France) have been the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote , overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'. ..."
"... This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general), while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level. ..."
"... German authorities have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'. ..."
"... Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of 'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika -forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by the German airport operator Fraport. ..."
"... France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years, French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased 'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship between the stronger and weaker countries of the union. ..."
"... In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie ..."
"... Exportnationalismus' ..."
"... Modell Deutschland ..."
"... Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation' – under the German aegis, of course. As a recent article in Foreign Policy ..."
"... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy ..."
Originally from: Germany's dystopian plans for Europe: from fantasy to reality?By Thomas
Fazi 4 December 2017
For Germany, the idea
of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their
hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'
After Emmanuel Macron's election in France, many (including myself) claimed that this
signalled a revival of the Franco-German alliance and a renewed impetus for Europe's process of
top-down economic and political integration – a fact that was claimed by most
commentators and politicians, beholden as they are to the Europeanist narrative, to be an
unambiguously positive development.
Among the allegedly 'overdue' reforms that were said to be on the table was the creation of
a pseudo-'fiscal union' backed by a (meagre) 'euro budget', along with the creation of a
'European finance minister', the centre-points of Macron's plans to 're-found the EU' – a
proposal that raises a number of very worrying issues from both political and economic
standpoints,
which I have discussed at length elsewhere .
The integrationists' (unwarranted) optimism, however, was short-lived. The result of the
German elections, which saw the surge of two rabidly anti-integrationist parties, the
right-wing FDP and extreme right AfD; the recent collapse of coalition talks between Merkel's
CDU, the FDP and the Greens, which most likely means an interim government for weeks if not
months, possibly leading to new elections (which polls show would
bring roughly the same result as the September election); and the growing restlessness in
Germany towards the 13-year-long rule of Macron's partner in reform Angela Merkel, means that
any plans that Merkel and Macron may have sketched out behind the scenes to further integrate
policies at the European level are now, almost certainly, dead in the water. Thus, even the
sorry excuse for a fiscal union proposed by Macron is now off the table, according to most
commentators.
At this point, the German government's most likely course in terms of European policy
– the one that has the best chance of garnering cross-party support, regardless of the
outcome of the coalition talks (or of new elections) – is the 'minimalist' approach set
in stone by the country's infamous and now-former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, in
a 'non-paper' published shortly
before his resignation.
The main pillar of Schäuble's proposal – a long-time obsession of his –
consists in giving the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which would go on to become a
'European Monetary Fund', the power to monitor (and, ideally, enforce) compliance with the
Fiscal Compact. This echoes Schäuble's previous calls for the
creation of a European budget commissioner with the power to reject national budgets – a
supranational fiscal enforcer.
The aim is all too clear: to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member
states have left, particularly in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition
of neoliberal 'structural reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of
collective bargaining rights, etc. – on reluctant countries.
To this end, the German authorities even want to make the receipt of EU cohesion funds
conditional on the implementation of such reforms , tightening the existing arrangements
even further. Moreover, as noted by Simon
Wren-Lewis , the political conflict of interest of having an institution lending within the
eurozone would end up imposing severe austerity bias on the recovering country.
Until recently, these proposals failed to materialise due, among other reasons, to France's
opposition to any further overt reductions of national sovereignty in the area of
budgetary policy; Macron, however, staunchly rejects France's traditional
souverainiste stance, embracing instead what he calls 'European sovereignty', and thus
represents the perfect ally for Germany's plans.
Another proposal that goes in the same direction is the
German Council for Economic Experts' plan to curtail banks' sovereign bond holdings.
Ostensibly aimed at 'severing the link between banks and government' and 'ensuring long-term
debt sustainability', it calls for: (i) removing the exemption from risk-weighting for
sovereign exposures, which essentially means that government bonds would no longer be
considered a risk-free asset for banks (as they are now under Basel rules), but would be
'weighted' according to the 'sovereign default risk' of the country in question (as determined
by credit rating agencies); (ii) putting a cap on the overall risk-weighted sovereign exposure
of banks; and (iii) introducing an automatic 'sovereign insolvency mechanism' that would
essentially extend to sovereigns the bail-in rule introduced for banks by the banking union,
meaning that if a country requires financial assistance from the ESM, for whichever reason, it
will have to lengthen its sovereign bond maturities (reducing the market value of those bonds
and causing severe losses for all bondholders) and, if necessary, impose a nominal 'haircut' on
private creditors.
As noted by the German economist Peter Bofinger , the only member of the German Council of
Economic Experts to vote against the sovereign bail-in plan, this would almost certainly ignite
a 2012-style self-fulfilling sovereign debt crisis, as periphery countries' bond yields would
quickly rise to unsustainable levels, making it increasingly hard for governments to roll over
maturing debt at reasonable prices and eventually forcing them to turn to the ESM for help,
which would entail even heavier losses for their banks and an even heavier dose of
austerity.
It would essentially amount to a return to the pre-2012 status quo, with governments once
again subject to the supposed 'discipline' of the markets, particularly in the context of a
likely tapering of the ECB's quantitative easing (QE) program. The aim of this proposal is the
same as that of Schäuble's 'European Monetary Fund': to force member states to implement
permanent austerity.
Of course, national sovereignty in a number of areas – most notably fiscal policy
– has already been severely eroded by the complex system of new laws, rules and
agreements introduced in recent years, including but not limited to the six-pack, two-pack,
Fiscal Compact, European Semester and Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP).
As a result of this new post-Maastricht system of European economic governance, the European
Union has effectively become a sovereign power with the authority to impose budgetary rules and
structural reforms on member states outside democratic procedures and without democratic
control.
The EU's embedded quasi-constitutionalism and inherent (structural) democratic deficit has
thus evolved into an even more anti-democratic form of 'authoritarian constitutionalism' that
is breaking away with elements of formal democracy as well, leading some observers to suggest
that the EU 'may easily become the postdemocratic prototype and even a pre-dictatorial
governance structure against national sovereignty and democracies'.
To give an example, with the launch of the European Semester, the EU's key tool for economic
policy guidance and surveillance, an area that has historically been a bastion of national
sovereignty – old-age pensions – has now fallen under the purview of supranational
monitoring as well. Countries are now expected to
(and face sanctions if they don't): (i) increase the retirement age and link it with life
expectancy; (ii) reduce early retirement schemes, improve the employability of older workers
and promote lifelong learning; (iii) support complementary private savings to enhance
retirement incomes; and (iv) avoid adopting pension-related measures that undermine the long
term sustainability and adequacy of public finances.
This has led to the introduction in various countries of several types of automatic
stabilizing mechanisms (ASMs) in pension systems, which change the policy default so that
benefits or contributions adjust automatically to adverse demographic and economic conditions
without direct intervention by politicians. Similar 'automatic correction mechanisms' in
relation to fiscal policy can be found in the Fiscal Compact.
The aim of all these 'automatic mechanisms' is clearly to put the economy on 'autopilot',
thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or decision-making at either the
European or national level. These changes have already transformed European states into
'semi-sovereign' entities, at best. In this sense, the proposals currently under discussion
would mark the definitive transformation of European states from semi-sovereign to de
facto (and increasingly de jure ) non-sovereign entities.
Regardless of the lip service paid by national and European officials to the need for
further reductions of national sovereignty to go hand in hand with a greater 'democratisation'
of the euro area, the reforms currently on the table can, in fact, be considered the final
stage in the thirty-year-long war on democracy and national sovereignty waged by the European
elites, aimed at constraining the ability of popular-democratic powers to influence economic
policy, thus enabling the imposition of neoliberal policies that would not have otherwise been
politically feasible.
In this sense, the European economic and monetary integration process should be viewed, to a
large degree, as a class-based and inherently neoliberal project pursued by all
national capitals as well as transnational (financial) capital. However, to grasp the processes
of restructuring under way in Europe, we need to go beyond the simplistic capital/labour
dichotomy that underlies many critical analyses of the EU and eurozone, which view EU/EMU
policies as the expression of a unitary and coherent transnational (post-national) European
capitalist class.
The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the geopolitical-economic
tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional blocs, and the
conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital fractions located in
those states, which have always characterised the European economy. In particular, it means
looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over the European continent.
It is no secret that Germany is today the leading economic and political power in Europe,
just as it is no secret that nothing gets done in Europe without Germany's seal of approval. In
fact, it is commonplace to come across references to Germany's 'new empire'.
A controversial Der Spiegel editorial from a few years back event went as far as
arguing that it is not out place to talk of the rise of a 'Fourth Reich':
"That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace
of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But
further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term
refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples.
According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic
realm?"
More recently, an article in
Politico Europe – co-owned by the German media magnate Axel Springer AG
– candidly explained why 'Greece is de facto a German colony'. It noted how, despite
Tsipras' pleas for debt relief, the Greek leader 'has little choice but to heed the wishes of
his "colonial" masters', i.e., the Germans.
This is because public debt
in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get
governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these
policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to
seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and
promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other
member states) from straying 'off course'.
Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by
the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an
accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental
empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance –
even against Germany's wishes – as a result of the euro's design faults, which
have allowed Germany and its satellites to pursue a neo-mercantilist strategy and thus
accumulate huge current account surpluses.
Now, it is certainly true that the euro's design – strongly influenced by Germany
– inevitably benefits export-led economies such as Germany over more internal
demand-oriented economies, such as those of southern Europe. However, there is ample evidence
to support the argument that Germany, far from having accidently stumbled upon European
dominance, has been actively and consciously pursuing an expansionary and imperialist strategy
in – and through – the European Union for decades.
Even if we limit our analysis to Germany's post-crisis policies (though there is much that
could be said about Germany's post-reunification policies and subsequent offshoring of
production to Eastern Europe in the 1990s), it would be very naïve to view Germany's
inflexibility – on austerity, for example – as a simple case of ideological
stubbornness, considering the extent to which the policies in question have benefited Germany
(and to a lesser extent France).
Germany (and France) have been
the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially
amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled
back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser
degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote ,
overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'.
This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general),
while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention
and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state
intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level.
As Andy Storey notes, not only did the German government, throughout the crisis, show a
blatant disregard for ordoliberalism's non-interference of public institutions in the workings
of the market, by engaging in a massive Keynesian-style programme in the aftermath of the
financial crisis and pushing through bailout programmes that largely absolved German banks from
their responsibility for reckless lending to Greece and other countries; German authorities
have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European
institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete
abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular
to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its
precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the
Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'.
Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of
'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika
-forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to
take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at
bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by
the German airport operator Fraport.
France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years,
French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six
times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased
'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and
production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution
sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship
between the stronger and weaker countries of the union.
These transformations cannot simply be described as processes without a subject: while there
are undoubtedly structural reasons involved – countries with better developed economies
of scale, such as Germany and France, were bound to benefit more than others from the reduction
in tariffs and barriers associated with the introduction of the single currency – we also
have to acknowledge that there are loci of economic-politic power that are actively driving and
shaping these imperialist processes, which must be viewed through the lens of the unresolved
inter-capitalist struggle between core-based and periphery-based capital.
From this perspective, the dichotomy that is often raised in European public discourse
between nationalism and Europeanism is deeply flawed. The two, in fact, often go hand in hand.
In Germany's case, for example, Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect
alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'.
Ironically, the European Union – allegedly created as an antidote to the vicious
nationalisms of the twentieth century – has been the tool through which Germany has been
able to achieve the 'new European order' that Nazi ideologues had theorised in the 1930s and
early 1940s.
In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but
one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the
dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have
supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their
support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie of
the old colonial system – sections of a country's elite and middle class allied with
foreign interests in exchange for a subordinated role within the dominant hierarchy of
power.
From this point of view, the likely revival of the Franco-German bloc is a very worrying
development, since it heralds a consolidation of the German-led European imperialist bloc
– and a further 'Germanification' of the continent. This development cannot be understood
independently of the momentous shifts that are taking place in global political economy –
namely the organic crisis of neoliberal globalisation, which is leading to increased tensions
between the various fractions of international capital, most notably between the US and
Germany.
Trump's repeated criticisms of Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilist policies should
be understood in this light. The same goes for Angela Merkel's recent call – much
celebrated by the mainstream press – for a stronger Europe to counter Trump's
unilateralism. Merkel's aim is not, of course, that of making 'Europe' stronger, but rather of
strengthening Germany's dominant position vis-à-vis the other world powers (the US but
also China) through the consolidation of Germany's control of the European continental economy,
in the context of an intensification of global inter-capitalist competition.
This has now become an imperative for Germany, especially since Trump has dared to openly
challenge the self-justifying ideology which sustains Germany's mercantilism – a
particular form of economic nationalism that Hans Kundnani has
dubbed ' Exportnationalismus' , founded upon the belief that Germany's massive
trade surplus is uniquely the result of Germany's manufacturing excellence ( Modell
Deutschland ) rather than, in fact, the result of unfair trade practices.
This is why, if Germany wants to maintain its hegemonic position on the continent, it must
break with the US and tighten the bolts of the European workhouse. To this end, it needs to
seize control of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which
hitherto has never been under direct German control (though the Bundesbank exercises
considerable influence over it, as is well known). Indeed, many commentators openly acknowledge
that Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency. This would effectively put Germany
directly at the helm of European economic policy.
Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over
the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation'
– under the German aegis, of course.
As a recent article in Foreign Policy revealed , 'Germany is quietly building a
European army under its command'.
This year Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, announced
the integration of their armed forces, under the control of the Bundeswehr. In doing so, the
will follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the
Bundeswehr's Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the
Bundeswehr's 1st Armored Division.
In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the
initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if
Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military
sovereignty, which it currently lacks.
Europe is thus at a crossroads: the choice that left-wing and popular forces, and periphery
countries more generally, face is between (a) accepting Europe's transition to a fully
post-democratic, hyper-competitive, German-led continental system, in which member states
(except for those at the helm of the project) will be deprived of all sovereignty and autonomy,
in exchange for a formal democratic façade at the supranational level, and its workers
subject to ever-growing levels of exploitation; or (b) regaining national sovereignty and
autonomy at the national level, with all the short-term risks that such a strategy entails, as
the only way to restore democracy, popular sovereignty and socioeconomic dignity. In short, the
choice is between European post-democracy or post-European democracy.
There is no third way. Especially in view of the growing tensions between Germany, the US
and China, periphery countries should ask themselves if they want to be simple pawns in this
'New Great Game' or if they want to take their destinies into their own hands.
"... Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now ..."
"... The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning for the good old days. ..."
Babak - "The only sensible thing to do is to cut and run; in my opinion. Just work through
the implications as US cuts and run in the Levant, in the Persian Gulf, in South Korea."
As you point out, that could have unexpected effects. We saw what happened when a previous
dominant power - Great Britain, though by no means as overwhelmingly dominant and not at all
so at the end - effectively cut and ran after the Second World War. It ended up more of a
mess than it started out as.
Even in an ideal world, a world in which the current style of Great Power politics was
universally abandoned, the sudden withdrawal of the US would cause instability and chaos. The
disengagement would have to be gradual.
But there is no such ideal world as that and there will not be. Therefore the sudden
withdrawal of the US would leave a power vacuum that others would fill.
What others? Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with
plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if
they came out on top we'd be worse off than now .
The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say
that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control
in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've
already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory
foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning
for the good old days.
I'm one of those that still hope that the non-interventionist policy that was voted for in
America in 2016 will be carried through. But if that is indeed Trump's intention then there
is more in his way than local political or administrative difficulties. To engineer such a
transition would require great care. It's no good if the US just steps back and worse comes
forward to take its place.
It's not overly idealistic, or even that unrealistic, to hope for a world in which defense
forces (AND defensive alliances) are used for the proper purpose of defence and not for
expensive and destructive enterprises dreamed up by some bubble elite. That's part of what
Trump 2016 was about. But getting to such a world would require a considerably more careful
transition than we've seen in similar circumstances in the past.
There are some analogies here with the recent Poroshenko government desire to take Donbass area back by military force.
Notable quotes:
"... How will this breakup of Syrian national territory affect the situation between the Donbass region and the Ukraine junta? ..."
"... True and very sad. The Syrians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning. We have theorized over the various causes of the war, but, in the end, when the superpowers are hanging around, Syrians are the first row of pieces to be sacrificed. ..."
"... The Afrin war plays several roles. It will demonize and demoralize further the 'independentist' Kurds, awake the nationalist Turkish feeling by displaying military power that has been damaged by the coup, boost the Islamist flame among the rural Turks so the Turks can forget about their grudge over the EU and the declining buying power. ..."
"... All the actors are tributaries flowing into the main river, and all moving in the same general direction, because the river is actually the tide of history. All players are advancing to meet their inevitable destinie ..."
Let me see if I understand all this? The Erdogan Turks fully back the terrorists in Syria
aiming to dislodge the Assad Syrian government. The USA et al fully backs the same.
The USA also backs the PKK/YPG Kurd faction in Syria as a means to at least break up
Syrian national territory, as originally in their plans, even if they do remove the Assad
government as originally planned.
Erdogan has wanted to expand Turkey's national boundaries at the expense of Syria's. This
latest encroachment, as with Euphrates Shield, accomplishes this goal especially if they can
subsume their terrorist proxies occupied areas in Idlib Province as the USA has by using
their newest Kurd proxies in eastern Syria. Erdogan need only create some new proxy
(Turkmen?) and go after the terrorists and Kurds in western Syria. No doubt with American
help.
Erdogan and the USA disagree only on what future the Kurdish people will play in the
eastern territories of Syria and Turkey. So what will be the necessary accommodation between
them?
If a Kurdish state is declared and backed by NATO and a UN resolution what if anything can
Syria and her allies do about it as war is simply out of the question.
How will this breakup of Syrian national territory affect the situation between the
Donbass region and the Ukraine junta?
This would not be some devious plot by Turks/US to prolong the war in Syria and give cover to
send more troops in ... troops that never leave? The whole thing seems a bit too ...
convenient.
True and very sad. The Syrians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning.
We have theorized over the various causes of the war, but, in the end, when the superpowers
are hanging around, Syrians are the first row of pieces to be sacrificed.
And I would never put my faith in any international community ruling after Syria. We are
in uncharted territory, I believe. Dance with the one you came with and if you have to stand
on Putin's toes to keep up, then hold him close.
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong
do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." -- Thucydides
"These oilfields seem to be the big prize and one of the main reasons the US wants to hold
onto this corner of Syria."
Posted by: financial matters | Jan 21, 2018 10:37:30 AM | 18
The goal of the MIC and Deep State is just to keep the chaos going as long as possible to
sell arms and benefit careers. However, Trump has been enticed to go along with it by the
promise that the US will "take their oil."
You may be correct that those Kurds aren't Syrian, but not necessarily so. The areas of
Syria that have actually had Kurdish, or for instance Armenian, majorities have enjoyed a
large measure of de facto autonomy, which has only increased in the last 20 years. So while
nominally required to use Arabic in schools, if the school is staffed with Kurdish teachers
and administrators with Kurdish students, there is little to stop them from simply teaching
in Kurdish. Or Armenian, or Aramaic, etc.
We had wrongly predicted that Turkish threats against the Kurdish held north-west area of
Afrin were empty:
Maybe not. Maybe your first analysis was correct. If the Kurdish militias do fight, it will
take many weeks, and lead to substantial Turkish losses. So it is really too early to say
that Erdogan will attempt to conquer Afrin no matter the cost, and too early to say that the
US will not put effective pressure on Erdogan, or offer him some sort of deal.
So far, Erdogan has upped the ante, but he hasn't gone all in.
Erdogan is obsessed by keeping power and winning his re election in 2018 or 2019 . To get
that, he needs to neutralize the Turkish Kurds who don't vote for him. Sunni conservative
Kurds worship Erdogan for his promotion of Sunni Islam. For them Islam is the unifying factor
of Turks especially Sunni Islam. They all vote for the AKP.
Erdogan has emasculated the burgeoning liberal Kurdish party, the HDP, by demonizing the
liberal Kurds and throwing its leader in prison just to get more votes in the previous
parliamentary election that he reran to win with a very small margin.
For the next election, he is very worried about the growth of other centrist parties, the
weakness of his ally the MHP, a nationalist party archi-enemy of the Kurds and about the
insatisfaction of the Turks with the deteriorating relation with the EU and the fall of the
lira.
The Afrin war plays several roles. It will demonize and demoralize further the
'independentist' Kurds, awake the nationalist Turkish feeling by displaying military power
that has been damaged by the coup, boost the Islamist flame among the rural Turks so the
Turks can forget about their grudge over the EU and the declining buying power.
The question is will he win fast enough not to create the impression of failure and a
quagmire that would reflect negatively on his voters? And what will be the aftermath of
Afrin? early elections?
It's a multiple win-win, a great demonstration of congruent interests all doing their own
thing. Lots of things remain to play out. But there are no downsides to this situation, no
matter who holds what piece of Syrian territory for what temporary short time.
All the actors are tributaries flowing into the main river, and all moving in the same
general direction, because the river is actually the tide of history. All players are
advancing to meet their inevitable destinies: Turkey moves closer to Russia, and closer,
despite much bad blood, to restoring the friendship between itself and Syria (over time); the
Kurds get their final lesson about the perfidious US and settle into their lands in Syria, as
Syrians; Dr. Assad gets his entire country back for his people (over time); terrorists die;
the US is further marginalized and its generals scream mayhem, in words only.
The Ukrainian Parliament has practically declared
the Minsk agreements null and void and decided to militarily "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and
Crimea from the will of the people living there. Just in time the neo-nazi fanatics of the Azov
Battalion
received a U.S. military delegation and U.S. arms.
The 2015 Minsk II agreement (
full text ) demanded that the Ukraine creates a new law for the administration of these
regions:
Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a
resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, indicating the territory
which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law "On temporary Order of Local
Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts," based in the line
set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014.
Russia is not a party of the agreement. But when the resolution by the Ukrainian parliament
was not forthcoming western propaganda falsely blamed Russia for "not fulfilling the Minsk
agreement" and the west has since bound the sanctions on Russia to this fake conclusion.
The National Bank of Ukraine announced
that an independent accountant found that PrivatBank, then owned by the coup financier and
billionaire
Ihor Kolomoyskiy , was plundered of $5.5 billion shortly before it went bankrupt and
nationalized by the coup government. In connection with that an IMF loan of $1.8 billion to the
Ukraine
allegedly went directly into Kolomoyskiy's pockets. How much of this stolen money was paid
to U.S. politicians?
While the anti-Trump politicians and media still fret about "Russian influence" on U.S.
social media everyone seems to have forgotten that in early 2016 the Ukraine set up a massive
troll farm and a Ministry of Truth. Back then even the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine
disliked that . If every troll tweeting in Russian or with Cyrillic letters in its name is
under the direct command of Vladimir Putin where then are those Ukrainians trolls?
The last round in Ukraine erupted while the winter games finished in Sochi. I see the
empire positioning things to repeat the treatment during FIFA. Ukraine is being primed and
the clock is set to create incidents that will force Russia's hand.
This potential very public shaming of Russia is what is restraining Russia from responding
to many of the US and Israeli (and Turkish?) provocations in Syria. Perhaps they are hoping
their present silence will gain them some grace for that showcase event.
Personally, I doubt it.
And should some incidents happen during the FIFA world cup events, we will see the real
Putin - which might be for the best in the long run.
re:?The Ukrainian Parliament has practically declared the Minsk agreements null and void and
decided to militarily "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea from the will of the people
living there. Just in time the neo-nazi fanatics of the Azov Battalion received a U.S.
military delegation..."
And also just in time Russia is voting on legalizing militias in Africa and elsewhere; just
in time for Spring in the Ukraine? http://russiafeed.com/russia-legalize-private-military-contractors-get-leg-africa/
I'm curious about Ukraine & its neo-nazi's. How do the Israelis who work there, knowing
the past-present? After all, mention the word nazi in their presence, and they go out of
their collective minds attacking the source. Or maybe there's some sort of collusion taking
place?
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
"... Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia's attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition , complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even -- though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities -- the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. ..."
"... Administration officials said Mr. Putin had miscalculated and would pay a cost regardless of what the United States did, pointing to the impact on Russia's currency and markets. "What we see here are distinctly 19th- and 20th-century decisions made by President Putin to address problems," one of the officials said. "What he needs to understand is that in terms of his economy, he lives in the 21st-century world, an interdependent world." ..."
"... The dossier's claim that Putin talked about the "ideals-based international order" also rings false. Putin only ever refers to Western ideals when saying that Western countries' leaders are hypocrites for not adhering to them. ..."
"... The more straightforward explanation is that, knowing that this is opposition research, Steele and his sources provided information that rang true with what the client already believed and would want to hear. This is the first report in the series–in effect, a teaser trailer–and no consultant working on a monthly retainer is going to tell you in the first memo that his services aren't needed. If Steele had indicated that there was no dirt to investigate, the $15,000/mo. (as estimated by Vanity Fair ) contract wouldn't have lasted longer than a month or two. ..."
"... The dossier's use of the phraseology "Trump and his team" and "Trump team" and the like is confusing in reference to the pre-2016 campaign period. Other than his lawyer Michael Cohen, there's nothing I've seen to indicate that the other Trump campaign people mentioned by name in the dossier (Paul Manafort and Carter Page) knew Trump before 2016. By all appearances, the key members of Trump's team before 2016 were his children, and maybe his talent agent. ..."
"... It also seems out of character for Trump to have the foresight and planning that it would take to seek out intelligence on Hillary Clinton several years back. Several years ago, Trump and the Clintons were friends , and the Clintons attended Trump's wedding and Bill and Donald played golf together. ..."
"... Russians are very cautious about what they talk about, even amongst each other. Therefore, with the story about [sexual acts] in the Moscow Ritz Carlton, the idea you have managed to triple source it via an employee at the hotel, a serving FSB [Russian security service] officer, and the security officer at the hotel, who inevitably will be at least a former FSB or GRU [Russian intelligence agency] officer It just doesn't make sense. If such a thing had taken place, it would be a Russian state secret. ..."
"... Seems more likely that it's just a piece of "scuttlebutt" that Steele's sources, pressed to find anything juicy on Trump, saw in the newspaper or in a news search on Google or on Russian search engine Yandex . ..."
"... Whatever the truth of the matter, Page is clearly someone who was very keen to network with powerful Russians in 2016 and was not shy about leveraging his affiliation with the Trump campaign to do it. ..."
"... But at the same time, this would also mean Page was a loose cannon and a huge potential liability to the Trump campaign. Igor Sechin is, and was in July 2016, on the Specially Designated Nationals list of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. This means that it's a crime for any US citizen to do any business with Sechin personally (though not with Rosneft as a corporate entity). ..."
"... Page, by all appearances, is reckless and kind of an idiot . He had to have known that his activities (even if they were limited to just non-treasonous networking with Russians) carried a huge risk of blowback for Trump. He didn't care. Carter Page's willingness to toe the Russian line on foreign policy, publicly and on the record, goes beyond even what the most Russophile Western expats in Moscow say in private conversations. I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask why and how Carter Page came to be affiliated with the Trump campaign, why he visited Russia alone at least twice in 2016, and what contacts he's had with Russian officials (he definitely met with some of them, at least at the New Economic School graduation reception on Jul. 8, at which there were several senior Russian officials present and Carter Page was commencement speaker and an honored foreign guest). ..."
"... And why send him to give a public university commencement speech in which he rails against US foreign policy, ensuring wide media coverage? ..."
"... A meeting with a Trump adviser on the sidelines of such a noisy, high-profile trip–with both the Russian and foreign press speculating in real-time what the hell Page was doing in Moscow–seems like an extremely incautious setting for a meeting to discuss the most scandalous quid pro quo since the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. ..."
"... To sum up, I have serious doubts that a meeting took place as described. But I also think that Carter Page was–at the very least–trying to leverage his connection to Trump in Russia for personal gain at the very earliest opportunity he got. ..."
"... *This report doesn't have a date. However, the July 19 report is numbered "2016/94" and the July 26 report is numbered "2016/097" so it seems like this is where the report should go. ..."
"... This is the central allegation against the Trump campaign – that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to take actions aimed at defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The one thing that I'd add (or, rather, remind) is that by late July, the story of allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was in full swing . Manafort's history in the former Soviet Union was being widely reported . Carter Page, as mentioned above, had traveled to Moscow for unknown purposes a few weeks before, a trip that was covered in the Russian and US media. ..."
"... What I'd like to point out here -- in terms of the timing of the information in this report -- is that the DNC hacked e-mail dumps on WikiLeaks that led to Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning as head of the DNC happened on July 22, 2016 , and even before the WikiLeaks dumps the DNC had been attributing the hack to Russia. ..."
"... Since this report refers to the WikiLeaks dump of DNC e-mails that happened on July 22, even though it's undated we know that the report must have been made after that, as well as after the Republican National Convention that happened on July 18, as well as after reports had emerged that the Trump team had been behind a change in the Republican Party platform to remove a reference to providing lethal arms to Ukraine. The allegation made here closely tracks what was being reported in the media at the time. ..."
"... FBI director James Comey made a point of saying that US intelligence services were struck by how unusually noisy the Russians had been in their election interference, as if they wanted to be discovered. ..."
"... *The actual date on the report is "26 July 201 5 " (in the British style), but since it refers to events that happened as recently as June 2016, and based on the news reports that said that Steele was hired in June 2016, I assume this is just a typo. ..."
"... This strains credulity. So there's a single Russian emigre who not only knows the internal mood of the Trump team, but also knows what the Russian leadership is thinking (about a matter that, remember, according to the dossier is top-top secret)? And I know what you're thinking – well, if they were in collusion, of course there's such a person. But who is it? You'd think that there couldn't be too many people who fit this description – being a Russian emigre, close to the Trump campaign, and also with top-level Kremlin access. ..."
"... This is described as someone's opinion so it's hard to argue against or fact-check. I will note that the e-mails from John Podesta's Gmail account started being published by WikiLeaks in October 2016, and since the e-mails run only through March 2016, and given that WikiLeaks usually takes time to prepare for a dump, whoever broke into Podesta's Gmail account was likely very active at the time when this report was dated. If you believe that it was the Russians who broke into Podesta's Gmail account, then this intelligence report is precisely wrong. Eleven days after this report, on August 10, Guccifer 2.0 published the personal contact info of 200 prominent Democrats, so if you believe that Guccifer 2.0 was the alter ego of the Russian government, this intelligence report was precisely wrong. ..."
"... This report is dated precisely one week before Sergei Ivanov was dismissed from his post and moved to a less political role as Putin's special envoy for the environment. If you want to be charitable to the dossier, you could say that this report foreshadows Ivanov's dismissal (later reports say that the dismissal was unexpected). But on the other hand, clearly Ivanov's move to his new position was already in the works on Aug. 5 – it was reported that rumors of the move had been circulating since spring. Why hadn't Steele's "well-placed and established" sources heard those rumors? ..."
"... Peskov is widely considered not to be an independent political player in the Kremlin. He is seen as being a sort of assistant to Putin in addition to his role as spokesman, but someone who likes the spotlight, celebrity and glamour a bit too much. ..."
"... About Turkey: Peskov started his career in the Russian diplomatic corps as a Turkey specialist and worked as the third secretary of the Russian embassy in Ankara in the early '90s. He speaks Turkish. So hearing him mentioned in connection with Turkey makes some sense. ..."
"... Russia was reported to have given advance warning to Erdogan, based on intelligence intercepts, that a coup was being planned. Peskov denied these reports. Just a few weeks earlier, Turkish president Erdogan had apologized to Putin for shooting down a Russian fighter jet on the Turkey-Syria border and Medvedev had announced that Russia would begin lifting the sanctions it had imposed on Turkey in connection with the incident. ..."
"... So in early August 2016 it seemed like Russia-Turkey relations had turned a corner and were being handled quite well – as a matter of fact, over the course of 2016, Turkey went from being the US's partner on Syria to being in a de facto alliance with Russia . The turnaround is stunning – in January 2016 , the US and Turkey were conducting joint operations in Syria, and in January 2017 , Turkey and Russia were conducting joint operations in Syria. Whoever was handling Russia's relationship with Turkey, they did a good job by any objective measure – hard to see how this can be considered "botched." ..."
"... Around this time , there was a lot of speculation in the media about whether Trump would drop out of the race. It's remarkable how the "intelligence" in the dossier follows what was being reported in the news at the time. ..."
"... Ivanov was leading the operation to "hack the US election" literally days before he was fired? That doesn't make sense. ..."
"... This ethnic Russian associate of Trump – who is it? Is it Sergei Millian ? He's supposed to be Source D , a "close associate" of Trump, but he might also be the ethnic Russian (even though Millian is technically from Belarus) associate referred to here and elsewhere. ..."
"... Here we have Carter Page telling the maybe-Millian about his collusion with Russian intelligence on the DNC leaks. Do people really go around confessing crimes willy-nilly? According to this dossier, they do. ..."
"... The big Trump campaign news of August 2016, of course, was that on Aug. 17, Steve Bannon replaced Paul Manafort as head of Trump's campaign. This news was absolutely huge. If Steele's source would have said on Aug. 9 that Bannon would be replacing Manafort, or even that a change of campaign management was being discussed, then in retrospect, you would have to admit that this source was well-informed. But if on Aug. 9, this source was talking about "a rethink and a likely change of tactics," s/he either was not very close to the campaign or was holding back on Steele. ..."
"... So this associate was so close to the campaign that he was privy to all of the team's discussions about collusion with the Russians, but he didn't know that Steve Bannon was about to be named as the new campaign head? ..."
"... But my main beef with this paragraph involves the phrase "kick-back payments to MANAFORT as alleged." Manafort wasn't accused of receiving kickbacks (as I'll explain in a moment, that doesn't make any sense) – he was accused of being paid cash by Yanukovich's political party in an off-the-books scheme, and this was widely covered in the press after the story broke in The New York Times on Aug. 14. ..."
"... That's not a kickback. A kickback is when a government or other organization is offering a contract to an outside contractor, typically in a competitive bid situation, and then when the winner is selected the winner kicks back some of the contract proceeds to the person who manipulated the contract selection process. ..."
"... So if there were kickbacks involved in Manafort's work for Yanukovich, it would've been Manafort kicking back money to Yanukovich, not the other way around. ..."
"... However, what Manafort was actually accused of in the press -- receiving money not properly accounted for under Ukrainian law -- is a crime under American law only if he received income that he didn't report to the IRS, or engaged in money laundering, even if an indisputable "documentary trail" emerges. ..."
"... It is difficult to imagine Putin and his inner circle being fearful of political vulnerability and embarrassment in connection with Manafort. As even Julia Ioffe–a journalist opposed to both Trump and Putin–conceded i n a recent article i n The Atlantic , the political consulting work that Manafort did for Yanukovich and others in the former Soviet Union was hardly unusual. ..."
"... Just to point out – there's a certain implication in the dossier's description of Manafort's work for Yanukovich that this work was "exposed" during the 2016 US election campaign. That's not the case. Manafort just wasn't a household name before 2016, so no one cared. He was just another American political consultant who was more than happy to offer his services to unsavory foreign politicians, like Sandra Bullock's character in "Our Brand is Crisis." ..."
"... Manafort's work for Yanukovich was public knowledge in Ukraine as early as 2005, and was reported actively in the Ukrainian press. By 2016 it was part of Manafort's resume. ..."
"... The report on the Alfa Group (yes, Steele spelled it wrong) is actually the only place in the whole dossier where the dossier was ahead of the mainstream news cycle. The report doesn't give any context for why a special report on the relationship between Putin and Alfa was requested. But on Halloween 2016, the story broke that in Spring and Summer 2016, white-hat hackers had been tracking electronic communications between Trump's e-mail server and an Alfa-Bank (part of Alfa Group) computer in Russia, posting their findings on Reddit – so it was in the public domain but you really had to be paying attention (as apparently a few New York Times journalists and probably the FBI were). I doubt that Steele or his sources were following hacker forums on Reddit. ..."
"... So here's what I think happened: by September, Steele's ultimate client was the Democrats. Someone tipped off the Hillary Clinton campaign (and/or the Clinton-aligned group that was paying Fusion GPS / Orbis) about the electronic link to Alfa, and then Orbis (Steele) got a call asking for an intelligence report on Alfa Group's connections to Putin, without saying why. However, since it was on the phone, the Orbis person heard it as "Alpha Group," and their Russian sources didn't correct the error. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg from 1992 to 1996 . In August 1996 Putin moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow to be Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Directorate (Yeltsin was president at the time, of course). He needed a new job because his boss, St. Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak , lost his re-election bid. ..."
"... Alfa-Bank was a direct competitor to Khodorkovsky's Bank Menatep (a subsidiary of Rosprom) at the time. So there's no way Fridman and Aven used Govorun to deliver cash to Putin when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. The dates don't line up. There was an 8-month gap after Putin left St. Petersburg and before Govorun started working at Alfa. ..."
"... How could Steele's sources have made this mistake? Because Govorun's Wikipedia page omits his time at Rosprom, and makes it look like Govorun worked at Alfa-Bank from 1993 to 2000. This is why you don't prepare your report based on Wikipedia, kids! ..."
"... Or if Steele was feeling particularly lazy, he could've gone to Trump's Twitter feed, where Trump proudly told his millions of followers that he'd just spent the weekend with Aras Agalarov and that he wanted to do more business with him. Maybe in Steele's world, being "well-placed" to hear intel about Trump's connections with Russian businesspeople means reading Donald Trump's tweets? ..."
"... There's no other word but "fraud" to describe an "intelligence report" that tries to make it look like the connection between Trump and the Agalarov family is some kind of inside information that you'd need "well-placed sources" to obtain. It took some serious balls for Steele to present it that way, since all anyone would have to do is Google the names mentioned in the report and it would be instantly clear that the intelligence was worthless. ..."
"... Hmm. This is the intelligence that Hillary's people were getting less than one month from Election Day. Intelligence that they paid for. Makes you feel sorry for her; I strongly suspect she was being conned with these reports. ..."
"... In December 2016, Rosneft did indeed sell 19.5% of its shares to two investors using a complicated financing structure. Some have pointed to this as an example where the dossier correctly predicted something would happen. However, the sale of 19.5% of Rosneft to an investor was part of Russia's privatization plan for 2016, which the Russian government announced in December 2015 , and the timeline for the privatization (referring to the 19.5% figure) was updated throughout the year . Anyone who was following Russian business news in 2016 knew that Rosneft was planning to sell 19.5% to an investor that year. ..."
"... Sucks to be Michael Cohen! Unless the dossier is true, he should sue for libel. ..."
"... Sechin is a very big deal in Russia, and a total badass that you don't want to mess with. He is an intimidating guy who is as serious as a heart attack. Carter Page is a dumbass. But the account of this conversation makes it sound like Page was running the meeting like a seasoned pro, leaving Sechin hanging, keeping things vague and noncommittal. I, on the other hand, think that Sechin would never bother meeting with a nobody like Carter Page to discuss something as consequential as billion-dollar oil deals and international relations unless Page had made his bona fides abundantly clear. ..."
"... "Unexpectedly." This looks suspiciously like ass-covering as to why Steele's earlier reports dated mere days before Ivanov's dismissal, containing statements attributed directly to Ivanov, made no mention that these were his last days on the job. ..."
"... Most political observers believed at the time that it was Bernie Sanders, not Russia, who pushed Hillary Clinton away from supporting TPP. This is because Bernie Sanders said openly that he was pressuring Hillary to drop support for TPP. Strangely, the only place where the "veterans' pensions ruse" was ever reported was in the Steele dossier, and the media haven't been tipped off to it to this day. Dodged a bullet! Remember, this is after Putin had supposedly directly ordered all Kremlin insiders, all of whom are tried-and-true Putin loyalists, not to talk about these matters even in private. ..."
"... Steele's team has made the bold decision to misspell Paul Manafort's name as MANNAFORT (Mannafort from heaven?) throughout this report. ..."
"... Gubarev sued BuzzFeed and its editor-in-chief for libel and slander and, lacking any basis other than the dossier itself for these allegations, BuzzFeed blacked out the identifying information. ..."
"... This is quite a cinematic portrayal of hacking. The implication seems to be that there were teams of hackers in a room somewhere and they were ordered to "stand down." Is that how hacking works? Especially in this case, where the hacking that resulted in the 2016 DNC and Podesta leaks had taken place several months before this alleged meeting? This also seems to contradict the declassified US intelligence community findings that said that the hacks were done by Russian government hacker teams called "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" that were working for the GRU, a Russian intelligence agency that isn't mentioned once in the dossier. The Romanian angle apparently refers t o Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be Romanian but was also believed to be a Russian intelligence agency alter ego only pretending to be Romanian. If these were Russian government hackers, why would they be ordered to cross international borders and "lay low" in Bulgaria, a member of NATO? ..."
"... Also, given that Russia allegedly had huge wins in their 2016 election meddling, why would they be so stingy as to demand that Trump pay his share for the hacking? Especially if they were so concerned about covering their tracks? This only would implicate the Trump campaign and create a paper trail leading directly to Trump transition team members in the United States, plus they would be involving themselves in a criminal conspiracy to violate US money laundering laws, RICO and the like. ..."
Okay, the segment with the shooting through the truck window is still only 5 seconds but
I'd argue that the fact that it is part of a 3 minute montage 'our guys are kicking ass in
Afghanistan' actually gives it a much worse context. If this was some innocent procedural,
'we had to reluctantly do it' incident, no one in their right mind would have popped it into
such a sequence.
Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other
noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional
testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared
would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and
launching pad for nuclear war."
Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current president of the United
States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country
becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the
number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them
poor and people of color.
While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin
consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and
racial injustice at home.
In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
"four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national
security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.
Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion
of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether
we provide enough for those who have too little."
Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other
noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional
testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared
would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and
launching pad for nuclear war."
Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current President of the United
States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country
becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the
number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them
poor and people of color.
While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin
consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and
racial injustice at home.
In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
"four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national
security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.
Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion
of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether
we provide enough for those who have too little."
In Four Freedoms Under Siege , Raskin and Spero concede that the Cold War
superpower rivalry did contribute to some progress towards Roosevelt's dream of freedom from
want. Raskin was a young aide in Kennedy's National Security Council during a period of high
tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that were playing out with deadly
consequences in Cuba, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
And while he was horrified by the existential threat posed by the superpower standoff,
Raskin later recognized that the competition with the Soviet Union did give a boost to the U.S.
labor unions and other forces that were pushing for progressive economic reforms.
The elites, Raskin and Spero explained, feared that movements for "social and economic
justice, from rhetoric to out-and-out radicalism, would transform the power structure in such a
way as to open up the society to democracy that displaces overlapping economic oligarchies. The
right, especially big business, also feared that this would be just the prelude to the
redistribution of resources, or at least access to them."
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Raskin and Spero point out, "people at the top no
longer had to concern themselves with the people at the bottom." And the permanence of the
national security state obliterated any hope of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" that could've
helped realize FDR's dream of freedom from want.
Raskin and Spero wrote their book during the militarily aggressive administration of
President George W. Bush. As Halliburton and other private military contractors lined up to
feed at the Iraq War trough, the period perfectly illustrated the danger of a war economy
without end.
"This kind of 'let 'er rip' corruption policy did not originate with Bush II conservatives,"
Raskin and Spero wrote, "but they pushed the idea of a corporate controlled state to the limit
as a partner to military expansion."
In his final weeks, Marc Raskin was excited to learn about plans for a Poor People's Campaign that, like his own work,
will take on the inter-connected problems of the War Economy, poverty, racism, and ecological
devastation.
The campaign will mark the 50th anniversary of a similar effort led by the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and other leaders who saw the need to build on the civil rights cause by
tackling the militarism that had led to the Vietnam War and the poverty that plagued too many
Americans of all races. Back then in 1968, Institute for Policy Studies staff included leaders
of both the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Raskin himself was indicted that year
for conspiracy to aid resistance to the draft.
The new Poor People's Campaign, led by two prominent faith leaders -- the Rev. Liz Theoharis
and the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II -- held a kick-off event in Washington on December 4. The
Institute for Policy Studies prepared a report for
the launch that includes data on each of the campaign's focus areas. Theoharis and Barber
announced plans for a historic 40-day wave of civil disobedience across the country in the
spring of 2018, culminating in a mass demonstration in the capital in June.
At a December 12 follow-up meeting at the Institute for Policy Studies, Raskin asked one of
the lead organizers of the new Poor People's Campaign who they expect to be their strongest
opponents. From his six decades of experience in Washington, he had a keen sense of the
challenges ahead. Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for
Policy Studies and is a co-editor of Inequality.org.
I'm in the UK as well and now find it quite alarming how the BBC shapes the news.
Recently on Radio 4 I listened to the BBC talking of a terrorist group related to or derived from Al Qaeda merely as "rebels",
and giving the impression that their actions were part of a legitimate insurgency. That's not how 9/11 was described.
It's all too like the BBC's Ukraine reporting, in which the neo-Nazi component was played down and the indiscriminate shelling
of civilian areas in Donetsk and Lugansk spoken of as legitimate warfare.
Crazy. And not only the PR. All those journalists and expensive editors and more admin staff than you can shake a stick at,
and there's more fact to be got on some one man and a dog Russian news outlet. I heard recently of an old BBC hand describing
the way the BBC changed after David Kelly. What with that and what with the material we now see put out by the BBC, I reckon that
as far as foreign news goes we've got ourselves our very own Pravda on the Thames.
"... Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S. journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC. ..."
Reporters representing U.S. media outlets will be banned from Russian Parliament, in a
response for Russia's Kremlin-funded international TV news channel RT having its Congressional
press accreditation
stripped earlier this week.
A ban on attending sessions of the State Duma, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, will
be introduced "for all U.S. media," Olga Savastyanova, head of the Duma's committee on
regulations and control, was quoted as saying by RBC news.
According to Savostyanova, the measure is Russia's "reciprocal response to the U.S.
Congress' decision" regarding RT. The restriction is expected to begin Dec. 6, after being
formally adopted by the Duma council and a plenary meeting.
Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S.
journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor
Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC.
Many expected the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November 2016 to lead to
improved ties between Russia and the United States. That didn't happen.
Relations between Washington and Moscow are now at a nadir, not helped by Trump's recent
speech lumping in Russia with China as "rival powers" to the U.S. and the primary threats to
America's economic dominance in the world.
For Hollywood, which has relied on Russia as a significant market for its films and TV
series, 2018 is likely to bring more bad news and more challenges to doing business.
Kremlin watchers will be focused on March 18, the date of Russia's presidential election.
While the result is not in doubt -- Vladimir Putin is certain to secure another six-year term
-- it is anyone's guess how far President Putin will go in his "Russia First" policies of
economic nationalism.
After the 2012 election, for example, Putin took a sharply anti-Western stance, imposing new
restrictions on foreign companies working in Russia and cracking down on his country's mostly
pro-Western liberal opposition. Most observers expect this trend to continue in 2018.
The question is: How far will Putin go? Here is THR's look at three key challenges
for Hollywood in Russia that will be in focus next year.
New Taxes
Moscow's Russia First policy -- which Russia's government calls "import substitution" -- has
looked to the tax code as a way to protect the local film industry at the expense of Hollywood
and other foreign imports.
Russia backed down from a radical idea to hike the exhibition license fee for theatrical
releases in the country -- the fee, which is mandatory for a theatrical release in Russia, was
set to jump from 3,500 rubles ($60) to 5 million rubles ($85,000) -- but the ministry is still
adamant about taxing foreign releases in one way or another.
Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, an ardent Russia First advocate keen to protect
homegrown films against the Hollywood invasion, is expected to lose his position in the new
cabinet, but his replacement will likely be drawn from the same conservative and anti-Western
contingent.
A proposal, introduced mid-December, would implement a 3 percent tax hike on all foreign
theatrical releases. Expect that to pass easily and go into law in early 2018.
"... The grand history of Latin America: borrow billions of $$$ from U.S. banks, hand the money to the wealthy who immediately deposit it right back in American banks, and let the poor pay back the principal and interest. Hmmm . seems more and more the way this country is going. ..."
"... The fixed exchange rate under Kirchner was totally unsustainable. One difference between Macri's neoliberalism and his predecessors is Macri is allowing much more of a floating currency than in the pre 2001 time period (We can debate how much it is actually is floating and clearly a lot of this debt issuance is for currency stabilization that I personally don't approve of). ..."
"... Brazil's recent neoliberal turn was frustrating for a variety of reasons, but being a big, diverse economy, they've got more sovereignty than their neighbors. However, the business and political elites in Brazil decided to hammer through austerity (spending cuts and interest rate hikes) because they WANTED to, not because external forces made them do it. ..."
by lan Cibils and Mariano Arana, Political Economy Department, Universidad Nacional de
General Sarmiento, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Originally published at Triple Crisis
In Argentina's 2015 presidential run-off election, the neoliberal right-wing coalition
"Cambiemos" (literally, "lets change"), headed by Mauricio Macri, defeated the populist
Kirchnerista candidate by just two percentage points. Macri's triumph heralded a return to the
neoliberal policies of the 1990s and ended twelve years of heterodox economic policies that
prioritized income redistribution and the internal market. The ruling coalition also performed
well in the October 2017 mid-term elections and has since begun implementing a draconian set of
fiscal, labor, and social security reforms.
One of the hallmarks of the Cambiemos government so far has been a fast and furious return
to international credit markets and a very substantial increase in new public debt. Indeed,
since Macri came to power in 2015, Argentina has issued debt worth more than $100 billion. This
marks a clear contrast to the Kirchner administrations, during which the emphasis was debt
reduction.
The Kirchner Years: Debt Reduction?
Both Néstor and Cristina Kirchner pointed to desendeudamiento -- debt
reduction -- as one of the great successes of their administrations. To what extent was debt
reduced during the twelve years of Kirchnerismo?
Figure 1 shows the evolution of Argentina's public debt stock and the debt/GDP ratio between
2004-2017. One can see that there was a substantial reduction in the debt to GDP ratio between
2004-2011 -- the first two Kirchner terms -- due primarily to: a) the 2005 and 2010 debt
restructuring offers, b) a deliberate policy of desendedudamiento (debt cancellation),
and c) high growth rates. Indeed, debt/GDP dropped from 118.1% in 2004 to 38.9% in 2011. One
can also see that the actual stock of public debt fell after the 2005 debt restructuring
process, and then remained relatively stable until 2010. In 2011, it began a slow upward trend,
due to the re-appearance of the foreign exchange constraint once the commodity bubble burst and
capital flight increased.
Figure 1: Public Debt Stock (millions of dollars) and Debt/GDP ratio
Source: Ministry of Finance, Argentina.
An additional, fundamental change occurred during the first two Kirchner administrations:
the change in currency composition of Argentina's public debt. Indeed, as Figure 2 shows,
peso-denominated public debt reached 41% of total debt after the 2005 debt-restructuring
process. Between 2005 and 2012 it remained relatively stable, and then, after 2012,
dollar-denominated public debt began to grow again although never reaching pre-2005
debt-restructuring levels. The currency composition change is key, since it reduces
considerably the pressure on the external accounts.
Figure 2: Currency Composition of Argentina's Public Debt (as a % GDP)
Source: Ministry of Finance, Argentina.
Fast and Furious
Since Macri became president in December 2015, there has been a dramatic change in official
public debt strategy, radically reversing the process of debt reduction of the previous decade.
As shown in Figure 1, there was a substantial jump in the stock of public debt in 2016, and it
has continued to grow in 2017.The result to date has been a substantial increase in the stock
of Argentina's dollar-denominated public debt, as well as an increase of the debt service to
GDP ratio. New debt has been used to cover the trade deficit, pay off the vulture funds,
finance capital flight, and meet debt service payments. All of this has resulted in growing
concerns about Argentina's future economic sustainability, not to mention any possibility of
promoting economic development objectives.
Upon taking office, the Macri Administration rapidly implemented a series of policies to
liberalize financial flows and imports, and a 40% devaluation of the Argentine peso. [1] In
this context, it also went on a debt rampage, increasing dollar denominated debt considerably.
Between December 2015 and September 2017, Argentina's new debt amounts to the equivalent of
$103.59 billion. [2] This includes new
debt issued by the Treasury (80%), provincial governments (11%), and the private sector (9%).
While Argentina's debt had been increasing slowly since 2011, the jump experienced in 2016 was
unlike any other in Argentina's history.
If the increase in debt is alarming, the destination of those funds is also cause of
concern. Data from Argentina's Central Bank (Banco Central de la República Argentina or
BCRA) show that during the first eight months of 2017, net foreign asset accumulation of the
private non-banking sector totaled $13.32 million, 33% more than all of 2016, which itself was
17% more than all of 2015. This means that since December 2015, Argentina has dollarized assets
by approximately $25.29 billion.
According to the BCRA, during the same period there was a net outflow of capital due to debt
interest payments, profits and dividends of $8.231 billion. Additionally, the net outflow due
to tourism and travel is calculated at roughly $13.43 billion between December 2015 and August
2017.
In sum, the dramatic increase in dollar-denominated debt during the two first Macri years
served to finance capital flight, tourism, profit remittances, and debt service, all to the
tune of roughly $50 billion.
Where is This Headed?
Argentina's experience since the 1976 military coup until the crash of 2001 has shown how
damaging is the combination of unfavorable external conditions and the destruction of the local
productive structure. The post-crisis policies of the successive Kirchner administrations
reversed the debt-dependent and deindustrializing policies of the preceding decades. However,
since Macri took office in December 2015, Argentina has once again turned to debt-dependent
framework of the 1990s. Not only has public debt grown in absolute terms, but the weight of
dollar-denominated debt in total debt has also increased. Despite significant doubts regarding
the sustainability of the current situation, the government has expressed intentions of
continuing to issue new debt until 2020.
What are the main factors that call debt-sustainability into question? First, capital
flight, which, as we have said above, is increasing, is compensated with new dollar-denominated
public debt. Second, Argentina's trade balance turned negative in 2015 and has remained so
since, with a total accumulated trade deficit between 2015 and the second quarter of 2017 of
$6.53 billion. Import dynamics proved impervious to the 2016 recession, therefore it is
expected that the deficit will either persist as is or increase if there are no drastic
changes. Furthermore, in the 2018 national budget bill sent to Congress, Treasury Secretary
Nicolás Dujovne projects that the growth rate of imports will exceed that of exports
until at least 2021, increasing the current trade deficit by 68%.
Finally, according to the IMF's World Economic Outlook (October 2017), growth rate
projections for industrialized countries increase prospects of a US Federal Reserve interest
rate increase. This would make Argentina's new debt issues more expensive, increasing the
burden of future debt service and increasing capital flight from Argentina (in what is
generally referred to as the "flight to safety").
The factors outlined above generate credible and troublesome doubts about the sustainability
of the economic policies implemented by the Macri administration. While there are no signs of a
major crisis in the short term (that is, before the 2019 presidential elections), there are
good reasons to doubt that the current level of debt accumulation can be sustained to the end
of a potential second Macri term (2023). In other words, there are good reasons to believe that
Argentines will once again have to exercise their well-developed ability to navigate through
yet another profound debt crisis. This is not solely the authors' opinion. In early November
2017 Standard & Poor's placed Argentina in a list of the five most fragile economies.
[3] It looks like,
once again, storm clouds are on the horizon.
'What are the main factors that call debt sustainability into question? First, capital
flight.'
Capital flees Argentina whenever the opportunity arises because successive governments --
whether leftist or conservative -- refuse to control inflation and maintain a stable
currency.
Since 2001, the Argentine peso has slid from one-to-one with the US dollar to about 19 to
the dollar today. With Argentine inflation running in the low to mid twenties (according to
INDEC and Price Stats), the peso can be expected to carry on weakening against the dollar
indefinitely.
A hundred years during which the peso has lopped off thirteen (13) zeros owing to chronic
inflation shows that Argentina is politically and culturally incapable of responsibly
managing its own currency.
Argentines know this. Unfortunately, only the richer ones have assets they can move to
safety outside the country. The hand-to-mouth poor will continue being ravaged by inflation,
not to mention the large quantities of counterfeit pesos in circulation.
Letting Argentines play with fiat currency is like handing out loaded pistols to rowdy
5-year-olds. In both these sad cases, adult supervision is urgently needed.
The grand history of Latin America: borrow billions of $$$ from U.S. banks, hand the
money to the wealthy who immediately deposit it right back in American banks, and let the
poor pay back the principal and interest. Hmmm . seems more and more the way this country is
going.
The fixed exchange rate under Kirchner was totally unsustainable. One difference between
Macri's neoliberalism and his predecessors is Macri is allowing much more of a floating
currency than in the pre 2001 time period (We can debate how much it is actually is floating
and clearly a lot of this debt issuance is for currency stabilization that I personally don't
approve of).
I'm not an expert in this at all, but in Peru, you could hold bank accounts in either
national currency or dollars. The national currency accounts spared you currency exchange
fees and also had higher interest rates. Most people who could hedged their bets by putting
money in both accounts.
It seems like a happy medium between abandoning national currencies and letting savers get
ravaged? No?
While not as spectacular of a return as Bitcoin, but impressive nonetheless, the escape
route for an Argentinean @ the turn of the century was the golden rule, an ounce of all that
glitters was 300 pesos then and now around 25,000 pesos, a most excellent 'troy' horse.
So, is austerity good or is austerity bad? And in what conditions?
I'm for expansionary government expense (and direct government ownership of some
industries, such as with an NHS) balanced by taxes on high incomes.
So in my view the problem happens when the government lowers taxes on the rich, as seems
likely in this case.
On the other hand taxes on the rich are likely to cause capital flight.
So why did Macri get elected to do this? Yeah he didn't win by much, but he won.
>The hand-to-mouth poor will continue being ravaged by inflation
Which is freaking weird. Argentina has cropland. They have energy sources (and I won't
bore everybody ok, I will with the observation that the Industrial Age is generously a
300/8000 year ratio part of human history).
And doesn't the below need some unpacking?:
>only the richer ones have assets they can move to safety outside the country
What are these assets? Why are said assets mobile? How did they come to "own" them? What
percentage of the population is encompassed by "the richer ones" phrasing?
Question: why doesn't MMT thinking work for countries like Argentina?
As wikipedia notes:
"The key insight of MMT is that "monetarily sovereign government is the monopoly
supplier of its currency and can issue currency of any denomination in physical or
non-physical forms. As such the government has an unlimited capacity to pay for the things
it wishes to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments, and has an unlimited ability
to provide funds to the other sectors. Thus, insolvency and bankruptcy of this government
is not possible. It can always pay."
Is this a general flaw in MMT? Does MMT only apply to dominant nation-states like the
U.S., who can use foreign military and financial pressures to protect the currency, aka the
petrodollar? Is the petrodollar a true 'fiat currency' or is it somehow based on control of
commodities (especially oil)? Is there something peculiar about Argentina and other countries
facing currency devaluation that MMT doesn't handle well? Any ideas on this?
That wikipedia write up isn't wrong, but it could be better. Probably need to hammer home
the point that the sovereign can always pay IN THE CURRENCY THAT IT ISSUES.
Most of the MMT related conversations on this site, and the posts that are written up on
the subject are mostly about explaining how there are constraints that many people THINK
exist in the USA, but don't actually exist, at least in economic terms (political constraints
notwithstanding). A country cannot be forced to default on a currency it issues. If the USA
had significant debts in EUR or JPY, then it'd be a very different conversation.
External constraints are a big deal for most countries, especially developing countries
that depend on exports of primary commodities. Chile, for instance, is constrained by balance
of payments problems when the price of copper declines. Also, developed countries that are
relatively smaller have much more limited sovereignty. The Swiss Central Bank has to follow
what the ECB does, to a large degree.
On the other hand, there's episodes where some countries have found room for maneuver when
they give up their sovereign currency. I didn't expect that Ecuador's economy would perform
quite as well as it has in recent years. But, they've shown that you can find ways to get
creative to compensate for loss of monetary sovereignty. Of course, the fiscal constraints
are real since Ecuador can't print USD.
Brazil's recent neoliberal turn was frustrating for a variety of reasons, but being a
big, diverse economy, they've got more sovereignty than their neighbors. However, the
business and political elites in Brazil decided to hammer through austerity (spending cuts
and interest rate hikes) because they WANTED to, not because external forces made them do
it.
No doubt an MMT prescription for Argentina would advice them to lay off the $ denominated
debt and stick to pesos as much as possible. I'd imagine Stephanie Kelton or any of the UMKC
crew would advise curtailing imports or doing some import substitution in order to take
pressure off balance of payments issues. They'd also take a look at what was driving
inflation domestically and try to find ways to relieve it with a targeted approach, instead
of risking recession and unemployment. Neoliberal/Washington Consensus type economists would
say hike interest rates, cut government spending in order to curtail demand. They'd argue
that the private sector will make the best decisions about where to reign in spending to
reduce inflation.
"... Ukraine. Putin's remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality: Washington is. ..."
"... Those terms remain Putin's point of reference. They appear to remain the European Union's, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics. ..."
"... These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions, suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense. ..."
Ukraine. Putin's remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at
odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality:
Washington is. As Putin calmly noted, the number-one obstacle to a settlement in Ukraine
is, as it has been for three years come next February, the profoundly corrupt government
installed in Kiev after the American-cultivated coup in 2014.
I say three years next February because it was then the settlement framework known as Minsk
II (for the city where it was negotiated and signed) was put in place.
Those terms remain Putin's point of reference. They appear to remain the European
Union's, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the
wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there
is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection
of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics.
These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin
reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions,
suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense.
We would do well to understand where the force of inertia lies in Ukraine. This was Putin's
topic. A settlement in Ukraine remains possible via the framework fixed three years ago. Let us
not forget this. Moscow has not deviated from Minsk II -- another point worth noting. The
spoilers are in Kiev, and behind them are those in Washington, which continues to encourage the
irresponsible behavior of the Poroshenko government and other Ukrainian elites.
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.' ..."
"... opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. ..."
"... For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't." ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president
Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar
Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before being ordered to return to
Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar
Assad quickly relaxed some old security laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012.
Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians
and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is
not based on objective analysis. Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government under Assad has ever been
proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed
members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting
Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs . His involvement in reconciliation
and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis,
he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along
in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to
the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition
The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs
brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. '"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected
Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow
the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle
East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no
saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
"... What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet. ..."
"... Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers. ..."
"... Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts. ..."
"... For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and eventually recycled. ..."
"... Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign promised. ..."
"... This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to overthrowing governments. ..."
"... It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its profit calculation. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. ..."
What makes a Harvey Weinstein moment? The now-disgraced Hollywood mogul is hardly the first
powerful man to stand accused of having abused women. The Harveys who preceded Harvey himself
are legion, their prominence matching or exceeding his own and the misdeeds with which they
were charged at least as reprehensible.
In the relatively recent past, a roster of prominent offenders would include Bill Clinton,
Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and, of course, Donald Trump. Throw in various jocks,
maestros, senior military officers, members of the professoriate and you end up with quite a
list. Yet in virtually all such cases, the alleged transgressions were treated as instances of
individual misconduct, egregious perhaps but possessing at best transitory political
resonance.
All that, though, was pre-Harvey. As far as male sexual hijinks are concerned, we might
compare Weinstein's epic fall from grace to the stock market crash of 1929: one week it's the
anything-goes Roaring Twenties, the next we're smack dab in a Great Depression.
How profound is the change? Up here in Massachusetts where I live, we've spent the past year
marking John F. Kennedy's 100th birthday. If Kennedy were still around to join in the
festivities, it would be as a Class A sex offender. Rarely in American history has the cultural
landscape shifted so quickly or so radically.
In our post-Harvey world, men charged with sexual misconduct are guilty until proven
innocent, all crimes are capital offenses, and there exists no statute of limitations. Once a
largely empty corporate slogan, "zero tolerance" has become a battle cry.
All of this serves as a reminder that, on some matters at least, the American people retain
an admirable capacity for outrage. We can distinguish between the tolerable and the
intolerable. And we can demand accountability of powerful individuals and
institutions.
Everything They Need to Win (Again!)
What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't
extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet.
In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed
upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance. But to judge from
published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark
Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison
Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed
to survive their encounters. None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder.
No one died.
Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or
promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have,
of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will
ultimately cost American taxpayers many
trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as
President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers.
Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy.
Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist
groups, while acts
of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts.
It discomfits me to reiterate this mournful litany of truths. I feel a bit like the doctor
telling the lifelong smoker with stage-four lung cancer that an addiction to cigarettes is
adversely affecting his health. His mute response: I know and I don't care. Nothing the doc
says is going to budge the smoker from his habit. You go through the motions, but wonder
why.
In a similar fashion, war has become a habit to which the United States is addicted. Except
for the terminally distracted, most of us know that. We also know -- wecannot not
know -- that, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. forces have been unable to
accomplish their assigned mission, despite more than 16 years of fighting in the former and
more than a decade in the latter.
It's not exactly a good news story, to put it mildly. So forgive me for saying it (
yet again ), but most of us simply don't care, which means that we continue to allow a free
hand to those who preside over those wars, while treating with respect the views of pundits and
media personalities who persist in promoting them. What's past doesn't count; we prefer to
sustain the pretense that tomorrow is pregnant with possibilities. Victory lies just around the
corner.
By way of example, consider a
recent article in U.S. News and World Report. The headline: "Victory or Failure in
Afghanistan: 2018 Will Be the Deciding Year." The title suggests a balance absent from the text
that follows, which reads like a Pentagon press release. Here in its entirety is the nut graf
(my own emphasis added):
"Armed with a new strategy and renewed support from old allies, the Trump
administration now believes it has everything it needs to win the war in Afghanistan.
Top military advisers all the way up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say they can accomplish
what two previous administrations and multiple troop surges could not: the defeat of the
Taliban by Western-backed local forces, a negotiated peace and the establishment of a
popularly supported government in Kabul capable of keeping the country from once again becoming
a haven to any terrorist group."
Now if you buy this, you'll believe that Harvey Weinstein has learned his lesson and can be
trusted to interview young actresses while wearing his bathrobe.
For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their
putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of
previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and
eventually recycled.
Short of using nuclear weapons, U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade and
a half have experimented with just about every approach imaginable: invasion, regime change,
occupation, nation-building, pacification, decapitation, counterterrorism, and
counterinsurgency, not to mention various surges ,
differing in scope and duration. We have had a big troop presence and a smaller one, more
bombing and less, restrictive rules of engagement and permissive ones. In the military
equivalent of throwing in the kitchen sink, a U.S. Special Operations Command four-engine prop
plane recently deposited the largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal on a cave
complex in eastern Afghanistan. Although that MOAB made a big
boom, no offer of enemy surrender materialized.
$65
billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. And under the circumstances, consider that a mere down
payment.
According to General John Nicholson, our
17th commander in Kabul since 2001, the efforts devised and implemented by his many
predecessors have resulted in a "stalemate" -- a generous interpretation given that the Taliban
presently controls more
territory than it has held since the U.S. invasion. Officers no less capable than Nicholson
himself, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal among them, didn't get it done. Nicholson's
argument: trust me.
In essence, the "new strategy" devised by Trump's generals, Secretary of Defense Mattis and
Nicholson among them, amounts to this: persist a tad longer with a tad more. A modest uptick in
the number of U.S. and allied
troops on the ground will provide more trainers, advisers, and motivators to work with and
accompany their Afghan counterparts in the field. The Mattis/Nicholson plan also envisions an
increasing number of air strikes, signaled by the recent use of B-52s to attack illicit
Taliban "
drug labs ," a scenario that Stanley Kubrick himself would have been hard-pressed to
imagine.
Notwithstanding the novelty of using strategic bombers to destroy mud huts, there's not a
lot new here. Dating back to 2001, coalition forces have already dropped tens of thousands of
bombs in Afghanistan. Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts
to create effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the
production of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency, alas with essentially
no effect whatsoever . What Trump's generals want a gullible public (and astonishingly
gullible and inattentive members of Congress) to believe is that this time they've somehow
devised a formula for getting it right.
Turning the Corner
With his trademark capacity to intuit success, President Trump already sees clear evidence
of progress. "We're not fighting anymore to just walk around," he remarked in his
Thanksgiving message to the troops. "We're fighting to win. And you people [have] turned it
around over the last three to four months like nobody has seen." The president, we may note,
has yet to visit Afghanistan.
I'm guessing that the commander-in-chief is oblivious to the fact that, in U.S. military
circles, the term winning has acquired notable elasticity. Trump may think that it
implies vanquishing the enemy -- white flags and surrender ceremonies on the U.S.S. Missouri . General Nicholson knows better. "Winning," the field commander
says , "means delivering a negotiated settlement that reduces the level of violence and
protecting the homeland." (Take that definition at face value and we can belatedly move Vietnam
into the win column!)
Should we be surprised that Trump's generals, unconsciously imitating General William
Westmoreland a half-century ago, claim once again to detect light at the end of the tunnel? Not
at all. Mattis and Nicholson (along with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster) are following the Harvey Weinstein playbook: keep doing it
until they make you stop. Indeed, with what can only be described as chutzpah, Nicholson
himself recently announced that we have "
turned the corner " in Afghanistan. In doing so, of course, he is counting on Americans not
to recall the various war managers, military and civilian alike, who have made identical claims
going back years now, among them Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012
.
From on high, assurances of progress; in the field, results that, year after year, come
nowhere near what's promised; on the homefront, an astonishingly credulous public. The war in
Afghanistan has long since settled into a melancholy and seemingly permanent rhythm.
The fact is that the individuals entrusted by President Trump to direct U.S. policy believe
with iron certainty that difficult political problems will yield to armed might properly
employed. That proposition is one to which generals like Mattis and Nicholson have devoted a
considerable part of their lives, not just in Afghanistan but across much of the Islamic world.
They are no more likely to question the validity of that proposition than the Pope is to
entertain second thoughts about the divinity of Jesus Christ.
In Afghanistan, their entire worldview -- not to mention the status and clout of the officer
corps they represent -- is at stake. No matter how long the war there lasts, no matter how many
"
generations " it takes, no matter how much blood is shed to no purpose, and no matter how
much money is wasted, they will never admit to failure -- nor will any of the
militarists-in-mufti cheering them on from the sidelines in Washington, Donald Trump not the
least among them.
Meanwhile, the great majority of the American people, their attention directed elsewhere --
it's the season for holiday shopping, after all -- remain studiously indifferent to the charade
being played out before their eyes.
It took a succession of high-profile scandals before Americans truly woke up to the plague
of sexual harassment and assault. How long will it take before the public concludes that they
have had enough of wars that don't work? Here's hoping it's before our president, in a moment
of ill temper, unleashes "
fire and fury " on the world.
It's astonishing to see people make the claim that "victory" is possible in Afghanistan.
Could they actually believe this or are they lying in order to drag this out even longer and
keep the money pit working overtime? These are individuals that are highly placed and so
should know better. It's not really a war but an occupation with the native insurgents
fighting to oust the foreign occupier. The US has tried every trick there is in trying to
tamp down the insurgency. They know what we're trying to do and can thwart us at every step.
The US lost even as it began it's invasion there but didn't know it yet in the wake of it's
initial success in scattering the Taliban, not even a real army and not even a real state.
They live there and we don't; they can resist for the next thirty years or fifty years. When
does the multi-billion bill come due and how will we pay it?
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?"
It already happened, but Progressives like you failed to note that Republican voters
subbed the Bush clan and their various associates for Trump in the Primary season, precisely
because he called the Iraq and Afghan wars mistakes. The Americans suffer under a two party
establishment that is clearly antagonistic to their interests. As a part of that regime, a
dutiful Progressive toad, you continue to peddle the lie that it was the war-weary White
Americans who celebrated those wars. In reality, any such support was ginned up from tools
like you who wrote puff pieces for their Neocon Progressive masters.
Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign
promised. Might you count that among your lucky stars? Fat chance. You cretinous Progressive
filth have no such spine upon which to base an independent thought. You trot out the same old
tiresome tropes week after week fulfilling your designated propagandist duty and then you
skulk back to your den of iniquity to prepare another salvo of agitprop. What a miserable
existence.
This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never
stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an
intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies
on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you
can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time
in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to
overthrowing governments.
Obama ended up killing more people than any dictator or demagogue of this generation on
earth you care to name, several hundred thousand of them in his eight years. And he found new
ways to kill, too, as by creating the world's first industrial-scale extrajudicial killing
operation. Here he signs off on "kill lists," placed in his Oval Office in-box, to murder
people he has never seen, people who enjoy no legal rights or protections. His signed orders
are carried out by uniformed thugs working at computer screens in secure basements where they
proceed to play computer games with real live humans as their targets, again killing or
maiming people they have never seen.
If you ever have wondered where all the enabling workers came from in places like Stalin's
Gulag or Hitler's concentration camps, well, here is your answer. American itself produces
platoons of such people. You could find them working at Guantanamo and in the far-flung
string of secret torture facilities the CIA ran for years, and you could find them in places
like Fallujah or Samarra or Abu Ghraib, at the CIA's basement game arcade killing centers,
and even all over the streets of America dressed as police who shoot unarmed people every
day, sometimes in the back.
ZOG has now asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. No trial,
no hearing, no witnesses, no defense, no nothing. Is this actually legal? Any constitutional
lawyers out there care to comment? Has ZOG now achieved the status of an all-powerful
all-knowing deity with the power of life and death over all living things?
It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being
attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What
then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a
Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around
the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug
labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green
targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the
article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its
profit calculation.
The Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Male Population used as CANNON FODDER
for Congressman Steven Solarz's and Donald Trump's very precious Jewish only Israel .
Israel and the deep state did the attack on 911 and thus set the table for the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of
the U.S. gov and the MSM and the MIC and the FED ie the BANKS set in motion the blood
sacrifice for their Zionist god SATAN, that is what they have done.
The Zionist warmongers and Satanists will destroy America.
It's not so much that America is addicted to war as that the American "business model" makes
permanent war inevitable. US global dominance rests on economic domination, in particular,
the dollar as world reserve currency. That has allowed the US economy to survive in spite of
being hollowed out, financialised and burdened with enormous sovereign debt. Economic
dominance derives from political dominance, which, in its turn, flows from military
dominance. For that military dominance to be credible, not only must the US have the biggest
and best military forces on the planet, it must show itself willing to use those forces to
maintain its dominance by actually using them from time to time, in particular, to
unequivocally beat off any challenge to its dominance (Putin!). It also, of course, must win,
or, more correctly, be able to present the outcome credibly as a win. Failure to maintain
military dominance will undermine the position of the dollar, sending its value through the
floor. A low dollar means cheap exports (Boeing will sell more planes than Airbus!), but it
also means that imports (oil, outsourced goods) will be dear. At that point the hollowed out
nature of the US economy will cut in, probably provoking a Soviet-style implosion of the US
economy and society and ruining anyone who has holdings denominated in dollars. I call that
the Gorbachev conundrum. Gorby believed in the Soviet Union and wanted to reform it. But the
Soviet system had become so rigid as to be unreformable. He pulled a threat and the whole
system unravelled. But if he hadn't pulled the thread, the whole system would have unravelled
anyway. It was a choice between hard landing and harder landing. Similarly, US leaders have
to continue down the only road open to them: permanent war. As Thomas Jefferson said of
slavery, it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it but you don't dare let go!
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?" Answer: Never.
In Alabama when people would rant about how toxic Roy Moore was, I would politely point
out that his opponent for Senate was OK with spending trillions of dollars fighting pointless
winless wars on the other side of the planet just so politically connected defense
contractors can make a buck, and ask if that should be an issue too? The response,
predictably, was as if I was an alien from the planet Skyron in the galaxy of Andromeda.
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Andrew Bacevich is wrong about a couple of things in this article.
First, he says that the American public is both apathetic and credulous. I agree
that we have largely become apathetic towards these imperial wars, but I disagree that we
have become credulous. In fact, these two states of mind exclude one another; you cannot be
both apathetic and credulous with respect to the same object at the same time. The credulity
charge is easy to dismiss because virtually no one today believes anything that comes out of
Washington or its mouthpieces in the legacy media. The apathy charge is on point but it needs
qualification. The smarter, more informed Americans have seen that their efforts to change
the course of American policy have been to no avail, and they've given up in frustration and
disgust. The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting
on with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the
understanding nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever.
Second,Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it
already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein
moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that
inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. An
echo of that groundswell happened again in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected to office on an
explicitly antiwar platform. But Obama turned out to be one of the most pro-war presidents
ever, and thus an angry electorate made one final push in the same direction by attempting to
clean house with Donald Trump. Now that Donald has shown every sign of having cucked out to
the war lobby, we seem to be left with no electoral solutions.
The only thing that's going to work is for the American Imperium to be handed a
much-deserved military and financial defeat. The one encouraging fact is that if the top ten
percent of our political and financial elite were planed off by a foreign power, the American
people would give as few damns about that as they currently do about our imperial wars.
Very good but some little errors. Concerning Russia and China, Russia vent all or
nothing.
China was much smarter. First they allowed self employment, than small business and long time
after they started to sell state enterprises,
If Tom's Dispatch continues to be successful, Americans will continue to be asleep.
Masterful propaganda. War, according to our favorite spooks, is necessary to win, but
otherwise reprehensible.
Sex is otherwise necessary for human life but Harvey Weinstein is ugly. Hold tightly to
your cognitive dissonance, because you're expected to remember John F Kennedy who got it on,
but is the expendable martyr you should care about, not that other guy
Let's review: terror attacks are wins. Superior or effective anti-war propaganda comes
from the military
itself. They really don't want war, but really they do.
We're trying to make Afghanistan not Afghanistan: aka, trying to be a miracle worker. We
can throw as much money as we like at that place, and it isn't going to happen, least of all
with troops on nine month shifts.
Let Iran and Pakistan squabble over it. Good riddance.
1) doesn't really make much sense, given that Poland and the Baltic States would be more
than happy to take all US forces in Europe to give us a presence near Russia in a part of the
world that would be far easier to justify to the American public-and to the international
community. Afghanistan? Who exactly is Russia going to mess with? Iran is their-for now,
longer term, the two have conflicting agendas in the region, but don't expect the geniuses in
the Beltway to pick up on that opportunity-ally, and unlike the USSR, the Russians don't want
to get involved in the India-Pakistan conflict. Russia's current tilt toward China makes a
strategic marriage with India of the kind that you found in the Cold War impossible, but they
obviously don't want to tilt toward the basketcase known as Pakistan. The only reason that
Russia would want to get involved with Afghanistan beyond having a more preferable status
than having American troops there is power projection among ex-Soviet states, and there are
far more effective ways to do than muddle about with Afghanistan.
2, on the other hand, given Iran-Contra who knows? The first generation of the Taliban
pretty much wiped the heroin trade out as offensive to Islamic sensibilities, but the newer
generations have no such qualms.
I think you give America's rulers far too much credit. The truth is probably far scarier:
the morons who work in the Beltway honestly believe their own propaganda-that we can make
Afghanistan into some magical Western democracy if we throw enough money at it-and combine
that with the usual bureaucratic inertia.
According to General John Nicholson, our 17th commander in Kabul since 2001,
We have been killing these people for 17 years. Now our generals say that if we
indiscriminately kill enough men, women, and children who get in the way of our B52s, that
they will see the light and make peace. How totally wonderful.
My solution is to gage the Lindsey Grahams for a year.
What will do more good for peace – B52s or shutting up Graham's elk?
I remember when Trump said he knew more than the generals and was viciously attacked for it.
It turns out he did know more than the generals just by knowing it was a waste. Trump was
pushed by politics to defer to the generals who always have an answer when it comes to a war
– more men, more weapons, more time.
"The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting on
with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the understanding
nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever."
I wonder if any Abolitionists criticized the slaves for failing to revolt? Probably not;
I'm guessing they were mostly convinced that the negro required intervention from outside,
whether due to their nature or from overwhelming circumstance.
If the enslaved American public is liberated, I hope we'll know what to do with ourselves
afterwards. It'd be a shame to simply end up in another kind of bondage, resentful and
subject to whatever oppressive system replaces the current outrage. Perhaps the next one will
more persuasively convince us that we're important and essential?
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Thank you, Andrew J. Bacevich, for your words of wisdom and thank you, Mr. Unz, for this
post.
This corporation needs to be dissolved. I've read about "the inertia" of Federal Government
that has morphed into a cash cow for a century of wasted tax dollars funding the MIIC, now
the MIIC. Does our existence have to end in financial ruin or, worse yet, some foreign entity
creating havoc on our soil?
The Founders NEVER intended that the US of A become a meddler in other Sovereignty's internal
affairs or the destroyer of Nation States that do not espoused our "doctrine." Anyone without
poop for brains knows that this is about Imperialism and greed, fueled by money and an
insatiable luster for MORE.
This should be easier to change than it appears. Is there no will? After all, it Is our
Master's money that lubricates the machinery. So, we continue to provide the lubrication for
our Masters like a bunch of imbeciles that allow them to survail our words and movements.
Somebody please explain our stupidity.
the folks in the US are sick of the wars, contrary to Bacevich. They simply will vote come
next election accordingly. They register their disgust in all the polls.
This article is not very useful. More punditry puff.
No comments on the Next War for Israel being cooked up by the new crop of neocon
youngsters, I guess, and Trump who will trump, trump, trump into the next War for the
Jews.
How about some political science on Iran, Syria, Hisbollah, Hamas and the US, Arabia,
Judenstaat axis of evil?
Hey Bacevich? When you link to WashPost and NYTimes to make your points, you don't. They
block access if you've already read links to those two papers three times each and can no
longer, for the month, read there. When folks link to papers that won't let you read, it
makes one wonder why.
I believe Americans are damned sick and tired of the stupid, needless war in Afghanistan. But
then they should have been sick and tired of stupid , needless wars like Korea, Vietnam and
Iraq, and probably most of them were. But it's easy to be complacent when someone else's son
is doing the fighting and dying And it's easy to be complacent when your stomach is full and
you have plenty of booze and pain killers available. There will be a day of reckoning when
the next big economic bust arrives and which may make the Great Depression paltry by
comparison. America is a far different place then it was in the 1930s when our population was
140 million. Americans were not so soft and the conveniences we now take for granted not
available. When the supermarkets run out of food, watch out. There may not even be any soup
lines to stand in.
In truth, U.S. commanders have quietly shelved any expectations of achieving an actual
victory -- traditionally defined as "imposing your will on the enemy" -- in favor of a more
modest conception of success.
Your assumptions are wrong about the US goal of the invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq were not invaded to establish democracy or impose American will
whatever that is. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded to establish a temporary military staging ground for a
US invasion of Iran, the designated regional enemy of Israel. As long as the current regime in Iran remains, the US will remain in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
And minerals! Eric Prince himself recently tried to sell the idea of having his private
militias do the fighting in Afghanistan for the US and finance it by mining said country's
minerals, thus making himself even richer.
I was onboard with Mr. Bacevich, until I got to this:
Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts to create
effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the production
of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency
What utter rubbish! The Taliban was instrumental in shutting down the poppy production
until the CIA came along and restarted it to fund their black ops.
We have the reverse Midas touch. Everything we touch (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.,
etc.) turns to shit. We supposedly attack countries to liberate them from their tyrants who
are supposedly killing their own people, and end up killing more people than all of them put
together. And, oh yes, we have our favorite tyrants (Saudis, Israelis) whom we provide with
horrible weapons (like cluster bombs) to help them kill people we hate.
Mr. Bacevich is right about the lack of outrage about our wars, but the current Weinstein
explosion consists of hordes of mostly American female victims, mostly white, a (very) few
jews, and a few men, who have the stage to complain about their oppressors. What would be the
counterpart of that w.r.t. the wars? Millions of brown victims in far away lands that most of
us couldn't even find on a map? How likely is that to happen?
So yes, no outrage, and none likely. The last 17 years have proven that.
You don't know the American has been paying everything through monopoly money printed
through the thin air since WWI, i.e. a keystroke on the Federal Reserve's computer? No wonder
the Americans have been waging reckless wars all over the world on the fabricated phantom WMD
allegations as humanitarian intervention relentlessly.
Romans did not stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed; the British
imitates the Romans and the American is born out of the British, hence the Americans will no
stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed like the Romans.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
FBI documents detail Clinton and Mueller's own 'Russiagate' – but they're classified
© Reuters /
Jonathan Ernst Inconvenient thoughts on Cold War and other news. Intelligence agencies, Nikki
Haley, sanctions, and public opinion. 1. National intelligence agencies have long played major
roles, often not entirely visible, in international politics. They are doing so again today, as
is evident in several countries, from Russiagate in the United States and the murky Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK to the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi
consulate in Turkey. Leaving aside what President Obama knew about Russiagate allegations
against Donald Trump and when he knew it, the question arises as to whether these operations
were ordered by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) or were "
rogue " operations unknown in advance by the leaders and perhaps even directed against
them.
Putin compares
Khashoggi case to Skripal poisoning, asks why Russia condemned despite lack of proof
'Ambitious as
Lucifer': Steve Bannon takes dig at Nikki Haley and her 'suspicious' resignation
Image
copyright
REUTERS
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
Erdogan urges Turks
to dump dollar to support lira
Russia to retaliate
if Washington bans Aeroflot flights to US
Skip
(Reuters)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on Wednesday on federal corruption charges.
(Reuters)
FILE PHOTO: U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell holds up a vial that he described as one that could contain
anthrax © Ray Stubblebine / Reuters Use of the term 'false flag' is often met with raised
eyebrows and accusations of conspiracism. But false flags are a very real and very present
feature of geopolitics -- and denying that is simply denying reality. Last week, the United
States, along with the United Kingdom and France, bombed Syrian government targets, ostensibly
in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack which was carried out one week before in the city
of Douma.
